Category talk:Common lands in Cumbria
They only contain 1 category each and there are only 7 8 common lands in England, we don't need a county category for each county. If there is evidence that that there are many in a county then I would withdraw but as there only appear to be a total of 7 with just 1 in Cumbria and North Yorkshire, they might as well be redirected to Category:Common lands in England. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment The fact there is only one in an area isn't a big deal - I'm fine with a category having one member if that makes the structure more helpful. These are unusual areas, so that separate categorisation allows for the special treatment involved. What is a big deal is the name. This is (asserted to be) a distinct concept from common land. However two questions:
- Please indicate any evidence of "common lands" being used in legislation etc to refer to land common to multiple civil parishes, as opposed to the normal meaning of common land.
- Secondly - Multiple parcels of common land are referred to as common lands. That alternative meaning is, clearly, much more common, so this is an inherently confusing name.
These two points suggest to me the categories should be renamed to something unambiguous - "Land common to multiple parishes in <county>" is awkward but is both unambiguous and accurate. I would want to see evidence that land common to different parishes is called "common lands", and that when that term is used it does not mean the normal meaning of Common land. In any case, 5 of the 8 of the areas in England are registered common land. The 3 areas that are not registered as common land are Axminster/Kilmington, Broughton Gifford/Melksham Without and Brancepeth/Brandon and Byshottles.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- The main category was kept at Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/12/Category:Common lands in England, if you look on the Ordnance Survey maps and census data they are separate parishes anyway. My argument here was that for common lands there isn't any need for separate cats when there only appear to be a total of 7. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- There's 8 of these things and given their unique status, I have no problem with a distinct category for them (though I am concerned about the name).
- However, they are not civil parishes, but shared between the civil parishes they are common to. To quote Ordnance Survey: "Lands Common to - These are areas where the limits of the parishes concerned have not been determined and the area itself is common to (or belongs to) two or more parishes. In Boundary-Line they are classified as separate parishes..." Classified as separate parishes means they are treated as parish-level units for mapping, but does not mean they are parishes.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree with Nilfanion on this. Perhaps move to Category:Land common to multiple civil parishes in XXX. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Isn't simply having them all in Category:Common lands in England better (noting that there are also some in Wales). Apart from the ones already in Category:Common lands in England, there is alos Lands cmn to the parishes of Brancepeth and Brandon and Byshottles (which has no images) and formally Lands Common To Orton and Crosby Ravensworth, Lands Common To Frodsham and Frodsham Lordship, Lands Common To Witton le Wear and North Bedburn, Lands Common To Badby and Newnham, Lands Common To Potterspury and Yardley Gobion, Lands Common To the Townships of Woodmansey and Thearne, Lands Common To Lowick and Subberthwaite, Intermixed Lands Common To Rothbury and Snitter, Lands Common To Grewelthorpe Kirkby Malzeard and Laverton, Undivided Lands Common To Llaneilian and Llanwenllwyfo, Lands Common To Clarborough and Hayton, Land Common To Begbroke and Yarnton Pixey Mead, Land Common To Begbroke Yarnton and Yarnton Or West Mead Oxney Mead, Land Common To Ely Trinity and Ely St Mary and Moorland Common To the Townships of Hexham (and possibly more), even if we had categories on them would we still need to categorize them by county as well, I think probably not. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- There is no harm to categorising by county - there is no rule against having a category with a single member. However, there are benefits - chiefly that we can correctly describe the status of these unusual areas within each county. Without the common in North Yorks category, its harder to accurately place Fylingdales Moor in the civil parishes in Yorks - its not a civil parish.
- Also note there are NO civil parishes in Wales, nevermind common areas, and the former areas in England are not significant for Commons (we do not locate modern photos in historical units). The only realistic reason Commons would care about those units is if someone uploaded historical maps showing them.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- What benefit is there in having a North Yorkshire category? Lands common to Fylingdales and Hawsker-cum-Stainsacre and the 2 main parish while Common lands in North Yorkshire is in Civil parishes in North Yorkshire and Common lands in England. The only benefit I can think of is that it is categorized under Civil parishes in North Yorkshire. As I said there are only 8 current ones in England and as you pointed out there is probably little point on creating cats for the ones that no longer exist (unless as you pointed out, someone adds something specific like maps of them).
- Maybe they are not civil parishes but instead communities, see here but this says that it (at least was) a civil parish. According to w:Community (Wales) they were abolished in 1974. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- The benefit is it allows the special status of this one area in North Yorkshire to be effectively managed. The harm is in making it harder to find, or incorrectly identifying it. A category with one member is not harmful.
- The real point with Wales is every single square inch of Wales is within a single community - this issue is irrelevant there.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Are you saying mainly for a subcat of civil parishes in North Yorkshire? I agree that does make it easier to manage is just that with such a small scope I didn't think that we are supposed to have cats with just 1 page.
- I agree it is irrelevant to this discussion, I was just listing them as well to give an example of how many there are outside England. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Isn't simply having them all in Category:Common lands in England better (noting that there are also some in Wales). Apart from the ones already in Category:Common lands in England, there is alos Lands cmn to the parishes of Brancepeth and Brandon and Byshottles (which has no images) and formally Lands Common To Orton and Crosby Ravensworth, Lands Common To Frodsham and Frodsham Lordship, Lands Common To Witton le Wear and North Bedburn, Lands Common To Badby and Newnham, Lands Common To Potterspury and Yardley Gobion, Lands Common To the Townships of Woodmansey and Thearne, Lands Common To Lowick and Subberthwaite, Intermixed Lands Common To Rothbury and Snitter, Lands Common To Grewelthorpe Kirkby Malzeard and Laverton, Undivided Lands Common To Llaneilian and Llanwenllwyfo, Lands Common To Clarborough and Hayton, Land Common To Begbroke and Yarnton Pixey Mead, Land Common To Begbroke Yarnton and Yarnton Or West Mead Oxney Mead, Land Common To Ely Trinity and Ely St Mary and Moorland Common To the Townships of Hexham (and possibly more), even if we had categories on them would we still need to categorize them by county as well, I think probably not. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree with Nilfanion on this. Perhaps move to Category:Land common to multiple civil parishes in XXX. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
@Crouch, Swale and Nilfanion: Closed (no consensus to make specific changes) Josh (talk) 09:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)