User talk:Davidstewartharvey

Hi David, Did you post a comment on my talk page? It was unsigned but I think it's probably you? If so, thank you :-) I will add references I have. We appear to have a common interest in department stores. It's great to finally find someone with an interest! I have read the new pages and other edits you have made on the subject with real interest and great admiration for your skills as a Wikipedia contributor. Best regards.. Andrew AndrewSE19 (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You ought to add Spar (Despar) to the list on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_supermarket_chains_in_the_United_Kingdom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.188.89 (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spar is against list of convenience stores of the UK, which was created o remove convenience stores from supermarkets list as people were arguing the listing.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davidstewartharvey. Just thought I'd post a note about using non-free content such as images and logos. Wikipedia does allow certain copyright-protected content to be uploaded and used in articles, but each usage is required to satisfy WP:NFCC. In particular, each usage must satisfy all 10 of the criteria listed in WP:NFCCP and not be any of the uses listed in WP:NFC#Unacceptable use. One of the 10 NFCC criteria is WP:NFCC#9 which says that non-free content may only be used in the article namespace, which means no drafts, userpages, talk pages, templates, etc. I noticed that you are using quite a number of non-free logos in User:Davidstewartharvey/sandbox. I've previously removed two of them, but I see you've added a few more since then. Logos such as File:MK One.png are non-free (you can tell because it has a non-free use rationale and a Template:Non-free logo copyright tag), so they shouldn't be used in your draft. For sure, sometimes logos are tagged as non-free which are really public domain or otherwise too simple for copyright protection, but the laws vary from country to country, so it's best to avoid adding any non-free content at all to anything other than articles and only if you can provide a valid non-free use rationale. For reference, it's OK to link to non-free file like I have done above using the colon trick; It's just not OK to display them. My recommendation is for you to remove anything non-free from your sandbox to be on the safe side to avoid it being considered a copyright violation. If you have any questions, then ask them here and I'll try to answer them. If you want another editor's take on this, then feel free to ask at WP:MCQ. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marchjuly - I have copied these straight from the relevant wikipedia pages already live on wikipedia - can you explain why these are there then and have not been removed? I have not added any that do not exist already on WikipediaDavidstewartharvey (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) David - if you look at the page about one of the logos you have used - say File:C & J Clarks International company logo.png you will see it has a section:- "Non-free media information and use rationale – non-free logo for C. & J. Clark" This is the explanation for why the use of that logo in the C. & J. Clark is considered as being Fair use. This rationale only covers that specific use, on that specific page. Every use needs its own fair-use rationale and, usually, they only relate to the specific article about that brand.
There are one or two very rare exceptions, e.g. where a logo may also appear in an article about the graphic artist who designed it, but they cannot be used in tables such as you are preparing. The rules are similar with other non-free images - say album covers - which can only be used in an article about that specific album, not repeated in an article about the band. We have frequent problems with editors trying to add all the covers to a band's discography, which is not allowed - Arjayay (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Non-free content may be used in the article namespace as long as each usage is provided with a valid non-free use rationale. So, using File:MK One.png as an example, if you go to the file's page, you'll see that it has a non-free use rationale for the article MK One, so there are no problems with NFCC#9. There may be other NFCC problems, but NFCC#9 is satisfied. Same goes for the other non-free logos being used in your draft such as File:C & J Clarks International company logo.png (C. & J. Clark), File:Cotswold Outdoor logo.jpg (Cotswold Outdoor), etc. Now, if you compare these to logos File:Decathlon Logo.png and File:Duchamp London logo.png, etc., you'll see that these are considered "free" (i.e., not considered protected by copyright) logos and therefore are not subject to the NFCC. Free logos can be used pretty much any where as long as the usage complies with the much less restrictive Wikipedia:Image use policy. That is why you sometimes see photos/images on userpages and in drafts or sandoxes, like the photos of the stores in your sandbox.

Sometimes a logo, such as File:Mothercare.svg, can be found on Wikimedia Commons because it so simple that it is considered unprotected by copyright in its country of origin (and thus by default considered unprotected anywhere worldwide); Wikimedia Commons does not allow non-free content to be uploaded, so pretty much anything you find on Commons is OK to use anywhere on any language Wikipedia. (I qualified that as "pretty much" because sometimes something which shouldn't be uploaded to Commons slips through the cracks). Other logos, such as File:Blacks Leisure Group.png, are considered to be too simple for copyright protection under United States law (that's where English Wikipedia's servers are located), but protected by copyright by the laws of the country of their respective origin. In such cases, such logos are considered to be "free" by English Wikipedia and can be used anywhere on English Wikipedia, but they are considered "non-free" by Commons so they cannot be "moved" or "transfered" to Commons. So, anytime you want to copy any image you see in a Wikipedia article to your userpage or your sandbox, or even another Wikipedia article, it's good practice to check the image's file page to see whether it's non-free. If it's non-free, it can't be used outside the article namespace, and can only be used in another article as long as you provide a valid non-free use rationale for that particular use per WP:NFCCE and the usage otherwise satisfies the NFCC. If you have anymore questions or a question about a specific image, then feel free to ask and I'll try to answer as best as I can. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right - I did'nt know that if you clicked on the image it would tell you this! I will go through and amend the list I am working on. It's not going to ge published for a while as there's still loads to add!Davidstewartharvey (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick one - MK One is a defunct company would this now not be an issue?Davidstewartharvey (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the logo is non-free, then I believe it is still not considered OK to use outside of the article namespace regardless of whether MK One is still in business. It's possible that MK One still holds the copyright of its logo or those rights were purchased by another company even if they are defunct. So, to be on the safe side, I don't think it should be used in your draft. It is possible, however, that it may be detemined that the logo is too simple for copyright protection under UK law or at least under US law by a consensus of editors and its licensing may be changed from non-free logo to something such as Template:PD-logo or Template:PD-USonly. If that happens, then the image is no longer be subject to restrictions of the NFCC and can be used in your draft. Finally, one last thing about non-free content. One of the things about the NFCC is that the use of non-free content is to be minimized as much as possible (WP:NFCC#3a). That is it generally only considered OK to use non-free content where it is essential for the reader's understanding of the subject matter to such a degree that not-using it would be detrimental to that understanding (WP:NFCC#8). This is a bit subjective, but typically it is considered acceptable to use a non-free logo such as the "MK One" one in a stand-alone article about the company because it serves as the primary means of identification of the company. Using the logo in tables or galleries (WP:NFTABLES) or in lists (WP:NFLISTS), however, is generally not considered acceptable because such usage tends to be mainly decorative and not really necessary for the reader's understanding. This is why it is considered OK to use things such as non-free book covers, album covers, DVD covers or movie posters in stand-alone articles about a book, an album, a DVD, or a movie, but not in articles about authors, bands, actors or stand-alone lists like discographies, bibilographies, character lists, etc. Basically, anything which seems primarily decorative is not considered essential to the reader's understanding and not considered to provide the "contextual significance" needed to satisfy NFCC#8. To make a long story short, even if your draft is someday added to the article namespace, there is unfortunately a good chance that any non-free content being used in it will be removed by another editor for non-compliance with the NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Davidstewartharvey. Just wanted to let you know that File:MK One.png and File:Hackett (clothing).jpg have been changed from non-free to public domain for use on English Wikipedia only and File:Logo of Dunnes Stores.png has been changed to public domain for everywhere. This means these are no longer subject to the restrictions of WP:NFC and can be used (i.e., displayed) outside of the article namespace as long as they otherwise satisfy WP:IUP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thanks for leting us know!Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello David. I have removed all the articles you added to Category:List of Sports Clubs in Essex as this is not an appropriately named category. If you really wanted to do this, you should either create an actual list (List of sports clubs in Essex) or a category (Category:Sports clubs in Essex) which categories like Category:Football clubs in Essex, Category:Rugby league teams in Essex and Category:Speedway teams in Essex can sit in, rather than add the category to every individual article. However, I am not sure such a category is particularly useful given the existence of Category:Sports in Essex and its subcategories. Cheers, Number 57 16:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Sports Clubs in Essex - Sports in Essex is a general category which does not cover specific clubsDavidstewartharvey (talk) 09:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have added all the football clubs to it. As pointed out above, this is unnecessary as there is already a category for football clubs. I will shortly be removing all the categories from football clubs etc and just adding the Football club category to your new category (you can see it now appears in Category:Sports Clubs in Essex). Also, you created it with an incorrect capitalisation (it should be "Sports clubs" not "Sports Clubs". Please could your request this be renamed at WP:CfD. Cheers, Number 57 09:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else has just requested the category be renamed on your behalf. Number 57 09:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Tony Robinson: Coast to Coast, Davidstewartharvey!

Wikipedia editor Elliot321 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you for creating this useful article!

To reply, leave a comment on Elliot321's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Elliot321 (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Davidstewartharvey,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether The Last Journey of the Magna Carta King should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Journey of the Magna Carta King .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

TheLongTone (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Walking Britain's Lost Railways.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thank you for your new article on the show "Walking Britain's Lost Railways".

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for your work on the above article. I defended it as well. There are some unreliable sources in the article now--Rate Your Music, for example. This page has been a great help to me: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Have a good day! Caro7200 (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Any chance you could non-admin close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Walmart? I know it's only been open for a few days, but I don't see the consensus about it changing and there's no point in keeping it going longer then it has to. I'd probably just retract it, but I don't know how. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification re: Robert Guadino. I'm more of an inclusionist, so I will let the AfD play out. I was following the suggestion in the tag saying "feel free to improve the article" when I worked on it.--FeanorStar7 (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - you recently participated in an AfD for Matthew Lynn and I just wanted to let you know I've re-nominated the article in case you'd like to participate in the new discussion. Paradoxsociety 09:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I went from Teahouse to the article, where I made some deletions which I hope you see as not compromising the article. David notMD (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davidstewartharvey! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Stephen Church - Dodgy Editing, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 February 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dog & Bull, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in the 1970s a saxophonist led Major Surgery at a pub in South London? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dog & Bull. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Dog & Bull), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 March 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article John Mallard, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 06:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent help with references which helped save the Peppi Borza page. I was wondering if it's alright by you if you can assist with the Alan Chuntz page. In addition, I'm not sure if you do draft pages but perhaps you could contribute to the following:

• Gordon Sterne
• Morgan Deare
• John Tordoff

That way, we can get them into mainspace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silurian25 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Silurian25 John Tordoff has plenty of regs out there. I have added some more stuff, including garden stuff, a full review of reynard the fox and full link to award. Just keep looking, don't just use his name to find stuff sometimes reverse by looking for the actual production he is in. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. It's been nearly a year since I asked for your help to improve these articles. (Are you able to do the others?) I have come across some more I wonder if you might be able to assist with:

• Gillian Brown
• Eden Phillips
• Christopher Saul

The first two have a lot of sources which could make them eligible for mainspace. Do you still try to help pages in danger of deletion due to poorly referenced sources? Silurian25 (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Tordoff, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Noah ^💬 15:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When using templates like {{cite journal}}, please learn how to use each parameters. The easier ways to correctly fill these templates is through WP:RefToolbar (see the video) or through User:Citation bot (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-08-01/Tips and tricks). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that if you have the DOI/PMIDs of article, you can simply enter them in the RefToolbar tool and click on the lens, and everything will be filled automatically for you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't try to cite Goodreads ratings in articles. Consensus is that, as a self-published source of user-generated content, it's considered generally unreliable.

Thanks. DS (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Sabin, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

– robertsky (talk) 10:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have added several biographical articles to Category:Masters of the Art Worker's Guild where the fact is not mentioned in the article. This is therefore unsourced content. Moreover, categories are supposed to be used only for defining characteristics of articles, see WP:CATDEFINING. If something is not mentioned in an article it can hardly be a defining characteristic. Please either add sourced content to the articles to establish that they held this role, or remove them from the category. I have already removed a few of them. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks, but if you had looked at the the article Art Workers' Guild you will see that it is actually sourced and all of these people were elected to the position of master by the organisations members. I am currently in the process of updating the Art Workers' Guild page and their related masters, including creating pages for those who meet notability rules.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 05:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this from your edit to Edwin Lutyens. Do you know whether his appointment as master involved his active involvement in the work of the guild, or was it an honorific position awarded to a prominent person in the field? If it was the latter then it should not be in the lead of his article but moved to the 'Recognition' section. The same would apply to other masters. Thanks, Verbcatcher (talk) 06:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The master position is an elected position, selected by the members of the guild and they lead the guild for a year, except on several occasions when the role has been extended (Alan Powers has continued due to the pandemic). It is not a honoray position.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article John Miles (musician), which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. TJMSmith (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for your efforts on creating these pages! Chemical Engineer (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical Engineer I was working on the Ramsey professor seat, as no one had created article on any of the holders at one of the worlds best rated uni's. I got stuck at the more recent ones as lack of refs.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These three pages are now back in draftspace. 1 2 3 Do you still try to save pages that are in danger of being deleted or attempt to move them into mainspace? There are a few others in an above thread. Ta. 2A00:23C6:D885:8501:946F:688C:8258:E0F0 (talk) 10:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An AFD you participated in is now restarted by the same nominator as last time. All past participates are being contacted.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional deities (2nd nomination) Dream Focus 16:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was that you didn't format the nomination statement properly; you can't just type text in the page, but have to add headers so that the page will actually have a headline that renders into an entry in the AFD log's table of contents. I've added the appropriate headers for you. Bearcat (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Davidstewartharvey (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding you're changes of Category:Former civil parishes in Essex from Dunton, Essex it actually looks like "Dunton" was the name of the village to the south where the church is while "Dunton Wayletts" is the area north of the A127. The articles should probably be split again but regardless I'm not sure its correct to say its also called "Dunton" (other than the fact it may be shortened) but it actually looks like they are 2 slightly different places. In any case per WP:INCOMPATIBLE I'd say the former CP category should be in the "Dunton, Essex" page not the "Dunton Wayletts" page. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dunton and Dunton Wayletts are one in the same, I know I live about 10 minutes from there. Dunton is the shortened version, much like Southend fir Southend-on-Sea or Bury for Bury St Edmunds by the locals. It was never a village, always a hamlet spread along Lower Dunton Road that runs from near Horndon on the Hill til the A127 and then north of the A127 (Dunton Road runs from Noak Bridge to Dunton Wayletts). Basildon History have a record from William White's Gazette of 1848 which gives both names. The civil parish covering the area was called Dunton or Dunton Wayletts depending on what text you read. I think this is because there is a second Dunton parish in Bedfordshire. It was part of the Barnstaple Hundred, while the Ecclesiastical Part was part of Billericay. The article before I changed the lead also said it was called Dunton, and the Dunton page was already redirected to the Dunton Wayletts page.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Davidstewartharvey. Thank you for your work on E.H.Bentall & Co. User:Scope creep, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Great article.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

scope_creepTalk 12:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply] 

Thank you for expanding these articles but I'd just note that it seems Little Henny is still a separate civil parish but has a grouped parish council, both Mapit and UKBMD still say it exists. I can't fine any evidence it has been abolished as a civil parish and its quite common for smaller parishes to be grouped with several others but still being separate CPs with parish meetings. Also note that its normal to give the parish population in the infobox for the settlement of the same name even if the parish includes other areas as there is usually no data for the village for smaller villages. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Really appreciate the work done to improve Mervyn Macartney. I knew there was more to be said (and more still even now), but did not expect that to happen so quickly. Really good to see that. Carcharoth (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I see now that you had been working on this in a sandbox. I normally check this before I create articles, but the default search doesn't include userspace drafts and I forgot to check. It may be of interest that there is a picture of one of the furniture pieces on Commons. Not found a picture or artwork of him yet. Carcharoth (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth Sorry I have never found any picture. There is a picture of his memorial at St Pauls on wikimedia. I started him over a year ago but had so many other bits to work in never had a chance. You will see in my sandbox I have loads of references.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I found it here. It is not a great picture, so I have not put it in the article (yet), but it could go in. Do you know whether FSA is Fellow of the Society of Architects? Some sources say Fellow of the Society of Arts, and some say Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries. Given the whole RIBA issues, is the former possible I wonder? Carcharoth (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth FSA stands for Fellow, Society of Antiquaries according to everything I see online, with FSArc being for the Society of Architects and RSA for the society of arts (and also confusingly the Royal Society of Scottish Architects). The Scottish architects database says Society of Arts but I think that may be a typo, as I believe Who's Who said Society of Arts (I don't have access anymore). I would probably believe Who's who as it was written when he was alive. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly sure its a good idea to merge to Westcliff-on-Sea as the name "Westborough" is only used for the ward, I agree it makes sense to merge Chalkwell Ward (though I'd point out it was kept at AFD so should probably have been tagged for merging first) due to having the same name as the suburb though and am unsure about Milton Ward as it seems "Milton" was an old name for Westcliff. Regarding notability there was a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 10#Proposed deletion of all articles on local government subdivisions wards, divisions etc. which didn't gain consensus and a later discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 29#Wards v settlements which was unconclusive. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale The issue is neither meet GNG, as the references are primary not secondary. In the case of Chalkwell ward, it really is an unnecessary fork, and considering that the main article is small in size, incorporating the ward there is best. In the case of Westborough, the ward is in the boundaries of Westcliff. Milton is harder to place, as most of it is Westcliff, with a smaller slice in Southend. However Milton was the original settlement name. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't wards qualify as legally recognized per WP:GEOLAND? A ward isn't a census tract or similar as it does have electoral functions though I guess unlike parishes they don't preform administrative functions in the same way as many administrative units. Per WP:Notability it appears to satisfy the subject specific of geography and the census data isn't primary. Looking at the boundaries of Westborough ward it appears to cover an area north of Westcliff rather than Westcliff its self or at least not the central part. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From my knowledge, GEOLAND covers administrative areas, however not the actual splits of those areas. That makes the administrative area is Southend City Council. Westborough Ward northern border is Fairfax Drive which is actually south of the northern border of what is Westcliff, which is Prittlewell Chase as per Southend City Council [1] (though Google maps says it is even further north!). The refs given were primary (Southend Council) and another editor had already marked the pagd with an improvement notice which had been in place for a while. As another experienced editor told me previously at an AFD, not everything needs it's own article if it doesn't meet GNG, but redirects and incorporating the info into a linked article is the best way to keep information. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged with more citations needed not primary sources. I agree the sources from the council are primary sources but it does list an independent source namely Echo and the census data is not primary. Yes indeed not everything needs its own article even if clearly notable like Waltham Abbey (parish) was merged to Waltham Abbey despite clearly being notable because of the overlap, WP:NOPAGE is probably the guideline you're looking for. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chalkwell Ward and all other similar AFDs that I'm aware of wards have been kept at AFD. As you can see I !voted to merge (as you have now done) but everyone else !vote keep.

I would suggest that we restore the Westborough Ward article (as well as the North Shoebury article since its been improved and is clearly notable and the discussion took place on a talk page with no tagging) and if you still think these articles should be merged then per WP:MERGEINIT you could propose a merge or discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. I will see if I can improve the articles before restoring though. I might be wrong and there may end up being a consensus that wards aren't notable but as suggested at the Chalkwell AFD should probably be discussed at project level, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some options for inclusion may include (1) all wards are notable and should have separate articles like Walton (Liverpool ward)/Walton, Liverpool, (2) all wards are notable but should be combined with a settlement of the same name like Chalkwell except like Boxford, Suffolk when there is a parish which has different boundaries should be split, (3) all wards are notable but should always be combined with a settlement even if there is a parish with the same name and (4) wards are not inherently notable and should be subject to GNG. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale The Echo reference is about a Councillor who represents the Westborough Ward standing as an MP candidate. The actual mention of Westborough is not Significant coverage as per Wikipedia:N. There are a few articles on line about Westborough itself, but not the Ward elections, and the results are still not referenced so should be deleted based on Wikipedia:V, which would leave the article as a stub and probably be merged or deleted. Having merged the data and redirecting as I have Westcliff-on-Sea page now stands at 39,840 bytes (including Milton merger), which is considerably below the recommended fork level.

However, in the case of Milton, I probably agree should not be merged into Westcliff, as part of it falls into what is the boundaries of Southend-on-Sea city centre as per the city council. However that is totally primary sourced and has no verifiable refs for the election info so would definitely be deleted at AFD. But what would you do with it?

If you want to reverse my changes and raise at either talk or AFD then go ahead, just let me know so I can join in the conversation. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll have a look into this this evening. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the Westborough and North Shoebury articles and I see you have restored the Milton article. The Westborough and Milton articles can be discussed at the wards discussion and the North Shoebury could be discussed with a {{Merge to}} if needed. Thanks for restoring the Milton article. I didn't restore it since as noted it seems like Milton was and old name for Westcliff. Crouch, Swale (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale as per the ward map and local plan Milton Ward covers the a chunk of Westcliff but also Southend-on-Sea City centre. The name Milton comes from Milton Hall, the Manor House which owned the land Westcliff sits on, but that site, until recently home to Nazareth House, sits in Southend-on-Sea not Westcliff these days. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed Milton ward while it covers Westcliff station it doesn't include much of the suburb. Interestingly Milton is in the Domesday Book. Crouch, Swale (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And there is also a conservation area named Milton. So it may suggest the name "Milton" is used separately from Westcliff today. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]