Crouch, Swale

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Crouch, Swale!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 09:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Archives 1, 2, 3

Category:Rees (Düsseldorf)

Hi, this name change of category Rees to Rees (Düsseldorf) creates a new 3or4-way ambiguity since Düsseldorf is both a town, a municipality and an administrational district plus a historical county, but nowadays hardly seen as a geopgraphic entity, the correct name for that entity would have been 'Regierungsbezirk Düsseldorf'. Could the category please be renamed to "Rees (Germany)"? Other acceptable options would be: Rees (Kreis Kleve) or Rees (North Rhine-Westphalia). The current naming looks really odd and confusing in various ways, as if Rees could possibly be part of (or a street in?) the municipality of Düsseldorf, which is far from true. Comment: the Rees' instances in other nations don't have media at all so far. Commons-intern, seen pure geographically on level of categories, there was not a good reason for this renaming, at least not yet. The surname cat had found its own name place. Thanks for your effort. Peli (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC) P.S. Two other (inofficial) options used by the municipality to differentiate are "Rees am Rhein" and "Rees am niederrhein" / i.e. Rees am Niederrhein ref, of which "Rees am Rhein"ref seems most plain and desirable of all (or maybe Rees (NRW)? no). Or maybe just revert it cause it messes with some navigational templates too. ref. Which of course, no doubt, can be corrected, if one knows how to edit these templates.

@Pelikana: which one of you're suggestions should we use? As much as "Germany" makes sense for the English Wikipedia it doesn't appear to match the conventions of the German Wikipedia or the others (such as in Category:Municipalities in North Rhine-Westphalia) but I can't find any prevailing form. Note that its more common to disambiguate here than on Wikipedia since this project is used by numerous languages and errors with categorization are common and until August on the English Wikipedia. Once we've agreed on a name I'll move the sub categories so that the template is fixed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I think "Rees, Germany" would be a good name, the Germany remark will be easily recognized as an artificial addition to avoid international ambiguity. Ty Peli (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem with that is that it doesn't match the conventions here on on the German Wikipedia, looking at the likes of Category:Halle (Westfalen) and Category:Burbach (Siegerland) regions appear to be used of which Düsseldorf is one though its category here is "Regierungsbezirk Düsseldorf". But then again we do have the likes of Category:Herne, Germany so maybe "Germany" would be OK. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, yes Herne, Germany struck me as a most slick and international solution. I'm asuming there won't be found another Rees in any other German state, or if so that one will have to get another name addition. Peli (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

GeoNames doesn't show any other places (though GeoNames doesn't record every place) called "Rees" although there are 2 hills called "Rees-Berg" so "Germany" would be sufficient. The German Wikipedia DAB page also doesn't list any others. Although I was under the impression that we generally use the English Wikipedia's NC the consensus does seem to be to defer to the native WP's conventions for disambiguation of places. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Crouch, the two other instances of Rees are virtually unpopulated places, not towns. It seems a bit ridiculous to me to have to rename aal categories like "churches in Rees" to "Curches in Rees, Germany", Because there will never be a competitor for the simple category name Churches in Rees. Same goes for practically all existing subcategories of Rees. I understand that commons probably, strictly seen, would need a disambiguition for Rees (seq), in this case to differ between a surname and a town and two meadows but the question is the right addition to the name, can't this whole construct be hidden and be handled by a redirect straight to the one and only instance of town Rees = Rees, am Rhein (= Rees, Germany)? If not we will probably have to choose "Rees, am Rhein", which is still slick and usefull and correct, as viewed from cat levels below townlevel and from the category level: Kreis Kleve and up. Peli (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC) Hi, i decided to go for it with "Rees, am Rhein". The subcats are redone too. The navigation template municipalties in Kreis Kleve needs a checkup and the database entry needs merged I guess. To relink the new Commons cat to wikidata. Peli (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I think most steps are done now. Still in various wikis not all sidebar links to the new commonscat seem to work fluently yet, and I'm not sure which keys to change or if commons cat page Rees (Düsseldorf) can or should now be an automatic redirect to Rees, am Rhein, or should I to try fix it on all language pages individually? Could you please help to fix this link? Peli (talk) 11:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I thought generally the sub categories are given the qualifier even if it isn't needed unless it relates to a specific entity. Thus Category:Castles in Rees presumably should be moved to Category:Castles in Rees, am Rhein but I'm not sure.

@Pelikana: I've fixed Template:Rees so this should be done. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, great. Works fine, looks ok, thank you. Peli (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Category:Lands_common_to_the_parishes_of_Broughton_Gifford_and_Melksham_Without

Lands common to the parishes of Broughton Gifford and Melksham Without has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Peter James (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

We need your feedback!

Hello. Apologies if this message is not in your native language: please feel free to respond in the language of your choice. Thank you!

I am writing to you because we are looking for feedback for a new Wikimedia Foundation project, Structured Data Across Wikimedia (SDAW). SDAW is a grant-funded programme that will explore ways to structure content on wikitext pages in a way that will be machine-recognizable and -relatable, in order to make reading, editing, and searching easier and more accessible across projects and on the Internet. We are now focusing on designing and building image suggestion features for experienced users.

We have some questions to ask you about your experience with uploading images here on Wikimedia Commons and then adding them to Wikipedia. You can answer these questions on a specific feedback page on Mediawiki, where we will gather feedback. As I said, these questions are in English, but your answers do not need to be in English! You can also answer in your own language, if you feel more comfortable.

Once the collecting of feedback will be over, we will sum it up and share with you a summary, along with updated mocks that will incorporate your inputs.

Also, if you want to keep in touch with us or you want to know more about the project, you can subscribe to our newsletter.

Hope to hear from you soon! -- Sannita (WMF) (talk to me!) 09:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Help!

Would you mind considering for the photographs/ease of reading the Lechlade on Thames category overlap. There are no sub-cat hamlets and no notable hamlets. Instead we have 164 in one and 170 in the other. It's very annoying. Assuming you have no objections, as taxonomy is probably a forte shared between us. We both like sorting over-cat.

Best, Adam37.Adam37 (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Adam37: I've merged Category:Lechlade (civil parish) back with Category:Lechlade on Thames, I'm assuming that's what you were suggestion? Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

If that's what's best.Adam37 (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Smith Suitall copyright database

Hi, I have been examining the Copyright book of Smith Suitall in the Hold at the Suffolk Archives. It contains over 1,000 images. From this I have been able to verify a number of images as being created by specific individuals – e.g. [[w:Harry Walters (photographer) |Harry Walters]] and Alicia Dathan. This is, of course, original research not suitable for Wikipedia, but is useful for identifying teh creators of images on Commons and establishing their copyright status. The documentation consists of a contemporary copyright record over 95% complete. It appears that the National Maritime Museum acquired a number of glass negatives from Smith Suitall, but were unaware of this record. As the photographers were not employees, but sold the copyright to Smith Suitall on a piecemeal basis, it is then incorrect for Smith Suitall to be credited as maker/creator. When I have completed my overview I intend to contact the directors of the company, which still exists but is largely inactive. In the meantime, from what I have seen there are a large number of images from villages across Suffolk, often depicting churches and other significant buildings. I feel these could offer a historic images to accompany our articles on Suffolk settlements.

I would be interested in any comments you care to make on this and whether you would be interested in a Wikimedia Suffolk meet up at some stage. During the COVID pandemic I have been very cautious as there is someone in my household who is shielding, however as the rate of people contracting COVID has now dropped substantially both locally and nationally I would be up for organising something, whether in Ipswich or some other suitable location.Leutha (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Leutha: Are there any images for Edwardstone Hall? see w:Draft:Edwardstone Hall. I've never heard of Smith Suitall but it is interesting to see some of the older images such as of Neptune Quay. I have been in the Records Office but not for many years. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: I shall not get to look at the material until after the Jubilee, but I will look out for anything on Edwardstone Hall when I do. Leutha (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: I had a break owing to illness (probably COVID, but it didn't test positive), but I'm back in action again. So far I've not found anything as regards Edwardstone Hall in the Smith Suitall series, but I see your draft has been deleted! I'm currently working on maps of the Suffolk Hundreds, which if all goes to plan will link with parishes. I regularly visit the records office, now The Hold on Thursdays with a group of people preparing for the Cobbold Tercentenary next year. They are not particularly interested in Wikipedia (so far!), but I am trying to find a manageable way of handling Wikidata to keep track of former Cobbold and Tolly Cobbold pubs. I hope to have a list of them by September with as many images as possible.Leutha (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Leutha: When you're ready you can request undeletion of the draft and if there are any images that would be useful here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Crouch, Swale as you may or may not have noticed, I cannot message on my talk page anymore and you do not allow emails, so this is the only way to contact you. Quite frankly I don't want to wait 6 months before being unblocked on the main Wikipedia and I am willing to do everything necessary to get back to editing asap. For one I am now editing on the simple wiki but I also wanted to seek you out for help in overcoming the struggles I still have. When I get unblocked I will help you with the Missing parishes project to start as opposed to plunging into the maze which is trying to prove that Bricherhaff is notable. So I need help with properly learning some of the criteria as well as some guidelines I still don't understand. As you were assisting me on my talk page right after my block I was hoping you would help me. Thanks :) N1TH Music (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@N1TH Music: Yes I had noticed, I would normally have suggested a week or 2 to let things settle down before requesting you be unblocked but given you were blocked shortly after you were unblocked I don't think there is much chance of being unblocked in just a week or 2. Instead I'll probably wait a few months and then request that you be allowed to edit you're talk page again. As mentioned with most settlements and the like generally you need to provide evidence that the place is a village as opposed to just a farm or 2 or otherwise provide significant coverage of it. While some sources were presented it didn't appear that the place was a village or otherwise had significant coverage so it didn't appear notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale About the potential of being unblocked, I need to do at least 500 edits without trouble on a different project before I can be unblocked and 6 months was given as a time frame estimate. I'm currently working on the simple wiki but I also want to upload a couple dozen images here.

As for establishing notability over Bricherhaff, I will do extensive research over the next couple weeks to find sources, then Ideally I'd give them to you to clarify if it's good enough. If it is I will either go to a higher up to see if they agree with your judgement or I will go straight to writing my unblock request. After all, I'm more likely to be unblocked if it turned out that all along the place I was arguing was notable, was in fact notable, then it would at least partially erase the concerns over WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:GNG because I was correct.

I don't want to have to wait 6 months so all in all, my plan is to contribute largely to the simple wiki and here, prove notability for Bricherhaff (Or if it turns out it still isn't notable, accept that) and through out it all hopefull get some assistance from you as having another editor guide me certainly helped me through my first block. And we both work(ed) in the same area of wikipedia, Geography. N1TH Music (talk) 13:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@N1TH Music: You could have a look for more sources for Bricherhaff but I think you would be better spending you're time on things like villages and parishes as they are generally presumed to be notable. As long as you create them with some sources they are unlikely to end up at AFD or being drafted and if they do end up at AFD they are likely to be kept. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale No, I agree, once I get unblocked I will stick to basic copy edits and I'll contribute to the Parishes project and write about other decently sized villages. I am in persuit of sources for Bricherhaff because if I am able to prove that it is in fact notable than it invalidates the WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT that was the main thing which resulted in my block, because I was correct all along. I'm ok with letting go of the article but I want to try and see if I can establish notability and then I have a strong argument for becoming unblocked. N1TH Music (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale Look at this A bunch of online documents from AZ.LU which contain Bricherhaff, the national Luxembourgish website which unifies all it's libraries. There are 48 online documents and then also one borrable Library book which I could go get. It is important to mention however that there are 2 places called Bricherhaff and the other one is slightly larger but have a loom around for yourself if you want, what do you think? N1TH Music (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale Actually there's more results with the Luxembourgish name N1TH Music (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Yes I think you should probably let Bricherhaff go. If you look at Category:Lunderskov and Category:Blofield Heath you can see that these settlements have a stated population in the census and are probably presumed to be notable as with parishes like Category:Stanwix Rural. No one was in doubt that Bricherhaff existed at that location but people were in doubt about it being a settlement. If you're had problems with AFD its probably better to focus on creating topics that are generally presumed to be notable and places that may not be settlements probably aren't a good idea unless of course the place is a municipality such as a parish. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@N1TH Music: Looking at a few of those sources they seem to say "Bricherhaff" is a farm not a settlement and give a few details about what it has and who lived there etc but I'm doubtful it would qualify as notable. While a few farms may be notable most generally aren't. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Can all the data from them not cumulate, also I thought the legal recognition as proven by this, this, and this as well as the road signage. I thought now the objective is to find sources which have actual information regarding the place. Also I was told "anything can be notable given sufficient sources to prove it. And I've stuck 300 documents by comparison Faerschthaff has almost none, it appears to just be a farm but Bricherhaff has history and is legally recognised, at least I think the sources I placed above prove legal recognition, do they? N1TH Music (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes there is definitely some good sources but it doesn't appear the sources are enough to show its notable. It doesn't seem legally recognized except perhaps being a lieu-dit which seems somewhat similar to an abadi which is an exception to the general rule of legally recognized places being notable. Some farms like Stott Hall Farm or Duchy Home Farm are notable if they have some other importance but with Bricherhaff there doesn't appear to be much more than what's on the farm and who owned it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale so you think Lieu-dits are except from the "populated, legally recognised places are generally presumed to be notable" Well that changes a lot. However there are over 300 sources to look at maybe 100 of which may be about the correct place and have some notable information. So it still seems somewhat promising, also I could check Contern.lu although when I searched Bricherhaff into the search bar, nothing came up, upon doing further research it appears communal documents and PDF files are stored separately therefore there's still hope. If all else fails, I can recheck google for some smaller (moderately reliable) sources and also check google news. Unfortunately google scholar doesn't seem to have many results. Finally I can go to the town hall and ask for some documents in person, ones they may not have online. I think there's some promise, but I want to try because the pay off is huge. What do you think, if I check all those things how great do you think the chances of establishing notability are? N1TH Music (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale First of all I want to state that I agree with you, that I should start editing (After I get unblocked) about places which uncontrovertibly pass WP:GEOLAND, however I need to know in order to proceed whether a place like Bricherhaff can be notable with sufficient sourcing. This is intended to be my final word on the topic of Bricherhaff at least until I have compiled all of my sources and from there I hope the discussion will shift towards how I shall build a future as a good editor here on wikipedia.

Alright I've reviewed WP:GEOLAND and it states several things. First "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history." So Bricherhaff is still inhabited and in use which passes the populated, legal recognition is debateable however it's from what we know a Lieu-dit which there's no clear consensus on whether these places are notable or not. However as the Library documents show, the oldest document dates back to 1844 which means notability should encompass the entire history of the settlement.

But if it isn't legally recognised then there's the second category of WP:GEOLAND. It's main statement is "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG." So in this scenario the ammount of sources found would define whether or not the community passes or not. And there are dozens of sources so it seems promising.

It also states "If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it." So in that case what about a redirect to Brichermillen or Contern where we add a sections using many of the sources which I have found.

So I think we should be arriving at a conclusion at this point and our discussion should shift to how I should be editing more notable places and how I can contribute to the Parishes Project. I'm sure you can give me some input on that. As for Bricherhaff, Tomorrow, my Town hall is open and I will go there in search of documents, and I will check online extensively siphoning through everything and I'll compile everything useful and then you can make a final verdict. If you think it still isn't enough for article and a redirect, then I'll follow you're advice and will let go of Bricherhaff, at least for the foreseeable future (sources may appear with time) Anyway I think that's all I need to say on the subject, I look forward to hearing from you. :) N1TH Music (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@N1TH Music: Yes even if it is a lieu-dits I doubt like abadi it would qualify as legally recognized. You may be able to get some sources from the town hall but again I doubt anything that would qualify it as notable.

Yes I would indeed focus on places that uncontrovertibly pass WP:GEOLAND like municipalities and towns and village, I'd stay away from anything like farms etc and I'd in particular not file a w:WP:Deletion review for Bricherhaff for several months after being unblocked if you really feel its a good idea to (I don't).

Well the "populated" part likely refers to settlements not just any place like individual buildings or farms. Abandoned settlements like Onley may be notable but it doesn't even seem like Bricherhaff was a settlement.

If you look at Category:Contern (Bricherhaff's municipality) it has 4 census settlements[1] namely Contern its self, Medingen, Moutfort and Oetrange which all have articles on Wikipedia. Those are highly likely to qualify as notable but the other places in the category may well not. While you can likely establish Commons categories for them they may well not qualify for WP articles. While indeed such places can sometimes be redirected things like farms may not even qualify to be mentioned in another article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale I see, well my reasoning for doing the research was with the intent to eventually restore the article, I was planning to wait until next year to do that. However it's becoming increasingly more likely the place may never be notable. However upon rereading WP:GEOLAND once more I think a redirect to nearby Brichermillen still seems plausible.

What I would like is for another, external opinion, I'm thinking User:Brunton because he contributed to the AFD on Bricherhaff essentially saying that is good sources are found, a redirect could be created, so I'd like to hear his opinion after looking at the sources on A-Z.lu N1TH Music (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale So what do you think about my previous message? Are you sure a redirect isn't plausible, I mean look at Whitefish Station, Yukon And can you get somebody else to join the discussion? N1TH Music (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@N1TH Music: Unless lieu-dits are generally mentioned in articles then a redirect would probably not be appropriate. Whitefish Station is mentioned at the target list and although it doesn't appear to be very populated it does seem like the list places in the Gazetteer of Yukon of which it doesn't seem like Bricherhaff has been shown to be a locality or similar so I'd suggest a redirect may well not be appropriate. Who else would you like to join the discussion? You can ping them here if needed. So yes my advice would be that at the very least it probably doesn't need a separate article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Well there are 3 potential redirects and each one is different. To Contern seems obvious as there is a mention of it and their were more before, however as you said Lieu-dits are often not mentioned in articles about municipalities. To that I say though that most articles on Communes in Luxembourg are small, unsourced stubs, Contern is not that, it is a long, detailed, well sourced articles and thanks to User:Chipmunkdavis, all the cruft and poorly sourced material has been removed. I think if all articles about communes were expanded, they should have mentions about Lieu-dit and by the looks of things, the municipalities which have been given articles which aren't stubs tend to mentions all the lieu-dits for example: Helperknapp or Kaerjeng.

Brichermillen is also a possibilty as there is mention in the article about Bricherhaff. On lines 3-4 in the lead section it says "A few hundred meters northeast of the mill lies the Bricherhaff. Both buildings are owned by the same owner. Bricherhaff is on a separate road spur and is also atop the Syre." Is that enough mention, it's more than white Whitefish station got. Also, in your mention of Gazeteers, I think I may have found one of settlements in Luxembourg which include Bricherhaff, could that prove legal recognition.

Finally what about List of populated places in Luxembourg, on that list (Which includes ever Lieu-dit in the country) there is not one but 2 places called bricherhaff even though the one I'm referring to is written in the Luxembourgish name. And here's the source of the article, an official website.

Also since there are 2 places called bricherhaff, could disambiguation exist in some form such as:

Bricherhaff may refer to:

• Bricherhaff (Neudorf) Lieu-dit near Neudorf-Weimerschaff in Luxembourg City
• Bricherhaff (Brichermillen) Lieu-dit near Brichermillen in the commune of Contern

N1TH Music (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@N1TH Music: The could possibly be included on a list of lieu-dits or Contern and yes if so a redirect could be added and linked from the DAB as long as there is consensus lieu-dits can be included. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

So before we can properly consider implementing a redirect for Bricherhaff in particular we must gain consensus that this is viable for Lieu-dits in General? N1TH Music (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@N1TH Music: Yes I probably would. Again though I'd put more effort on things like village rather than lieu-dits. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale I agree, I don't have any plans to create new articles for Lieu-dits however since I already previously created an article on Bricherhaff, I want to restore it. Anyway, so how could a discussion be invigorated, is here enough can I tag people who were active on the Bricherhaff AFD or should I wait until I'm unblocked and do it elsewhere, I assume it's the latter since this is your talk page. N1TH Music (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale Also I think it's important to mention why I found Kaerjeng and Helperknapp as my 2 examples. These communes were created by merging to former communes in 2012 and 2018 respectively. Therefore the settlements were themselves mere Lieu-dits before becoming the name of the new commune. Therefore the article for the commune wasn't created until after the commune, that's why they are complete, sourced and larger articles compared to something like Saeul which was made when Wikipedia was in it's infancy and is therefore it is short, stubby and unsourced. N1TH Music (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@N1TH Music: I think you should wait until you're unblocked and then have that discussion on them on Wikipedia prior to filing a w:WP:Deletion review if you think it should be restored. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Crouch, SwaleYes, that makes sense but I do want to present to you some of the new sourcing I've found which could prove legal recognition properly and therefore potentially make way for notability (maybe I could make a discussion on that too after I get unblock) N1TH Music (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

All current and former municipalities are notable so even if Kaerjeng and Helperknapp were only lieu-dits before becoming municipalities they are notable today but may not have been before at least it was known they would become municipalities. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale Well yes but that's for an article, Kaerjeng and Helperknapp got articles, redirects seem better for Lieu-dits. Also it's important to mention that Bricherhaff is actually on the smaller side compared to other Lieu-dits, Kreintgeshaff and Eitermillen are in the same municipality and yet they have far more buildings than Bricherhaff, in fact even Brichermillen is a slightly larger example. N1TH Music (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale Also I've surpassed 500 edits on the Simple english Wiki, therefore I should have a slim chance of an unblock request accepted if I can make a convincing enough argument. I know if I get somebody to assist me it will be more likely that I will be unblocked (my mentorship got me unblocked and losing it made me get reblocked) and we edit the same type of articles so will you be able to help me if I get unblocked? Like I mean before I create an article I leave a message to you showing what topic I wish to write about and you tell me if you think it will pass GEOLAND or not. Would that be possible? N1TH Music (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale I think this is also a good time to mention my potential unblockage. Has any if this discussion had any WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT on my part or have my points been informative and competently made. Also we must remember the reason I still want to search further for sources about bricherhaff is to prove that it is Notable or at least prove it redirect worthy. Therefore I can mention in my unblock request that further research and discussion proved I was correct all along which invalidates WP: DIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:CIR concerns and then I'll be more likely to be unblocked sooner. That's also why I want other people to read thus discussion and tell me their verdict, because if everyone agrees it's Notable or redurectable, then there's concensus. N1TH Music (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@N1TH Music: I think you should still wait a month of so longer before I request unblocking as it was only a few weeks ago you were blocked but yes we can mention it here. You could have a look at the Localities for Luxembourg if you're interested in Luxembourg (click on the "Localities" of each canton) but it seems from the few I have checked that all already have articles. It may well be the case that most places in Luxembourg that would clearly pass GEOLAND have already bee created. There are some countries with places like municipalities and census localities that don't all exist namely England and Wales, some municipalities and some localities, Portugal, some municipalities don't exist, Denmark, some localities don't exist, Scotland, some municipalities don't exist though in Scotland they are largely defunct but still exist. So you're efforts would probably be better on those rather than lieu-dits. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Alright I'll wait a little longer however I looked at the localities list and I'm surprised by their definition of Locality, all those places are proper large towns with few exceptions like Waldhof however if you look at this image you can see it has a white sign with the Luxembourgish name only which means it's a Lieu-dit. Anyway yes, again I do plan to work on proper localities and villages like many of the projects you set up for the UK. I am not too fond of working on Lieu-dits specifically I just want to recreate Bricherhaff because I made it long ago and don't like seeing my work get deleted if it's salvageable. Scotland will also be a place I'd be happy working in. Also I'm afraid where you found the localities may not be a particularly reliable source, I think it is citing Wikidata here.

Finally regarding my other message above, will it be possible following an unblock to be able to ask you whether or not you think a topic is notable before I decide to create it, could you do that? N1TH Music (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@N1TH Music: Waldhof is indeed small but it is a census locality though with a population of just 6. Perhaps because of Luxembourg being a small country with significant administrative functions it has already long since been covered while some other countries haven't. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale Actually it's population has since fallen to 2. And it was only included in the 2011 census by the looks of things. I think Bricherhaff has got a similar population. Also doesn't GEOLAND state Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place are not presumed to be notable." Aren't these 2 similar cases but only one has got an article. On the contrary Waldhof has over 4000 results on A-z.lu however.

Anyway, I'd gladly work on other countries, I don't plan to write about every Lieu-dit I never did, I only wrote about Bricherhaff because at the time I liked that place and when I expanded Contern, I decided to make an article for all the Lieu-dits, I don't want to do that for every commune. N1TH Music (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Crouch, SwaleAlso what about the other thing I mentioned in that comment. Could you help me like that in the future? N1TH Music (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@N1TH Music: GEOLAND says "Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history" so yes even if Waldhof is a very small settlement it can be notable if it is or was legally-recognized. Even if Bricherhaff has more people if it isn't a settlement or like its unlikely to be notable. There is a big difference between a census settlement which has only a few people to a farm that may contain more people but isn't and has never been a settlement. If you look ta Category:Kinuachdrachd it is classified as a settlement by the OS even though it only seems to be 1 house today but it seems like it used to have significantly more.

Luxembourg appears to have 102 municipalities which is than most of the 48 English counties have. In comparison there are around 871 in Scotland, 10,449 in England and 34,965 in France. What you should do is check all 102 municipalities in Luxembourg have articles which they probably do then check the census localities which also appear to exist and then check other countries. If you don't know then yes you can ask me or someone else if something should exist. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale I think all Municipalities and localities in Luxembourg already have articles and I'm aware of the difference between legally recognised place and non-legally recognised places Also Bricherhaff is definitely legally recognised, I think I finally found the evidence I was looking for.

Also GEOLAND also says "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG." and "any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources." Can't Bricherhaff fall under that category, given that there's 300 such sources

N1TH Music (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale I've made a descision, I'll try making an article on the simple English wiki and then you can review it from there once it's complete. I think it won't be deleted there as it is very much notable. N1TH Music (talk) 07:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@N1TH Music: If they all exist then I'd focus on other countries where they don't all exist, I don't think things like farms etc are a good idea. GEOLAND as mentioned mainly deals with settlements and I don't think a farm would be notable unless there is something significant about it which there doesn't appear to be. I wouldn't try to start an article on Simple as it will probably just end up getting deleted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually I've already done it, and it's fine, I haven't finished yet but the good sourcing probably means it shouldn't get deleted. Besides that, yes I don't plan to work in Luxembourg if I get unblocked, I'll probably work in the UK. N1TH Music (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@N1TH Music: If you're from or otherwise interested in Luxembourg then I'd first make sure all municipalities and census localities exist but as you say they probably do but I'd check just in case. Then yes I'd move one to somewhere like the UK or Denmark. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale Yes I'm sure the Luxembourg is complete, the only settlements which haven't got articles are Lieu dits and while I do think they are notable, if I get unblocked, I don't plan to start with controversial topics, I'll wait a few month before even considering it. Until then I'll do the Uk, more specifically you've suggested before the parishes project, I'll help you with that, I remember at one point you suggested I make an article for Whittington, Northumberland. Then it's settled, if I get unblocked that's where to start :)

However I will create a discussion in the future (Like next year) about the notability of Lieu dits because I have found more sources since I spoke to you last and I think those are the deciding factor for notability. N1TH Music (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

File:Reyes Adobe historic site Agoura Hills California.jpg

As for Agoura Hills California, I very much doubt that it is in Adobes (province of Guadalajara, Spain). So I'm going to undo your modification. B25es (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@B25es: Thanks, it must have been added incorrectly. I quickly looked for errors before using Cat-a-lot but couldn't see any. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Again

Hi Crouch, Swale, It's been a while, hope you are doing ok, anyway I finally have waited the full 6 months and was ready to once again start editing wikipedia however I lost my UTRS appeal key accidentally when I closed the tab by mistake. The system isn't letting me make a new appeal and I can't access the old one, what do I do? I thought I'd come to you as you'd answered my questions and clarified things with me before. Thanks N1TH Music (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@N1TH Music: I'll ask on Wikipedia this evening. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you but it's working now, I assume the appeal closed, It says there's a cooldown to prevent appeal spamming, maybe the cooldown is 48 hours. Thanks and sincerely N1TH Music (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale I have got one more question now though N1TH Music (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@N1TH Music: What question? Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah so my block got extended to August, alright tough luck but following some sockpuppetry allegations (shared IP my whole school uses it so it's linked to my account again tough luck) I made an unblock request. One person made a request for the checkuser to once again check the IP to clarify everything and then following that it never happened and I got banned from UTRS until the appropriate date so I don't make any early unblock requests. But the Date appears to be wrong. According to this revision I was eligible for a certain date and I've never been informed otherwise however the UTRS ban is up until October it appears the administrator but in the 6 months from when the previous request expired which seems wrong. I'm wondering whether the best course of action is to just deal with it and wait it out until October or if there is something I could or maybe should do that won't make my situation worse. I feel August was already enough time because my original block was actually a year ago now but I don't want to cause trouble so I've come here to ask you for advice. Thanks :) N1TH Music (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

The only account you seem to have tagged is User:Not N1TH Music which was created in September 2022 though blocked in March 2023 and hasn't edited on Wikipedia. I don't see why you can't start an appeal. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Is that what I tagged I thought I showed a revision. User:DeepfriedOkra confirmed that that account never edited and even stated "you never used your not you account and that is great" but he also said that User:Yamla found IP edits. It's the IP: 158.64.22.1 That is shared across my school however I've said that the edits weren't and I have never evaded my block but there's no evidence to either side. User:DeepfriedOkra was also the one who told me to wait until August but simultaneously has set the ban date on UTRS to October. My question is whether I should try to reach out in some way to ask about that or just deal with it and wait the extra 2 months, because I've learnt from previous experience reaching out to an admin through any means while blocked is almost always a bad idea. N1TH Music (talk) 08:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Probably wait til August then. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

But both my Talk page and UTRS are blocked, the UTRS expired in October, waiting until august seems like the correct idea but it's physically impossible for me to do it. I assume it was a mistake and User:DeepfriedOkra just put in the standard offer which added on 6 months from the date that he closed my previous request as opposed to the date he set prior. N1TH Music (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

When it gets to August I could ask User:DeepfriedOkra or just ask now. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

It'd help but are you sure you are allowed to do that. I don't want to get you in trouble, but if it is permitted it would be greatly apprreciated. And I'd prefer it done as soon as possible just so I know in advance when I can submit an unblock request. N1TH Music (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I can do that, I don't see how it would get me into trouble by just asking. Correct ping to User:Deepfriedokra. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, I assume we haven't got any news then, it's now august, the standard offer as was given to me was eligible last week, however I'm still banned on UTRS until the 17th of October, do you think I should just wait it out, or is it worth trying to ask agains? N1TH Music (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@N1TH Music: I'll ask on Wikipedia this evening. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I've seen the message and your reply and I just wanted to state 1. Yes I will avoid making articles about non notable places and 2. I assume "make a convincing unblock request" he's referring to my last UTRS request from "2023-03-26 10:12:18" would it be possible for you to clarify that with him if that's what he's referring to, thank you. N1TH Music (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@N1TH Music: As of now I’m eligible for unblock on UTRS. I plan to do some edits on the simple wiki first before I create my request but I’m in the process of creating it. This brings up the question of what I’ll edit if I get unblocked. I figured it’d be good to work on your Missing Parishes project and similar ones. And I was wondering if you’d be capable of watching over my edits over the first few months and giving me advice and doing corrections and all that to help me. That’d be greatly appreciated. And this would improve my case for being unblocked. Just let me know if you would be able to help me in any way, thanks. N1TH Music (talk) 08:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@N1TH Music: Yes I would be. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Help please

Hi there, I was wondering if you could you change https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Q131491 to https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1549591 please. Greenfrog23 (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Greenfrog23: Already done. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedians banned by the Wikimedia Foundation

This category exists on Wikipedia, even though you seem to think that it was deleted. It is just a hidden category. Krok6kola (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Krok6kola: w:Template:WMF-legal banned user exists on Wikipedia and as noted at w:Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 April 14#Template:Locked global account "There are specific templates that are used when there is something speciifically relevant about the lock (eg {{Banned user}}, {{WMF-legal banned user}} and built into {{Sockpuppeteer}} and {{Sockpuppet}}". Wikipedians banned by the Wikimedia Foundation is a useful category as it contains a small specific number of people while many users get locked but aren't banned and this can easily be seen in the logs. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

cat move

Hi, it would be nice, if you also change the links in annotations if you move a cat - here the move of 90 Church Street is ment. In this case I will do this to fix the wrong links. -- Schusch (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Georg Slickers:  Done. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The Chantry

The Chantry in Chichester is only grade II listed. There is a nearby similarly named The Royal Chantry that is grade I. I'm going to revert your edit if you don't mind! TimSC (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry User:TimSC my mistake, I thought it was 1026810 but the images are actually 1026836 which can be seen from the listing ID pictures. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Please help

Hello Crouch, Swale, I saw you uploaded a lot of quality pictures on Commons, I have a question and hope you can help me. this photo and this one are both in the Gardiner, Arthur Z. collection. The author says that the US government has copyrighted this material, I'm not sure if the General Lê Văn Kim.jpg file has the correct image tag; if so, then similar photos like this one and this one — also in the same collection — can be uploaded with the same PD-USGov tag, right? Thank you. CalCoWSpiBudSu (talk) 07:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@CalCoWSpiBudSu: I haven't uploaded many images on Commons, my main contributions are categorization, I don't know much about copyright especially since I'm not American, I don't know much about American copyright laws, Commons:Help desk may be a better place to ask, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

ok, I got it, thank you. CalCoWSpiBudSu (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)