User talk:Crouch, Swale/Archive 2

Category:Windrush (village)

Hi. It seems here that you are disambiguating for the sake of it. I doubt if anyone would confuse Category:Windrush, Gloucestershire with Category:River Windrush, because the clue's in the name as all rivers should be named as "River X" (except Thames, against which there is nothing to disambiguate). Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I did it because even though rivers use natural disambiguation but putting "River" before, there appears to be no other settlements called Windrush. We here have no other categories than on the river and settlement and on Wikipedia there doesn't appear to be anything else that is called just "Windrush" so maybe it should be renamed to just Category:Windrush? Rodhullandemu what do you think? Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I see "Windrush" on en:WP is a disambiguation page which links (inter alia) to "Windruch, Gloucestershire". To apply the principle of least surprise to our users, I'd think we should follow the same naming, even though we don't (yet) have a disambig page. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I missed Windrush (TV series) which is called "Windrush" so there are things with just that name I'm not sure is the village could be the primary topic based on long-term significance (since it is in the Domesday Book), but it doesn't look much more likely than the TV series to be searched for (it has slightly more page views). We then still only have the TV series and the river so as there appears nothing else to disambiguate from and that the rivers also partly in Gloucestershire, wouldn't it be better to keep the "village" disambiguator. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The reason the title includes "River" is because it is common usage in the UK (see w:WP:NCRIVER) but isn't part of the name unlike w:Inn (river). Remember Commons is multi-language. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Ambiguous names

When the placename is unique but is ambiguous with a surname of notable people, please do not move the cateogry unless the place name is clearly the dominant meaning (eg London vs London. Geographic ambiguity is not the only sort of ambiguity that affects us.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I examined the other meanings on the DAB page on Wikipedia, the ones I moved didn't look to be ambiguous (I kept in mind about primary topics being held higher than on Wikipedia) what move are you questioning in particular? If it is ambiguous enough, it can be converted into a DAB page. The risk of miss categorization seems to be very low in terms of simply people with the surname (although some notable family names might have categories and contend of their own if there is info on the surname or there is a notable family with that name). Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Its not about family names, but about the individuals with the surname. As I'm sure you know, notable people are typically known by just their surname. Its a safe bet that most people on Commons looking for "Churchill" are after Winston, not any of the places of that name. More generally a random, minor English village will not trump a surname of several distinct notable people. As a for instance I mean things like Kemble - which is clearly ambiguous, and the village should remain at the Gloucestershire location (its location before you moved it).--Nilfanion (talk) 11:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

For a start, I'd strongly advise that if the base name is a dab on Wikipedia, regardless of what actual entries are listed, it should be on Commons too. Commons should have more dabs (because of the higher primary bar) not less.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

In the case of Churchill he appears to be ambiguous with the name "Churchill" because he is well known but most people with the surname aren't (see W:WP:NAMELIST) with the example of Lincoln. Are any of the surname holders ambiguous with "Kemble" (like Abraham Lincoln with Lincoln or are they like Harry J. Lincoln and only part title matches?). There is however w:Kemble family which is ambiguous anyway so I will revert anyway. Hooton doesn't appear to be ambiguous as pointed out the others appear to be just part title matches (people with the surname who don't appear to be ambiguous and placenames that just include the name). I agree that an article doesn't have to be exactly the same to be ambiguous (Raleigh Bicycle Company is ambiguous with "Raleigh" (see here) and "Newcastle upon Tyne" is ambiguous with "Newcastle" but is "Peter Hooton" ambiguous with "Hooton" or "Hooton Levitt" ambiguous with "Hooton"? Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

All the people listed on the Wikipedia page Kemble are ambiguous with the place Kemble, and they are all sufficiently notable to be deserving of Wikipedia coverage. Most also have pictures in their articles, so should have categories on Commons - generating the same ambiguity here. It is very common to refer to people by their surname alone. For example, the BBC News homepage currently mentions the following without first name: Clinton, Dylan, Johnson, Joshua, Klitscho, Orgreave, Smith and Swinney. Its much rarer to refer to people by just their first name, but exceptions exist.

Do not fret about partial-topic matches. The point is if a basepage is a dab on Wikipedia, it should be a dab on Commons. If that's just because of a bunch of people of that name, that's a good enough reason to have both Wikipedia and Commons as dabs.

The vast majority of your recent category movements fall in the "waste of time" activity anyway - you could be far more helpful for the project if you instead work to improve the categorisation of badly sorted files (such as those in Category:Somerset), instead of moving the deckchairs around.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes but no one will expect to find someone at the surname location (however we might have a surname cat like Category:Westcott (surname) which might make the surname its self ambiguous. As there is information that could be used to write a surname article (not just a DAB page). There is a crater called "Kemble" as well.

Some of them I think shouldn't be DAB pages I agree that a meaning doesn't have to have parenthetical or comma disambiguation or even that it wouldn't be located at that name if it wasn't ambiguous at all but we must reasonably expect that readers will expect to find the article at that title.

Yes I will have a look at that.

Do you agree with my moves of Leigham (on Wikipedia there is no DAB page) and Membury (which is a DAB page I created years ago that only the one in Devon appears to be ambiguous. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

There are definitely occasions where WP has got it wrong. But if it does have a dab at the base-name that's a strong indicator that there is an issue, and even if the WP case is wrong (within primary topic guidance), that's enough to justify a dab on Commons.

No one would expect to find a person at their surname's location, but it is a starting point. That's true even for people like Shakespeare or Einstein, where the base names correctly redirect to William Shakespeare and Albert Einstein. Its reasonable to expect readers looking for pictures of people to search for them by surname-only - its better for them to get a dab, than to start on the "wrong" subject entirely. If Kemble was a significant town it probably would come first. But a minor village? No, a minor village should never take precedence.

Leigham is probably fine. Membury is not fine - a minor village should never be "primary" if there is any ambiguity.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

But it still should be considered at least if it is really ambiguous.

Kemble is OK as there is information about the surname as well as there being other topics. Just because something is obscure doesn't mean it shouldn't be at the unqualified title. Unlike the US as you know we don't include the state in the UK even if obscure.

I'm not convinced about Membury, the DAB page was created by me in 2010 probably because the article on the place in Devon was incorrectly placed at "Membury, Devon", as the page was created by me then it is primarily my fault as it probably would have been moved to "Membury" if I hadn't created the DAB (like Cookbury was). Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Kemble is obscure - that doesn't mean it cannot be at the base name. If it wasn't obscure, it would trump the various people. If there weren't a bunch of people with that surname it would be at the base name. However, as it is both obscure AND ambiguous it should not be at base name. And Membury should stay at Devon - but really message I'm trying to say here is please stop with these very low-value moves. Overly precise category names (Leigham, Plymouth is an example) are 100% harmless, but moving an ambiguous subject to the base-name can be harmful.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

As I have said Kemble is fine as there are other meanings as well as the surname (the crater) but if we consider part title matches then there becomes an almost infinite number of topics we could consider (like we could consider Lexus when searching for Lexis). I won't make any more of these moves but I can't see how "Membury" is ambiguous, it is only a DAB at the base name because I created the DAB page, if I hadn't have done so Membury, Devon would probably have been moved to "Membury". Overly precise category names are arguably harmless but how much should be added, see w:User:Born2cycle/Unnecessary disambiguation. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

On a closer look Membury Services might be ambiguous with "Membury" but Vision of Britain also mentions Membury as being a place in Wiltshire so I will revert that move. But if the name is not ambiguous like "Glemham" for example (the only potential topic is the surname which doesn't exist) it should be at the base name, if it is ambiguous like "Huish" for example (because there are several meanings called just "Huish), it is only in the case of like "Freston" where there is only 1 topic that it should be at the base name (there appears to be no coverage on the surname). As I pointed out this is not a question of being primary but a question of being the only ambiguous mesning. In reply to the only topic being obscure, so are the part title matches, if the part title matches were more well known we could expect that they might be referred to in reliable sources without using the full string. Look for example at Bury/Bury St Edmunds, neither are obscure but Bury, Greater Manchester still occupies the base name. So in reply to the argument about Kimble but using Freston instead, if the meaning is ambiguous like Huish, it should be at the base name, if there are no ambiguous entries (or none of the articles exist) like Glemham it should be at the base name, if the part title matches were well known there might be a claim to have the DAB at the base name but in cases where there is neither apply (like Freston) then it is the only topic even if the only topic is obscure. Look at the discussion at w:Talk:Cleveland (disambiguation)#Requested move 10 December 2016 where Grover Cleveland gets more views but Cleveland, Ohio is at the base name (and there are other meanings, but we have "Cleveland" as a DAB here. "Ince" occupies the base name despite being ambiguous, I don't think you should attach such strict requirements for a page to be renamed, while in 50/50 cases (or even 45/55) debating them can be unconstructive, I don't see why a "substantial benefit" should be required, while I think some bias should be given to maintaining the status quo (rather than using the Yogurt Principle, I don't see why we should disambiguate "Freston" which isn't ambiguous but not "Ince" which is ambiguous just because that's how Wikipedia has it set up. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I have moved some ambiguous titles (like Bury and Nancy, Nice maybe should also be, see the RM today but we don't appear to have any other meanings so maybe that one is OK). I'll be more careful with the ones I move to the base name, please feel free to discuss here any questionable ones. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hamlets/villages/towns

Hey,

I know this is the sort of thing that interests you; you may want to download the OS OpenNames database from Ordnance Survey. The various CSV files in the download provide a full listing of places - saying whether they are cities, towns or hamlets, as well as suburban areas. That should be reliable for the majority of uses.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks I have downloaded 2 of them, I'll see if I can use any of them here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The two (or more) places called Sutton in Cambridgeshire

Firstly I must genuinely apologise for reverting your move for St Andrews church without a further re-check. My error arose from

• the first picture in the category was of the Soke of Peterborough one and I looked at the map references that confirmed it
• the second picture was described as being in Sutton, Peterborough
• there was another existing category for the church in Sutton-in-the-Isle

So I have today moved three images in the category to the Sutton-in-the Isle one and the other on the the Peterborough one so emptying it and have thus made it into a category redirect.

Now what lead me there was: https://tools.wmflabs.org/osm4wiki/cgi-bin/wiki/wiki-osm.pl?project=Commons&article=Category%3ASutton%2C_Peterborough&l=3

where you will see that most of the entries are not Peterborough but the Isle of Ely. I thought I would fix the church first and the rest later. I will get round to this when time allows.

Best Wishes for 2017 S a g a C i t y (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I have found that the geogroup link that you have been using is helpful, indeed the former Soke of Peterborough is much larger than the current Peterborough area. I admit I am very good at jumping to conclusions without thinking properly about things, happy new year to you as well. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I have now removed a load of images in Sutton, Peterborough that were intended for Sutton-in-the-Isle. They were probably put in there because the category was at Sutton, Cambridgeshire before I moved it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I was unable to complete as I made a mistake. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Category moves

Please don't move categories around like you have been doing without discussion. One major problem results when you then re-task the original category - to a dab or especially another subject - all incoming links get broken. I'd suggest 99% of the time, if you discover a term is ambiguous - the existing subject is probably fine left alone. eg It is reasonable to assert Gosforth (in Newcastle) is primary, so there is no need disambiguate it. Just put a see also on the cat and move on.

The existence of a tiny hamlet somewhere else doesn't justify moving stuff.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Gosforth, Cumbria is more significant though (as the Tyne and Wear one is a suburb) and there is also one in Australia, I thought you said that often we apply a stricter standard of primary topics. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Significance is not a question of administrative status. A former town, with a population 20 times bigger, is almost certainly more significant than a small village - that is why the WP article on the place in Newcastle is at w:Gosforth. Also note that ones like Norwich need discussion not unilateral moves.

The reason being is 2 Commons administrators disagreed on correct course of action there, you can't unilateraly determine what is right when there is a history like that. CFD is needed.

And again, please refrain from any moves when that move will break incoming links (moving a primary to base name is OK).--Nilfanion (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The Gosforth in Cumbria is shown on a 11.52 miles to an inch unlike the Tyne and Wear one. As I noted there is also one in Australia. So I don't think that the Tyne and Wear one can be considered to be overwhelmingly dominant. "Gosforth" has had 1491 views, Gosforth, Cumbria has 247, Gosforth, New South Wales has 51 and Gosforth (ship) had 26. That's clearly not significantly more views. I'll discuss Norwich with you later but your're still welcome to revert all of my changes there.

You requested that Norwich be moved back (it was originally moved without discussion) but the discussion wasn't formally closed, so there can't really be said to be a consensus there, if you think it should be a DAB, please revert and start a discussion.

Are you meaning any where a DAB is created, I never ask for the redirects deleted so they aren't broken. Indeed if as you pointed out we need to disambiguate more things here than on WP then it will be necessary to move and create DABs (I'm sure you agree with Wickham being disambiguated). It is only really harmful if the page if moved and then the redirect is deleted like Kings Cliffe, Northamptonshire was Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC) Were you referring to Whitchurch, Devon and Worth, West Sussex, in those the WP article has content for both the settlement and parish, I will add a hatnote to Whitchurch, Devon (parish). Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

My point here is please allow discussion. Many of these moves are likely to be controversial (especially when you consider discussions like the ones for Cleveland and Plymouth touch on these issues). As there are more severe negative consequences to a move - a hatnote is not an acceptable replacement for a direct link - which mean the standard Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle is not appropriate for this sort of activity. Especially when these things can wait.

To use Norwich as the prime example, naturally my opinion it is correctly placed at plain Norwich, as I clearly expressed on its talk page. However that was part of a (stale) discussion that clearly did NOT reach a consensus. Commons, like Wikipedia, works on consensus, so you should establish that a consensus now exists instead of deciding for yourself.

As for Gosforth, the Gosforth within Newcastle is usually shown at smaller scales on maps and invariably has a larger label size - reflecting its higher population and significance. The biggest single indicator that the Newcastle one is primary is Wikipedia. Again that means the situation should be discussed, and I disagree with your assessment in that case.

From what I recall when I had a look in the past, a major factor to your block on Wikipedia was your failure to work within consensus. You are starting showing a similar pattern of behaviour here (ie acting unilaterally, not discussing potentially controversial matters), which is why it is important you start these discussions. I do not want to have to review your category moves to see which I agree with, but I will do so later this week as I feel this may help you. I suspect that a good chunk of them I will say should have been discussed, and some I'd outright disagree with.

One minor point - when disambiguating a civil parish from a village, please use (civil parish) not (parish). There are multiple types of parish, and when it is a CP it should be called as such.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

If there has been no previous discussion on the name its probably not controversial unless its a major topic. w:WP:BRD applies. What do you mean about hatnotes not being an acceptable replacement for a direct link

The page was moved without discussion and then objected (by you) so according to BRD it should have been moved back. Note also that the discussion wasn't "closed", the tag was just removed without a closing comment on the talk page. Had there been an explanation provided on the talk page then it could have been considered consensus.

I will discuss that one (and others) on the relevant talk page.

I am trying to follow consensus but you are now arguing the opposite of what you were arguing at #Ambiguous names (where you were pointing out about harm for example this)

Will do so, indeed a WP article might cover all the possible aspects of parishes but the category should only contain the CP content.

First off, BRD is Wikipedia guidance not Commons. Its useful guidance, but not holy writ on this project (and it isn't policy on Wikipedia either).

The problem with BRD is it is inherently not suitable for category moves. That's because the impact of a bad category move is a LOT higher than a dispute on article content (and BRD is designed for content disputes in articles). A dispute on one article's content affects nothing but the bit of the one article in question, its very easy to undo. A category move, on Commons, can affect hundreds, or thousands, of files and sub-cats, dozens of incoming links etc. It may require admin rights to revert. Add all that up, you should be really sure that the move is correct before doing it.

In short, please treat all moves of this kind as potentially controversial (ie discuss BEFORE move). Also note that a discussion on a Category talk page won't be seen, so do it in a public venue like CFD. If you get no objection after a reasonable time, go ahead. That is a lot less cumbersome on all involved and will eliminate most of problems I highlight in the many threads we have had. Remember, that as none of these moves are time-critical waiting a couple weeks will never hurt anyone.--Nilfanion (talk)

Indeed Commons:Rename a category notes this, the problem with CFD as you have noted gets little input, are you suggesting that I should open and close debates (if no one comments), wouldn't it be better to discuss at say the talk page of Commons:Category disambiguation. If a comment is left on the talk page then other users can see it (who would likely have objected). Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Allowing discussion to happen is the first step really, if I had seen you propose any of the moves I reverted I'd have commented there. Its unfortunate that many Commons discussions are useless from lack of involvement. CFD struggles because only a small sub-set of Commons editors are active there, and the broader community doesn't notice discussions. Creating another venue won't help that any. And to be honest, if you had created a CFD for Gosforth - I probably wouldn't have seen it, despite my objection to it.

IMO, the best way to get active discussions on Commons is to reach out to other projects - and try to get their editors involved. As an example, if I propose a move of Category:Ipswich, a notification on w:Talk:Ipswich is more likely to get others involved than any other single edit I could try. The notified project(s) should be the ones most strongly affected - ie en.wp for Gosforth or fr.wp for Nancy. They also should be informed as a courtesy in the event of a move, as they may need to fix links to Commons. (I realise your WP block would be an nuisance, but the principle of notifying is the important one).

Unfortunately that is indeed a bit circular, in this case I will just write that as a guideline. Compared to Nancy Ipswich is clearly primary it is a historic county town (others are much smaller and/or get far less views) while Nancy is a given name which I expect almost everyone will associate it with.

Indeed that might be good to some extent but one of the downsides to that are that its difficult to know how far to go (there are often problems on Wikipedia with discussions because only those who know/are interested in a move get notified. In the case of Worcester for example. Do you also notify Worcester, Massachusetts (and all of its projects) or every page listed on the DAB. I agree it is somewhat polite to do so also. However also as noted I can't do this due to being blocked, indeed is it easy to do this for every category move. Also the notification about the NUT CFD didn't appear to get anyone else involved so its even less likely on smaller topics. You did point out earlier that "Overly precise category names (Leigham, Plymouth is an example) are 100% harmless, but moving an ambiguous subject to the base-name can be harmful" Gosforth would probably be a good example and "There are definitely occasions where WP has got it wrong. But if it does have a dab at the base-name that's a strong indicator that there is an issue, and even if the WP case is wrong (within primary topic guidance), that's enough to justify a dab on Commons" Willian is an example. But if it is over part title matches then that's less relevent. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I have started a discussion for Norwich. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Analysis

I have gone through the 100+ moves you have made since Jan 1, X of which are simple housekeeping. I cannot say if the individual are "right" as I am only one person (unless the target violates Commons' norms), but I can highlight which should have been discussed. The detailed list with my comments is below, and I have done some further analysis. In short, when you are removing unnecessary disambiguation you are fine. When it comes to moving to allow disambiguation, some of those I personally disagree with, but my bigger concern here is that you need to allow discussion for these - and I'd strongly recommend discussing ALL similar moves until you get a better feel for Commons consensus on these matters.

Detailed analysis

Category:Norwich Potentially controversial, previous discussion held on move. Requires admin intervention to correctly complete move. Category:Luton, Devon Move to allow dab ok. Needs conversion to dab. Category:Wickham Potentially controversial, move away from primary topic. Dab layout poor. Category:Parton, Cumbria Potentially controversial, move away from primary topic. Category:Worth, West Sussex (parish) Redirect to general dab not OK. See below for comment on INCDAB. Category:Worth Incorrect target for move (use parentheses not comma for location in Europe) Category:Moorhouse, Cumbria Potentially controversial, move away from primary topic. Needs conversion to dab. Category:Marston, Staffordshire. Potentially controversial, move away from primary topic. Needs conversion to dab. Incorrect target, Marston is a CP in own right. Category:Oulton, Staffordshire. Potentially controversial, move away from primary topic. Needs conversion to dab. Category:Luccombe Potentially controversial, move away from primary topic. Category:Bournes Green OK Category:Gosforth Potentially controversial, move away from primary topic. Category:Worth, West Sussex Redirect to general dab not OK. See below for comment on INCDAB. Category:Whitchurch, Devon Potentially controversial, content split so needs discussion on best solution. Category:Holywell Potentially controversial, move away from primary topic. Dab layout poor. Category:Killerby, North Yorkshire Needs conversion to dab. Category:Wendy OK Category:Northcott, Devon Potentially controversial, move away from primary topic. Needs conversion to dab. Category:Bow, Devon Potentially controversial, move away from primary topic. Needs conversion to dab. Category:Slattocks, Greater Manchester OK Category:Aston, Derbyshire Move to allow dab ok. Needs conversion to dab. Category:Aston, Shropshire Move to allow dab ok. Needs conversion to dab. Category:Whiteside, Northumberland Needs conversion to dab. Should be deleted - all 3 Whitesides are below village/hamlet and none have media Category:Christchurch Potentially controversial, move away from primary topic. Dab layout poor. Category:Farnham Potentially controversial, move away from primary topic. Dab layout poor. Category:Whitchurch, Somerset Potentially controverisal move of primary topic Category:Stowbridge, Norfolk OK Category:Otley Potentially controverisal move of primary topic. Category:Bradford on Tone Potentially controversial, only use hyphens if used in COMMON name. WP article name suggests no hyphens. Category:Bradford on Avon Potentially controversial, only use hyphens if used in COMMON name. WP article name suggests no hyphens. Category:Bradford, Northumberland. Move to allow dab ok, redirect to general dab not OK. See below for comment on INCDAB. Category:Preston Tower Potentially controversial, as primary topic on WP. Category:Preston, Prestonpans, East Lothian OK Category:Preston, East Linton, East Lothian OK Category:Appleby Library Move to allow dab ok. Needs conversion to dab. Category:Stoneferry, Kingston upon Hull OK Category:Southcoates, Kingston upon Hull OK Category:East Ella, Kingston upon Hull OK Category:Derringham Bank, Kingston upon Hull OK Category:Dairycoates, Kingston upon Hull OK Category:Willian Potentially controversial, move away from primary topic (the footballer). Category:Stoke, St Mary Bourne, Hampshire OK Category:Stoke, North Hayling, Hampshire Potentially controversial, location on island best disambiguated by island Category:Stoke, Devon Redirect to general dab not OK. See below for comment on INCDAB. Category:Longford, Newport OK Category:Mercury Potentially controversial move, major subjects. Category:Petersham, Surrey OK Category:Strawberry Hill, Middlesex OK Category:Hanworth, Middlesex OK Category:Hampton Court, Middlesex OK Category:Purley, Surrey OK Category:Pentrich, Derbyshire OK Category:Linley, Shropshire Potentially controverisal, is the one in More anything more than a single house? Conversion to dab not done. Category:Harrowden, Bedfordshire Potentially controversial, risk of confusion with Great Harrowden Category:Cuddington Heath, Cheshire OK Category:Allenwood Move to allow dab ok. Dab incomplete - if US prison is attracting images, it should be included! Category:Wylye, Wiltshire Potentially controversial, discussion to determine best way to dab or if needed. Category:Upper Battlefield, Shropshire OK Category:Thorndon Wellington OK Category:South Bank, North Yorkshire. Move to allow dab ok. Needs conversion to dab. Target poor, should be South Bank, Middlesbrough. Category:Sandtoft airfield OK Category:Sandtoft, Lincolnshire OK Category:Oldfield, West Yorkshire Move to allow dab ok. Needs conversion to dab. Category:Mundham, South Norfolk Potentially controversial, risk of confusion with North Mundham. Category:Minety, Wiltshire OK Category:Somersham Potentially controverisal move of primary topic (village in Cambs). Category:Carlisle, Cumbria Potentially controversial move to primary topic. Reverse of your normal pattern - can't see why. Dab layout poor. Category:Bolton Potentially controversial, move away from primary topic. Category:Settle Potentially controversial (Verb is irrelevant as not something with graphics) Category:Nancy Potentially controverisal move of primary topic. Category:Bury (Belgium) Incorrect move, continental locations use parenthetical not comma disambiguation Category:Bury Potentially controversial, move away from primary topic. Dab layout poor. Category:Octon Move to allow dab ok. Category:Stoke Park Move to allow dab ok. Target poor, should be Stoke Park, Ipswich. Category:Whitehouse Move to allow dab ok. Dab layout poor. Target poor, should be Whitehouse, Ipswich. Category:Westgate Move to allow dab ok. Dab layout poor. Category:Sprites Potentially controversial, major subjects. Category:St. Margaret's Move to allow dab ok. Needs conversion to dab. Category:St John's, Suffolk Move ok, but double redirect issue. Needs conversion to dab. Category:St John's: Move to allow dab ok. Dab layout poor. Dab incomplete (no St. John's, Antigua and Barbuda?). Target ok. Double redirect issues Category:Alexandra: Move to allow dab ok. Dab layout poor. Target poor, should be Alexandra, Ipswich. Category:Broad Street: Move to allow dab ok. Dab layout poor. Target incorrect, should be Broad Street, Groton, Suffolk - as Groton is too ambiguous.

Further analysis:

1. When you move to a base-name and remove uncessarry disambiguation you are mostly fine. I know you check for minor places, but also consider both places outside the UK and if places may be contracted and clash as a result. For instance, Stow-on-the-Wold is often just "Stow", so clashes with the others that are just Stow.
2. When moving from a base name (or a broad disambiguation like the county) to disambiguate, consider primary topic. If a case can be made that the existing term is a primary topic it should be discussed. Please, do not make that assessment entirely by yourself - it is quite likely others will disagree with you - as I have with Gosforth. As a litmus test, compare to Plymouth. If the relative difference between the "primary" and the rest is greater start a discussion. The following are indicators of a potential primary topic:
   1. If the potential primary topic is clearly larger (eg it has a population >5x any other town). We would not disambiguate a big city because of a village, nor should we a small village with its own CP because of a farm - which is little more than a single property.
   2. If the potential primary topic has clearly greater significance. A capital city is likely to rate above a village, even if the village is bigger!
   3. If the current use is the primary topic on WP
3. Do not move high-profile subjects without discussion (eg Mercury). While that move is likely fine, its better to get a consensus first.
4. If you do move to disambiguate ensure you convert the original page to a dab.
5. If moving from a partial dab do NOT redirect the original to the broader dab. eg Category:Stoke, Devon should be a dab listing the two in Devon, not a redirect to the massive list at Category:Stoke. No WP guidance directly applies to Commons, and that set-up works badly with Commons tools like HotCat. For instance, if I have an image of a Stoke in Devon, and try to categorise it with HotCat, I may try to add Stoke, Devon. HotCat will detect the redirect, then offer me all the options at Stoke - not helpful. If there wasn't a redirect I'd just have the two options in Devon - much better.
6. When disambiguating consider the impact of alternate spellings: St John's/St. John's, Holywell/Holy Well and so on
7. Try to lay out dab pages sensibly. Major subjects should be listed first, and a long list should be grouped. eg Category:Stoke should list the Stokes by country, and also by county.
8. Please fix any double redirects, they are a bad thing.

I count a total of 33 potentially controversial of 82 moves, these fail at least one of the indicators I list above - 40% of your total moves. As for just those where you move to allow disambiguation, it is more like an 80% concern rate. It does not mean that the move is incorrect or I disagree, but that they should have been discussed.

As for the ones I do disagree with, like Gosforth, I have reverted some of them. Please discuss them at the appropriate venue if you still want to move them.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

1. uncessarry disambiguation, I check Geograph search, Wikipedia and Google. Obviously this won't necessarily show minor places outside the UK. Indeed where there is just an extension of the name (such as Stow-on-the-Wold) it is generally ambiguous although the less important it is the more likely we expect people to call it by the full name (for example Newcastle upon Tyne is almost never referred to as such), Kingston upon Hull is similar. However topics that are not reasonably referred to by a single name generally don't need to be considered (unless possibly there are so many) no one could reasonably expect to find "Myra Kemble" by entering just "Kemble" or "Great Glemham" with just "Glemham" see w:WP:PRECISION.
2. Although this is maybe good advice for undiscussed moves, remember in terms of what people are likely to search for or upload, the difference in terms of Wikipedia guideline is "highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined". Primary topics aren't really relevant for (many) disambiguation terms, (Newport is an exception as no suitable title could be found), if the county for example is maybe the primary target then it maybe should just be left to point to it (instead of converting it to a DAB, which you pointed out I hadn't done).

   Agreed we should have some primary topics but they should be higher than Wikipedia (eg if at least 80% the others combined is required, here it might be at least 95%)

   Agreed it shouldn't be only about population, which is what I advocated a lot on Wikipedia. Indeed look at Hamilton, Bermuda (1010) and Hamilton, Ontario (536,917)

   Remember Wikipedia can get is wrong you pointed out before "Overly precise category names (Leigham, Plymouth is an example) are 100% harmless, but moving an ambiguous subject to the base-name can be harmful" and "if a basepage is a dab on Wikipedia, it should be a dab on Commons" and "Commons too. Commons should have more dabs (because of the higher primary bar) not less" try to consider what the page should be (according to our policies, consensus and common sense), not what it is (although there might be a good reason why the page has the current title). Remember many users might not be aware of out titling guidelines. Ask yourself if the page already had that title and the opposite move was being made (although I do agree that debating borderline cases is unhelpful), should it be done Please read w:User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle. If the category "Gosforth" was already called "Gosforth, Tyne and Wear" would you have suggested that it needs to be moved to Gosforth?

3. A place like Commons:Category disambiguation might be a good place (I was thinking about setting up a guideline one day but because of the recent discussions I will do sooner.
4. Unless it is possibly the primary target per your recommendation.
5. Will do do.
6. Yes, I missed them because they didn't show up in Special:PrefixIndex.
7. Is Category:Farnham a good way of doing this. I try to avoid worrying too much about it per w:WP:KISS although I agree many longer ones could do with this.
8. Will do. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

(I've re-inserted numbers for clarity)

1, 4, 5, 6, 8. No reply needed

2. One consistent theme I've tried to apply is "if it isn't broken, don't fix it". To focus on Plymouth, the main reasons I object to the move are that it breaks incoming links, and would require hundreds if not thousands of sub-category moves. Distaste for double disambiguation (Royal Parade, Plymouth, Devon = yuck; but how can we know its the only Royal Parade in a Plymouth?) is a minor factor too. Primary topic is a much more minor factor, I think Plymouth should fail on that thing alone.

To be honest I'd just leave all categories alone (I wouldn't move Plymouth to Plymouth, Devon, nor Plymouth, Devon to Plymouth), unless there the status quo is causing significant harm. That's because unlike standard redirects, category redirects suck - they force users to click through, instead of taking them directly to the final content. That means they should only be used if they absolutely HAVE to be. If a category is attracting dozens of bad uploads a day from a broad mix of users, I'd be much more inclined to move it than one that only attracts a few a month, mostly from a single dumb bot. That's not primary topic, but something else entirely.

I also suspect that all the most important primary topics are already at the right location, so separate guidance isn't needed. While I strongly believe the existence of primary topic should be acknowledged on Commons, I genuinely do not know how to consistently apply the principle, because of two major factors:

a. Wikipedia's primary topic guidance is about helping those who use Wikipedia's internal search. The vast majority of Wikipedia's readers use internal wikilinks, external search engines (like Google) or links from external websites. None of those groups care what the location of the article is (it could be w:Plymouth or w:Plymouth, Devon, United Kingdom (city)), as long as the link they follow gets them there. Its only internal search users who benefit from primary topics. On Commons the internal search is thoroughly useless, as galleries take priority over categories. For instance, Plymouth, Montserrat is a significant topic called Plymouth, but is #142 in a search. That makes me think that WP's primary topic guidance aims to support a group that doesn't exist on Commons.

b. Wikipedia's metrics are specific to Wikipedia. Things like pageviews or number of internal links are inappropriate to Commons. WP's pageviews are irrelevant and Commons are typically too low to meaningfully analyse. "Number of images uploaded" may be more suitable, but how would you count them? I don't know.

Most traffic on category pages probably comes from individual files in those categories, those users don't care about the category names at all. Internal search users are non-existent, so the priority should be to protect external link providers. Hatnotes or dabs are particularly bad for that sub-set of users (they know what they want, they followed a link they thought would get there, and now have to search a list to find it again?).

3. A guideline is worthwhile, another centralised discussion point would make matters worse not better. In the case of Mercury, a CFD would be correct starting point. If that didn't attract any interest a notification to the VP would be the next step. Cross-wiki notifications are less helpful, as that would be bordering on spam (Mercury, the planet, the element, or the god, all matter to all languages).

7. Farnham is a reasonable starting point, but try to minimise the use of text as that translates poorly, the category page by itself should be sufficient. I wouldn't list the railway station, because that's a can of worms - why not any building/location in the town called "Farmham X"? Category:Stoke is better now, but avoid lumping rest of the world as "other". This is an international project not an English national one :)--Nilfanion (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe this one is a borderline case in which leaving it as it would be a good call (something like if 50% being the reasons for renaming are equal to staying as is and 100% being definite move and 0% being definitely not then I would suggest a 60/40% bias for maintaining the status quo. I wouldn't consider bot miss categorization as much as human as bots can sometimes even categorize part title matches.

I'd still suggest that page views and internal links etc are probably useful here as well. Where there is no gallery people searching for Gosforth is still useful.

Noted above.

I would think people would still be able to work out that Farnham, Surrey is most common without a translator. I included the railway station as it is formally called "Farnham" even though it is titled "Farnham railway station" as "railway station" isn't part of the name but is its common name just like ", Massachusetts" isn't part of the name of Cambridge, Massachusetts but is its common name but needs to be included on DAB pages. I don't particularly want to have the rest of the world as "other" but that seemed to have to be the case as there weren't many other meanings outside England. I was trying to rely on ambiguity by how I listed them. I listed the primary topic first followed by full title matches, followed by extensions of the name like Stoke-by-Nayland, followed by Part title matches (like Stoke Rochford). I'll break ambiguity down. Level 1, topics that are officially or commonly called by that name for example the hamlet in Bedfordshire is a full match for "Harrowden". The country is a full match for "Turkey" (even if Republic of Turkey is used in legislation) and the city in NC is a full match for "Raleigh" (even though it would still have that title in a world where there were no other topics)[1]. Level 2, topics that are considered partly ambiguous with the title but anyone who knows a bit about them would know the "full" name for example "Stow-on-the-Wold" for "Stow" or "Albert Einstein" for "Einstein". Level 3, specific part title matches such as "Great Harrowden" for "Harrowden" or "Van Cliburn" for "Cliburn", see this post for example. They can be included on DAB pages though and be redirect if only 1 PTM exists In the case of Kemble the surname holders are only on the DAB because there is no surname article, if there was one, they wouldn't be on the DAB. Level 4, generic PTMs such as "Great Harrowden" for "Great" which generally aren't even included on DABs. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

OK @Nilfanion: , I'd like to discuss Bury, Gosforth, Linley, Shropshire and Willian. I would still have suggested the talk page would be the best place as CFD probably won't get much input for those categories, maybe notifying Wikipedia would be a good idea which you're welcome to do. If you think Bury and Bolton shouldn't have been moved mainly because of the problem with the district then you could just move them yourself to Category:Bury, Greater Manchester (town) and Category:Bolton, Greater Manchester (town) like Category:Windermere, Cumbria (town) however for the ones that we decide not to move, the DAB page will need to be undeleted, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

If you want to start those discussions, please start them at the appropriate place, with your rationale. I'm not going to start the move discussions, because (1) I disagree with them and (2) with that in mind, me doing so is following pointless procedure for the sake of it. Ideally include a link to past discussion, but its not a big deal really. For instance, Gosforth is buried in a sea of text here and no-one else would be able to find the important points (such as why should a town of 23,000 be treated as equivalent to a village of 1,400? Once done, I may notify any WP pages that might help to garner outside interest.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I have now tagged Gosforth and Bury for moving. @Nilfanion: do you still think that Willian is a problem keeping in mind you wrote before "even if the WP case is wrong (within primary topic guidance), that's enough to justify a dab on Commons" as w:Willian is a DAB but before hosted an article on the village as did here! and w:Linley, Shropshire is about Linley, More not Linley, Barrow even though the images is of Linley, Barrow you wrote "a minor village should never be "primary" if there is any ambiguity". Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

My main problem with your actions is you skipping the "allow discussion" step, as I have said repeatedly, BRD isn't appropriate for category moves. I think Willian should be discussed, my opinion is the footballer possibly should be at another location and I'm not sure what that is. Its unsurprising that the village was at the base name on WP - the footballer only becomes really noteworthy in 2014 when he became a regular for Brazil. Before that, the village would likely win (in English). With Linley, my biggest concern now is are there ANY settlements of that name in Shropshire? As far as I can tell, neither one is actually a hamlet - they are both former country estates.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I have now done Willian but it can also be noted that the change to being the footabller also wasn't discussed and there's more of a problem with replacing a category with an unrelated topic than disambiguating it. Yes Nilfanion there are settlements with that name, see w:List of United Kingdom locations: Lf-Litm, here and here, Linley, Barrow was a CP and More was a township. The question is why did you revert my move when w:Linley, Shropshire is about More? Recently however you have now started to clarify why you objected to certain moves after you objected to the opposite above, which until you explained was confusing. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)