Wikipedia

User:Crouch, Swale/Civil parishes/Splits

< User:Crouch, Swale | Civil parishes

Sometimes if a civil parish shares the same name as a settlement or other feature it gets a separate article to the settlement or feature. The current consensus and general convention is that if a settlement and parish have the same name there should generally be only 1 article for both, for example Dacre, Cumbria deals with both the village and the parish however if the settlement and parish have different names such as Nayland and Nayland-with-Wissington then in general separate articles should exist. If like Scotforth the parish doesn't include any part of the settlement then in general there should be separate articles. With other features such as buildings etc there are generally separate articles unless the feature isn't notable. This is consistent with how most other lower level municipalities are dealt with both here and in their native Wikipedia for example Campora deals with both the settlement and municipality, see Wikipedia:Semi-duplicate.

If the name of the settlement and parish differ but the names are synonymous then the rule about having only 1 article for both normally applies. Examples of this:

If a parish is renamed to a name different to a settlement like Calbourne>Calbourne, Newtown and Porchfield then a split is needed, if a parish is renamed to match a settlement like Ware Rural>Wareside the old parish name should be merged with the new one matching the settlement.

Often it can be seen that the presence of absence of a prefix or suffix or other identifier is an indication of an alternative name for example Leysdown (parish) and Leysdown-on-Sea (village) but in a few cases like Allhallows and Allhallows-on-Sea they might be different places even if they're combined into 1 article so be careful in making sure you describe them correctly, that is to say you don't say "Allhallows-on-Sea" is an alternative name or merely that the parish is "Allhallows".

Cases

edit

Distinction, probably could be merged:

But sometimes they be or have been known by other names or an error has occurred, these may be more controversial:

Different; a distinction should be made (on Wikipedia as well as Commons) as the settlement or other feature isn't in its parish:

Note that Newall with Clifton doesn't include Newall and Beckwithshaw (formerly called "Pannal") didn't include Pannal, Bishop Thornton, Shaw Mills and Warsill doesn't include Warsill which is still a separate parish, Ponsanooth (formerly called "St Gluvias") didn't include St Gluvias and Munstead and Tuesley (formerly called "Busbridge") didn't include Busbridge.

Former CPs

Other places that aren't settlements, may be split depending on how similar they are to the parish, how appropriate it is to cover the parish in them and content available:

and the following are where the settlement has a separate article from the feature but the parish doesn't have an article separate from the settlement:

Those with alternative names:

In the case of Stanford, Northamptonshire it looks like its split from Stanford on Avon but they were different settlements, "Stanford" now deserted, see also User:Crouch, Swale/England#Civil parishes.

Those where large parts of the settlement fall outside the parish, often these don't need to be split since unlike cases where the settlement has been artificially removed from the parish this is usually because of new development and thus the boundaries are likely historical:

Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User:Crouch,_Swale/Civil_parishes/Splits&oldid=1241694523"