User talk:Crouch, Swale: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:08, 19 January 2019

Hello, Crouch, Swale, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Einführung
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Manual of Style
Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Crouch,_Swale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Shetland

Thanks for checking all these tiddlers. Gluibuil does exist - just north of Vaila House, but you are right - there is only one. Ben Mac Dui 10:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm going to take it through FAR. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK it does exist [1][2], its just that it doesn't show up using Geograph's search tool. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not named on e.g. Streetmap's OS map at 1:50,000, but is at 1:25,000 in the Wester Sound betwixt Vaila and Mainland. It's one of the complex islands that becomes two at high tides. See also here. Ben Mac Dui 15:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am about to go through Yell (the last section), I will list the ones that don't appear to exist at all. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Partial title matches

Last (and first) names aren't PTM's for disambiguation purposes. People are frequently referred to by just a single name, e.g. Washington crossed the Delaware, Paul is dead. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NAMELIST most are, there are lots of people called Washington but only George is mentioned on the main DAB, you can also apply the same logic to the placenames[3] but its just that we don't usually have article on place names. Great Washbourne was once just Washbourne and Washbourne, Devon is a collection of places called Washbourne. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grouped parishes in Wiltshire

Three more grouped civil parishes for your list:

All could be deleted, as they add little to the individual parish articles.

Wiltshire has at least 4 more – Berwick Bassett and Winterbourne Monkton; Heytesbury, Imber and Knook; Upper Deverills; Wilcot and Huish with Oare. No articles for these. --Wire723 (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wire723: Thanks, Suffolk has lots of grouped parishes but none of them have articles. They could maybe just be redirected to a "governance" section on the largest CP. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Motion - Amendment request: Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal

Hello Crouch, Swale, I'm Cameron11598 and I am one of the Arbitration Committee's clerks. This message is to inform you that a motion has been proposed in the Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal ARCA request. Please do not hesitate to reach out to me with any questions you may have. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding Crouch, Swale

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The topic ban from discussions on geographic naming conventions imposed on Crouch, Swale as part of their unblock conditions in January 2018 is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, as an arbitration enforcement action, should Crouch, Swale fail to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations in the topic area. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse. Crouch, Swale's remaining restrictions continue in force.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Crouch, Swale

Support

I know you are disappointed at the outcome of your appeal, but you should not be surprised. There is plenty of good in your activity on Wikipedia and your various edits, such as fixing links to Commons, correcting wikilinks are both valuable and constructive, and are appreciated. Therefore reinstating a full site ban is not helpful, to you or to the project. However Arbcom wants to see evidence of a change of behaviour, which is exactly the same thing I have been seeking from you. And there is very little evidence of that.

You now have the opportunity to take part in RMs, which will give you the chance to show that the the restrictions on moves can be safely removed. If you follow my advice here you should be fine: Don't just link a policy, paraphrase the policy and explain why its appropriate in the specific case.

None of that will make any difference to the restriction on article creation. To quote Callanecc, you will need "clear and substantial evidence" that you "can write meaningful and substantial content on notable topics". If you say that all you want to do is create stubs you are not demonstrating that at all, and therefore the restriction will not be removed.

Stubs are not inherently bad. But if you can't demonstrate the ability to expand articles, not only are you not demonstrating that you can write substantial content you aren't even showing why the subject is notable. Civil parishes are notable. Not because they are civil parishes, but because there is a ton of information available about all of them, from a thousand different sources. The text of the article needs to make the claim to notability plain to anyone.

In the discussion on my talk page, I urged you to expand your stubs to much more substantial articles. Looking at User:Crouch, Swale/South Huish, you didn't even mention Hope Cove! If you start to make improvements to those stubs, I will be able to support you with further improvements on the relevant talk pages. If I am happy with the standard of the work, I may even be able to move the developed articles to mainspace on your behalf (assuming arbcom is ok with me doing so). That will start to give evidence that the restriction can be removed, and I can help you put it together to give a future appeal a much greater chance of success.

You don't have to work with me, nor do you have to do what I have asked. But if you don't, I can't support you in any meaningful way. I doubt you will get the restriction removed without support from other editors. If you want my help, please let me know.--Nilf anion (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised as I had to wait a full 6 months to appeal. However the point might be that I am asking for something that isn't workable, such as the topics that I want to create or the titles that I want to try to get. That might suggest that its more likely to cause problems than its worth.

Yes I will do that, as I pointed out that was simply because I thought you knew about bold v link back to the same page, but you didn't which I apologize for, you have criticized me for too long comments before.

I thought the point is that the stubs should have meaningful content, rather than just 1 sentence.

I don't think there is anything stopping me from asking anyone to move the userspace articles into mainspace. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you won't bother to expand those draft articles (or others) further then?

That last point is not OK - its a circumvention of your restrictions via meatpuppetry. There is a big difference between me volunteering to move them after "approving" the substantial improvement, and you asking someone to do it for you when that improvement is lacking.--Nilf anion (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more content to South Huish, and I'm not asking anyone to do so. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was in response to: "I don't think there is anything stopping me from asking anyone to move the userspace articles into mainspace." Yes there is, as that is an attempt to circumvent your restrictions.--Nilf anion (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not really circumventing, as far as I'm aware the restrictions were only me doing it directly, I thought it was pointed out that I could create pages in the userspace for if others (like you) want to move them. But anyway I wasn't asking you (or anyone else) to do that. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By asking someone else it becomes problematic. Yes this isn't a problem right now, just want to make sure it doesn't become one.--Nilf anion (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ashford Carbonell

Long-term page protection is regarded as drastic, as it blocks all non-autoconfirmed users. You could go to ANI and ask if a filter is possible. - Donald Albury 12:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be quite honest I think a year would be worthwhile as (s)he will probably just add the same statement within days after the protection expires but I trust you're judgement on this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis

Terrible idea. Please reconsider. --John (talk) 09:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@John: the discussion at Talk:Lewis#Requested move 18 July 2018 was closed and we are fixing the links before the move of Lewis>Isle of Lewis and Lewis (disambiguation)>Lewis is preformed. What part of this is a "terrible idea"? Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw. What does it achieve? --John (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So that users can select what article they want when they search for "Lewis". Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the evidence that these "users" are having a problem with the status quo ante? There is certainly no consensus for the edits you are making. Please stop. --John (talk) 10:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this argument shows users were having problems and the move discussion has already been closed, I'm just helping clear up after it (thus implied consensus for correcting the links), before the move. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Droxford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meon Valley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed back to how I linked the first time, I didn't realise it was a DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hagley Park, Christchurch

Schwede66 is now persistently deleting the disambiguation hatnote at the article above. Since you took part in the recent discussion, recommending disambiguation, you may wish to comment on the mattter on its [4] talkpage. Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you making a proposal you don't support?

Talk:Bend#Requested move 31 August 2018. It's highly disruptive to make a proposal which you oppose on the outset. You present no argument for it. Some informal comments in favor were made by Yours Truly above your fake proposal, but that's was never intended to be a formal proposal. I started the discussion to see if anyone agreed, and if they did and it looked like there might be consensus, maybe they would start a formal proposal. Someone opposing making the proposal is just disruptive. I suggest you close it. --В²C ☎ 16:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made the proposal in response to this comment "why is this discussion going on without a template?". See Talk:M2 motorway (Great Britain)#Requested move for another example where this was done. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF from nine years ago??? How did you even find that? Anyway, the proper answer to that question was: BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROPOSAL, not to make a bogus one that's not even formed properly. Why you !voted in the first place is also a good question. I, for one, don't have time for this. If you don't close it I'm reporting this disruption. If you don't know what you're doing, don't do it. --В²C ☎ 17:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know of that because I track many page creations/moves and I can't really close it anyway as someone has supported moving the DAB and making a different topic primary, see also this. I apologize for making what you didn't want to be a formal discussion formal, but I did it in response to IIO's comment. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding a disruptive RM proposal that you started that you explicitly oppose. The thread is Disruptive RM proposal that opposes what it is proposing. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Bend. В²C ☎ 17:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category renaming

Hello. I see you've tagged loads of categories for renaming, but you don't seem to have started a discussion at WP:CfD. Could you either remove the tags or start a discussion (actually you'll need to start separate discussions for 10 and 11 September as you've tagged different ones on different days). Cheers, Number 5 7 11:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: I'm in the process of doing that. There were so many that I didn't do them in just 1 day. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, no problem. Have you considered using WP:AWB to do the tagging? Number 57 12:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know enough about it to use it, I have attempted to use similar automated tools with limited success. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Number 57: Done at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 September 10#Metropolitan boroughs, I have divided it up and made a note at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 September 11#Metropolitan boroughs. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hate to be a pain, but you haven't listed all the categories you've tagged as far as I can see. Cheers, Number 5 7 13:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        As there is so many I will list them in my userspace once we get some more supports. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        The categories you've omitted won't be eligible to be renamed if they're not listed at the CfD page though. Number 5 7 15:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I already noted that I will list them, I'll start that shortly. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        @Number 57: Now at User:Crouch, Swale/CFDs, some of then needed sorting and similar so using AWB would be less helpful. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cambridgeshire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page City of Cambridge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Broxtowe

I've been going through some RMs, and have moved Broxtowe to Borough of..., as you proposed (unchallenged after 3 weeks). It probably should have a redirect for all the hatnotes, so I'll leave that to you. Kevin McE (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevin McE: The base name Broxtowe should become a DAB so there will be no need for the hatnote at all. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It becomes a redirect: I misphrased a suggestion that you make it a disambiguation. Kevin McE (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will fix the links, I will later convert it into a DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The primary use of the name Broxtowe is the district, and it should not have been moved without re-opening the discussion. That said, a redirect is what is needed as mentioned by Kevin McE. The hatnote on the district page will send people to the constituency if that's what they want - in line with most constituencies that share their name with something else. Sussexonian (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's evidence of that. The page hits show at least there is no primary topic even if it was called just "Broxtowe". Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If, as you have said "there is no primary topic", then Broxtowe ought to be, as I put to you yesterday afternoon, a disambiguation page, not a redirect to the estate in Nottingham. Kevin McE (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I am allowed to convert it to a DAB page at the moment, as I am restricted on page creation but I will do it when I am no longer. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That does not seem grounds for making it a redirect to something you have acknowledged is not a primary topic. I can't see that it is a creation: no new content, just arrows. I will do it then. Kevin McE (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why, having read my lst message, you would have re-rediected it, but it is now a DAB. Kevin McE (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just changed it back to the district as that is where is was before. I don't think converting to DAB would have been seen as a problem, but it was pointed out that it includes converting redirects to full pages. I have fixed 7 links for the estate but there are 4 more which I'm not sure which they are fore. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

North Somerset cats

I see you have added a CFR banner to various categories relating to North Somerset but I can't see them at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 28 - therefore can't oppose. I presume you are going to do the same for all the other districts of Somerset for consistency? I don't understand the rationale for this proposal.— Rod ^talk 16:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodw: I haven't finished tagging them yet (there are still more). I would do it for all the districts but at the moment I can't see the others getting consensus. The reason is that the title Category:North Somerset is ambiguous in that it could include the northern part of the county (like the Wells CFD). However we probably don't need separate articles for the northern part of Somerset and the unitary authority but the category should reflect that its only for the UA. I'll ping you again when I have finished. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree as there is nowhere else that is described as North Somerset & it is unlike Wells as the addition is the term "district" rather than the county "Somerset" (and unitary authority would surely be the correct term). The same arguments could be made for South Somerset and West Somerset and I would oppose all of them. Please let me know when done with a link to the discussion.— Rod ^talk 17:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodw:As there are so many, I'll give the list and reason tomorrow (as noted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 28#Compass directions), apologies for the wait. Per WP:UKDISTRICTS we use "Foo District" for districts that don't have another statue like borough, such as Borough of Bedford, which is also a UA. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodw: Now at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 28#Compass directions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point of clairification

CS, In your notification you here [5] you are suggesting I notified only editors who disagreed with the category name change. This isn't true. I notified you and the other three editors who supported the change per the Oct 22 discussion. In looking at the discussions linked from the Oct 22 discussion (a speedy change and the 2014 speedy change) I believe I have notified all involved editors. In your comment on Number 57's page your statement suggested my notifications were one sided. As far as I can tell I've notified all editors who were involved with or linked by the Oct 22 discussion. I don't see where Number 57 or Red Slash were part of the earlier discussions. Would you please provide links to their involvement? You said on their page that Number 57 was the closer of the last discussion but I see Good'olFactory was the closer [[6]]. Also, would you please modify your statement on their page to make it clear they are being notified due to prior involvement, not to balance a pro/con notification. If I didn't notify someone on the other side I would like to know where I missed them as my intent isn't to vote stack. Springee (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee: I apologize, my comments did suggest that the notification was a bit lop sided, but it wasn't really (since you did notify the first CFD who supported Cars) but RGloucester (talk · contribs) suggested that you notify them, so I have done so. Red Slash (talk · contribs) was the nom of the 2014 (article) RM and Number 57 (talk · contribs) was the closer of that discussion. Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) opposed to the CFDS in 2014. I have as such modified my comments to reflect this, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Crouch, Swale. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Crouch, Swale. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The article cannot be moved as it does not follow Wikipedia’s Manual of Style and/or Wikipedia’s Naming conventions. HeartGlow30797 (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)HeartGlow30797[reply]

@HeartGlow30797: Which article are you talking about? Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Town of Salford.

You have repeatedly changed the page of Salford (town) from a town to a city. Salford is a town in the City of Salford. Salford town along with Worsley, Walkden, Eccles, Swinton and Irlam to name a few make up the City of Salford. You have been changing the page for the town of Salford to say it is a city this is incorrect. If you would like to do some research on the topic feel free but as a resident of Ellenbrook in the City of Salford I would think I know what I am talking about. Page for the City of Salford: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Salford Page for the town of Salford: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salford Jimdowney (talk) 01:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimdowney: I have not repeatedly made that change, I only changed it once! with a cited source, I changed this after discussion at Talk:Leeds#Lead. Most of the other cases where the district has city status, the settlement is also refered to as a city such as Winchester, Canterbury, Preston, Carlisle etc. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep Island

A few refs from a Google search, though you've probably done that. Tony.

Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I wasn't sure if the Bluestone was reliable enough but I have added it anyway with some content. The OS only gives location and the news report doesn't contain any suitable content. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep Island should be a good addition, not having a parent island. I will dig deeper. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ARCA motion

There is a motion proposed at an amendment request which concerns you. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal: Motion. For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 14:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ARCA motion enacted

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment:

The restriction on new article creations imposed on Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs) as part of their unban conditions in January 2018 is modified as follows:

Crouch, Swale is permitted to create new articles only by creating them in his userspace or in the draft namespace and then submitting them to the Articles for Creation process for review. He is permitted to submit no more than one article every seven days. This restriction includes the creation of new content at a title that is a redirect or disambiguation page.
The one-account restriction and prohibition on moving or renaming pages outside of userspace remain in force.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 18:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Amendment request: Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal (January 2019)

Your submission at Articles for creation: South Huish has been accepted

South Huish, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Theroadislong (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page creation by namespace

Hello, I wanted to let you know that I've asked Arbcom to clarify some bits in your recently amended restrictions: nothing is said about whether you may create project pages, categories, templates, etc. Please see WP:ARCA#Amendment request: Crouch, Swale clarification request to offer your opinion. Of course, if you don't want any changes, that's perfectly fine; just leave a note saying so. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 221: / Line 221: @@
 Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
 [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 19:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)</div><!--Template:Afc talk-->
+== Page creation by namespace ==
+Hello, I wanted to let you know that I've asked Arbcom to clarify some bits in your recently amended restrictions: nothing is said about whether you may create project pages, categories, templates, etc.  Please see [[WP:ARCA#Amendment request: Crouch, Swale clarification request]] to offer your opinion.  Of course, if you ''don't want'' any changes, that's perfectly fine; just leave a note saying so.  [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 01:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)