talk:Pembrokeshire#RfC about adopting list-defined references

{{U|Mark J}} - a table of these historical entities probably doesn't add anything to the Pembrokeshire article, in my view, anyway. Perhaps they should be a stand-alone list article? There is an article on each of the seven (not six) hundreds of Pembrokeshire (see List of hundreds of Wales#Pembrokeshire). Also, if it is taking time to compile, perhaps it would be better in your sandbox? Cheers, Tony. Tony Holkham (Talk) 07:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

:{{ping|Mark J}} Hi Mark, I don't understand the purpose of the civil parishes table you are compiling within the context of the Pembrokeshire article, as I don't think it adds to the article, and there won't be a source to cover it, which you need in a Good Article. It's also got disambiguation links in it. Perhaps it's worth discussing here? Thanks, T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

{{od}}

Dear {{U|Tony Holkham|Tony}};
I would agree with you, and would suggest we consider following the procedure for splitting that section out into another, or new, article.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 15:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks, Patrick. Since Mark J doesn't leave edit summaries or engage with comments, it's difficult to see why he would want to put the table in. Given that the article is growing rather large, what would you (and others?) suggest splitting? History, perhaps, since that would leave the article with just a short history, and the rest largely relevant to Pembrokeshire today? Best wishes, Tony. Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

::Dear {{U|Tony Holkham|Tony}};
Thanks for your reply. I was thinking of simply copying the table into List of hundreds of Wales#Pembrokeshire, in replacement of its exiting content for Pembrokeshire. It would make more sense to include the detailed table there, in place of the simple existing bulleted list of seven 'hundreds' (and Mark J, or other editors, could beef up all the other subsections there, so that each county has a similar table). Then, we could add an entry in the See also section in the present article, to point the reader to the then more complete List of hundreds of Wales#Pembrokeshire. I wasn't thinking about applying any other changes to the present article. Hope this helps a bit? Please keep well.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 19:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

:::Thanks, Patrick, for your input. I answered below before I saw your message above. I think the idea of copying the table to List of hundreds is the simply the best (is that Tina Turner?) T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 19:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

::::Dear {{U|Tony Holkham|Tony}};
Thanks for your reply. Although the splitting guideline allows us to be bold and just make the above change ourselves, it would seem collegial to post a message at the talk page of List of hundreds of Wales#Pembrokeshire, to warn its watchers (and also Mark J) of what we'd like to do, since the subsection for Pembrokeshire would end up looking quite different from those of all the other counties; these colleagues would therefore have the opportunity to participate in the discussion, since it is most likely that it will create additional workload there. Just a thought.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 20:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

:::I do also think creating a History of Pembrokeshire is a good idea, eventually. Tony Holkham (Talk) 19:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

::::Dear {{U|Tony Holkham|Tony}};
I would support either keeping History here, or splitting it off.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 20:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• {{ping|Tony Holkham}}, agree with concerns above of the list being out-of-place. Mark J has been adding (unsourced) civil parishes to a few (historic) counties so would it apply to those articles too? (It probably can stay at Denbighshire (historic) though). Having a list of old civil parishes here but not the modern equivalent communities seems a bit odd imo, so the civil parishes are out of place. So makes sense to merge with another article, or a localised split (list of civil parishes in Pembrokeshire?), a wider article split (History of Pembrokeshire?) or split and merge as (List of) civil parishes in Wales? (kinda prefer a Wales-wide list or the localised one as we're specifically discussing the civil parishes). Regards. DankJae 17:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• :Yes, I saw it added to Carmarthenshire and Ceredigion. There are two ways I could see it being kept: 1. Add to List of hundreds of Wales under each county (as civil parishes were based on hundreds), or 2. create a History of Pembrokeshire abd put it in there. I don't think creating a list of civil parishes in Pembrokeshire is going to be very visible. Just thinking aloud. Tony Holkham (Talk) 19:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• Civil parishes should generally have articles. However those that share a name with a settlement should generally be covered in the settlement and those that share a name with a community should probably also be covered in the community. A possible exception is urban parishes that aren't named after settlements, see User:Crouch, Swale/Former civil parishes. A list of parishes in each principal area may make sense but may not be helpful due the differences in boundaries with the counties that existed with the boundaries at the time parishes functioned compared to the current principal areas. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• :Most civil parishes in Pembrokeshire are (I think!) well-covered under the appropriate village or community, as I have been checking with GENUKI as I have been going though Pembrokeshire articles. It would probably be a nightmare trying to check all ancient ecclesiastical parishes against civil parishes and against communities. Tony Holkham (Talk) 19:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• By the way, there is a list of communities in Pembrokeshire, in a collapsed template at the foot of the article. Tony Holkham (Talk) 19:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

::Dear {{U|Tony Holkham|Tony}};
Good point! Well, in that case, and as an alternative to the idea of splitting the subject table of Civil parishes into List of hundreds of Wales#Pembrokeshire, we could create a similar collapsed template for its content, which seems an even better solution, since it wouldn't impact the List article. Also, we could do so straightaway. Just another thought.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 20:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

:::I don't think I know how to do it... can you guide me through it? T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

::::Dear {{U|Tony Holkham|Tony}};
I’d be happy to do it, and have some time tomorrow afternoon.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 21:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• I have looked more closely at the table.
• There is hardly any context for its contents
• Some parishes were only ever ecclesiastical, and never civil parishes
• Some places are not linked to an article
• Some are incorrectly linked or incorrectly spelled
• There is no source.
• So I propose deleting it until its purpose is made clear (or not). {{done}}

Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

:I have put comments on Talk:Ceredigion and Talk:Carmarthenshire to ask whether the civil parishes tables should be moved to List of hundreds of Wales. Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

::Dear {{U|Tony Holkham|Tony}};
In parallel with your excellent work immediately above, I have begun to draft this template, which is currently an identical replica of the content of the subject wikitable, i.e. still with all the defects you documented above. Since I have come across a small glitch, I have posted a request for help from our colleagues manning the Help desk, and when the glitch is fixed, we can discuss what to do with this draft template, which can of course include deleting it also. I'll keep you posted on my progress. Thank you for taking on the trickier task of sounding out our colleagues, as you have done above. More later, no doubt. Until then, please keep well.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 16:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

:::Thanks, Patrick. Look forward to that. Best wishes, T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

:::The trouble is, I don't know where I would find a list of the pre-1974 civil parishes to compare with the existing ecclesiastical parishes... Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Pdebee|Patrick}} I have found a reference for civil parishes (1909) [https://maps.nls.uk/view/242860851 here], which I have just added to the Governance section of the article. Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I have wondered why this talk page wasn't being archived, too. Tony Holkham (Talk) 18:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks Tony. I hope that I have done it right, or right-ish. Cheers DBaK (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I have created an article History of Pembrokeshire (from a redirect) prior to trimming down the History section in this article, but there is a reference formatting error in that ALL the Pembrokeshire refs have been included in the history article. Do I have to go through and weed out the 200 refs that do not apply to the history section? Or should I have done it a different way maybe by putting the refs inline? Happy to do the work, but not sure which way is simplest. Thanks, T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

{{ping|Pdebee}} - Patrick, you may know? Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

:"There's a well known joke about a tourist in Ireland who asks one of the locals for directions to Dublin. The Irishman replies: "Well sir, if I were you, I wouldn't start from here"." How very annoying. Sorry, I really don't know. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

::Thanks, Martin (I think). I first heard the joke in Wales, funnily enough. The rider, of course, is when the recipient gets cross, and is told "Don't shout at me, I'm not the one that's lost, am I?" T Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

{{od}}

Dear {{U|Tony Holkham|Tony}},
Leave it with me; I'll take a look and report back.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 16:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

:Dear {{U|Tony Holkham|Tony}},
{{Done}}! {{smiley}}
Would you like me to do the same once you've removed the History section from the main article?
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 17:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

::Many thanks Patrick. That was quick. How did you do that???

:::You're most welcome, {{U|Tony Holkham|Tony}}, {{smiley}}
The method I used, is to keep two windows open: one of the latest copy of your article (which listed all the cite errors in red at the bottom of the article), and another window with the same article, opened in edit mode. You then go down, reading the list of cite errors in the first window, then swap to the second window and simply delete the ref tags that were displayed in red in the error list. To make it faster, I tended to memorise 3 or 4 named ref tags each time, before swapping to the other window where I deleted them. QED. (I still deleted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Pembrokeshire&curid=52027843&diff=1251335861&oldid=1251335459 one too many], though! {{wink}})
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 17:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

::On the Pembrokeshire article, no, because I just wanted to trim it bit by bit, as it's worth keeping a summary there for completeness. Does that make sense? Feel free to join in! Tony Holkham (Talk) 17:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

:::OK. I'll let you take the lead on this, but let me know if you need any assistance with handling ref tags.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 17:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

::::Thank you, Patrick, for your kind and speedy help, as always. T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

:::::I've also rather drastically trimmed the section in this article. Feel free to reinsert aspects that you think have been unfairly cut. JASpencer (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I have copied the whole history section to a new article History of Pembrokeshire with a view to trimming the extensive history section in this article. Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

:I see my initial move has been reverted without discussion, so I guess I will abandon the idea of balancing the article in this way. Disappointed. Tony Holkham (Talk) 08:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

::I have just seen this, {{U|Tony Holkham|Tony}}, and feel sorry for this turn of events. Perhaps you could consider appealing the decision, since it was not discussed, as you say, and make the case for why you decided to split off the History section into a separate article? Just a thought.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 09:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

:::Thanks, Patrick, for your words of support. I don't feel up to tackling a dispute at the moment, so I will leave it there. I probably should have trimmed the history section on the same day as making the new article. All the best, T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

::::I've resurrected the article. It looks fine to me, although it did need an introduction, which I've tried to provide. JASpencer (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::@JASpencer - you have worked very hard on this, and I'm delighted to see it. I expect Patrick @Pdebee will be able to help with cite errors that have come up. Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Oh no, not cite errors! I'll try to clean up tomorrow, but not tonight as I have a bed time. JASpencer (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@JASpencer Thank you. Sleep well! Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@JASpencer - I won't interfere while you are making multiple changes, but did you know there are sfn errors raised as a result? I wouldn't have a clue how to fix them, so hope you do! The article uses a different system of citations, set up by @Pdebee. Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Dear {{U|Tony Holkham|Tony}}, {{smiley}}
All fixed. {{Done}}.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 02:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Pdebee - gosh Patrick, you were up half the night. Thank you. I still think the history section is overweight, but that's for another time. All is well here in sunny Sussex (but I do miss Pembrokeshire), and I hope the same with you. Best wishes, T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 08:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Does this need a "History of Pembrokeshire" article? While going through this I was trying to trim the unnecessary text that best fits in other articles, but were some gaps at least in the Norman history so this might be ripe for a "History of..." article. JASpencer (talk) 10:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes @JASpencer, I believe so. I made a start a while ago (see above) and it was immediately reverted without discussion, so I thought I would leave it a while. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::Dear {{U|Tony Holkham|Tony}}, {{smiley}}
Thank you for pinging me about it, as I have been away from home and taking a break from Wikipedia. As always, you're most welcome, of course. Yes, thank you: all is well here in sunny Pembs., and I am glad to know you're also keeping well in sunny Sussex. {{smiley}}
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 11:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:Sorry about that. I usually manage to clear up after myself. JASpencer (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::Dear {{U|JASpencer}}, {{smiley}}
Nice to "meet" you, and thank you for your recent updates. Please don't give it a second thought; the list-defined references method adopted in the present article is somewhat unusual but was arrived at by consensus in May-June 2020, at which time I implemented it and also agreed to keep it in good order. It was no problem at all to adjust your contributions to its formatting requirements.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 11:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

Hello again, {{U|JASpencer}};
Please may I ask that you consider adhering to MOS:CITEVAR by maintaining the citation style that was agreed in May-June 2020? (See earlier message above). Also, the Further reading section should only contain entries for sources not already used as references, per MOS:FURTHER. I will therefore restore the earlier content from before your last two edits.
Thank you for your consideration.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 16:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)