Jump to content

Talk:Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed Merge

[edit]

I propose that the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty in England and Wales and the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty in Northern Ireland pages are merged into one article. Currently the AONB England and Wales page is a near duplicate of the AONB page and the AONB Northern Ireland page is just a list. The pages could be more effectively managed if they are combined into one but split into sections for Introduction, England & Wales and Northern Ireland. This would have the benefit of reducing duplication of effort in maintaing two near-mirror copies of the same page and a separate list page, and also making the article more accessible to readers. I noticed that a previous merge attempt in 2005 was reverted a few months later without discussion, so I would like to hear what other people have to say about this proposal before taking action. Thanks. Road Wizard 20:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, the pages do not appear to have been formally merged previously, just that the AONB page was redirected to the AONB England and Wales page. Road Wizard 21:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is now complete thanks to Karium. -- Blisco 17:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

___

Seems a good idea to me but I'm just a newby encylopaedist.

  • Could you note the threat to AONB noted in The Guardian:

Society Section: Environment: Zones of contention: "Fifty years after the first area of outstanding natural beauty was created, is it time for a rethink as questions arise over maintenance, planning protection and local people being priced out?" The Guardian ( London ); May 3, 2006 ; James Meikle; p. 9

Vernon White 16:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full article can be found here. I don't think it's sufficiently notable to be included in this article (the Guardian piece is more of a comment article) but it might be a starting point (with additional sources) for mentioning specific threats to the AONBs mentioned in their appropriate articles, ie. Gower, Sussex Downs, Dedham Vale, Kend Downs and Dorset. -- Blisco 17:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted "AONB" from names in list

[edit]

I've removed the appendage "AONB" from all the names in the list of AONBs, as it seemed somewhat redundant -- I hope no one objects. A large number of these were either redirects or piped links, so "North Pennines AONB" redirected to North Pennines and "Gower AONB" was piped to Gower Peninsula. In addition, there was already an article about Dedham Vale which appeared when I amended the redlink Dedham Vale AONB.

The remaining articles with redundant "AONB" in their titles probably ought to be moved if there is no need to disambiguate -- these being Arnside and Silverdale AONB (for which there is a redirect in place from Arnside and Silverdale), Surrey Hills AONB, Lecale Coast AONB and Ring of Gullion AONB.

I left piped links to "... AONB" in place in cases where the AONB is not coterminous with the area after which it is named (or in cases where I wasn't sure), even if the link is currently a redirect -- Anglesey being the best example -- to avoid problems if an article on the AONB is subsequently created.

Hope that all makes some kind of sense! --Blisco 18:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted list of AONBs in article

[edit]

I have reverted an edit which added a list of AONBs to the body of the article. This was a good faith edit but this information is at the end of the article in the navboxes. However I do think that the boxes should be expanded by default - anyone know how to do this? --NHSavage (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorted - by editing the templates themselves I was able to allow the article to override the default autocollapse status.--NHSavage (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation

[edit]

I do not understand why the title is being changed in so many articles. Natural England, the official body for the AONB designation uses capital letters. See AONB page at Natural England website. --TimTay (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natural England is wrong. Mooretwin (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The front page of Mendip Hills AONB website uses capitals. Ditto Cotswolds AONB, Wye Valley AONB, North Devon and Tamar Valley. I can list every single one if necessary. AONB is a formal title it is not a description and capitals should be used on Wikipedia just as they are used by Natural England and every individual AONB publication. --TimTay (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not all areas of outstanding natural beauty (as most would see them) are necessarily designated as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). However, where they are not designated AONB, it is confusing to most readers to use that phrase. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was to not move the article. While its clear the original legislation did not capitalize the term, its also clear the ongoing, and common usage adopted capitalization. In this case, verifiability trumps any claims of "truth". Rockpocket 18:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Just because something is an acronym (therefore using capital letters) doesn't mean that the phrase itself must be capitalised. The legislation which governs this designation does not use capitals: Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000037_en_8#pt4 - see section 82: ... the Agency may, for the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area, by order designate the area for the purposes of this Part as an area of outstanding natural beauty ... In this Part “area of outstanding natural beauty” means an area designated under this section as an area of outstanding natural beauty. Mooretwin (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: seems like a good move. Rockpocket 02:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An oft-repeated mistake is no less a mistake. Mooretwin (talk) 09:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it becomes specific when applied to a particular AONB, e.g. Shropshire Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, but this article is about areas of outstanding beauty generally. Mooretwin (talk) 09:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant a specific type of area. ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 09:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And this article is about those "specific types of area" generally - not about the specific areas. The term does not have capitals! Read the legislation which created the term! Seriously. Mooretwin (talk) 09:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article is not about "areas of outstanding beauty generally" (how would one define them?) but about those areas designated as AONB in the UK, which requires capitalisation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very clever, but I'll rephrase: it's about UK-designated areas of outstanding beauty generally. It doesn't require capitalisation - look at the statute which created the designation!
Yes it does. Not all those areas which someone might consider "of outstanding beauty" are officially designated as AONB, but this article only covers those which are. Please note this example: "The correct title of 'Shropshire Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty' should be used. The words have capital letters as it is an official designation." Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know what the article covers, and the designation "area of outstanding natural beauty" isn't capitalised. PLEASE look at the originating statute! The Shropshire Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is a specific place and is therefore correctly capitalised, i.e. The Shropshire Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is an area of outstanding natural beauty. Do you argue that the term "civil partner" should be written as "Civil Partner" because it has a legal status? Mooretwin (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as the nom your !vote of support is already assumed. Please strike this from the !vote sheet. ColdmachineTalk 09:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if most sources are wrong? Mooretwin (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The convention is to use the most common form of the name, regardless of whether or not it is "technically" correct. For example you should use Bill Clinton rather than William Jefferson Clinton as the former is by far the more used term, even though the latter may be used on his birth certificate. :o) ColourSarge (talk) 12:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Names, whether full or shortened, are always in capitals. Bad example. Mooretwin (talk) 12:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you are misunderstanding the point I am making. The capitalised version is correct because it is the most common name, in the same way that Bill Clinton is the most common version of that individual's name. That is the basis of my oppose vote. :o) ColourSarge (talk) 12:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, as long as a mistake is common, then it should be replicated in an encyclopaedia. Mooretwin (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, and the correct form of the term is verifiable. See my sources above. Mooretwin (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you've already accepted above that "most sources" use initial capitals. Case dismissed, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that WP:COMMONNAME deals only with the actual name, and not whether it ought to be capitalised. No-one disputes the actual name here. Mooretwin (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mooretwin I think I have made my position clear, and my oppose vote stands for the reasons stated. If you wish to discuss further with me then please contact me via my talk page. :o) ColourSarge (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - [MOSCAPS] might be helpful: Titles such as president, king, or emperor start with a capital letter when used as a title (followed by a name): "President Nixon", not "president Nixon". When used generically, they should be in lower case: "De Gaulle was the French president." ... Similarly, "Louis XVI was the French king" but "Louis XVI was King of France", King of France being a title in that context. Therefore, "Shropshire Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is in England", but "Shropshire Hills is designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty". Mooretwin (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - [MOSCAPS again]: When showing the source of an acronym, initialism, or syllabic abbreviation, emphasizing the letters that make up the acronym is undesirable: Incorrect: FOREX (FOReign EXchange), Incorrect: FOREX (foreign exchange), Correct: FOREX (foreign exchange) Therefore, Incorrect: AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty), Correct: AONB (area of outstanding natural beauty). Mooretwin (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The government agencies responsible for the sites use the initial letter in upper case, and even the National Association for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty uses the initial letter in upper case. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Talk:Site of Special Scientific Interest:

Comment Do we have a hint of where this problem originates? Mooretwin said that "no legislation ever uses capitals". I wasn't aware of this, but as far as I can find out it does seem to be the case: for example, this source says "British laws don’t use initial capitals for defined terms". If it is true (for whatever reason), it would explain why SSSI, AONB and the rest do seem to be written with lower case initials in legislation.

However, if legal writing uses a particular style, it does not make that style "correct" and all contrary usage "incorrect" – for example, legal writing generally avoids commas, but those are by no means incorrect in other writing. Mooretwin, I think you have misunderstood the significance of the lack of caps in the legislation: all you are doing is trying to impose a particular legal idiosyncracy onto general writing, where it does not belong. Actual usage in general writing is the guide for use here, and that usage is very clearly almost always with cap initials. (That would apply even if the phrase originated in the legislation, which as I've pointed out above, it does not.) It's surely clear enough by now that the whole proposal is an unfruitful one, for SSSIs as for the other examples mentioned. I suggest you retire gracefully at this point. Richard New Forest (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that "no legislation ever uses capitals"! The point being made is that none of the legislation govening AONBs uses it. Legislation generally often uses capitals. Mooretwin (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually you did say exactly that: "The legislation establishes and then regulates the designation, and no legislation ever uses capitals" (this diff). Or are you claiming that someone else has been using your ID? Richard New Forest (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing editor: There appears to be a violation of WP:CANVASS on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Capitals, since the section was started by Mooretwin after the various RMs were proposed by him, and the message is phrased using non-neutral wording and phrasing. I ask Mooretwin to either remove the message or edit it to make it neutral (such as the various messages are that I posted to a variety of projects which the articles would be relevant to by virtue of dealing with UK geographical topics, and/or which have project templates on the corresponding talk pages.)  DDStretch  (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: the caps indicate that it's not just any old area of outstanding natural beauty, but a site which has an official government label. The caps are useful and appropriate. See usage at http://www.aonb.org.uk/. First 4 pages of Ghits produce 3 items using lower case, 1 of which is the WP article from a brief point in time when it had been edited to use lower case, since reverted. PamD (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


So it's more than 72 hours since the move was requested (just before 01:00GMT on 12/12) and we have had a lot of comment. The guidance is to wait a "few days" for consensus. Do we now have consensus that the move should not be allowed? --TimTay (talk) 08:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

wheres the list of them?

[edit]

i expected to see a listing of the different areas. where is it? 78.146.240.209 (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a link to them at the bottom of the article. ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 16:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move again

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty → Area of outstanding natural beauty – The claims that this is an official proper name are totally bogus. All the related official laws and documents use lower case; of course a specific area "X Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty" can make the words part of a name, but the official designation is clearly lower case in the law that defines it and in lots of other sources. The 2008 RM seems to have been closed on the basis the many sources capitalize it, without regard for WP's MOS:CAPS, which says we only capitalize for proper names, not for the variety of other reasons that others use. Dicklyon (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See this law (Part IV, sections 90 and thereabouts, or search the full PDF). Dicklyon (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Per all the points made in the previous discussion. Current Government style in relation to AONBs generally is set out, for example, here, para. 167 - "...protecting landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty...." Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But as I mentioned, all of those supporting capitalization before failed to address WP's MOS guidelines on capitalization. Are you saying we should redefine WP style to follow the style of a 2011 draft planning document now? If you look more broadly, you do find many capitalized usage, as well as many lower case, as well as some that only capitalize "Area" (as in "Cotswold Area of outstanding natural beauty") and many that only lower case area (area of Outstanding Natural Beauty). We can't hope to follow all these styles, so why not follow our own? Dicklyon (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever I may think about the MOS, the term AONB, used within the UK, is a proper noun. The claim that "All the related official laws and documents use lower case", is, to use your terminology, "totally bogus". Laws may do, per their normal style, but government departments, other official bodies and general usage support the use of capitals. I'm sure that all countries have their own areas of outstanding natural beauty, but only England, Wales and N Ireland have Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and it is those that this article is about. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—that's right: under that law, it's an area of natural beauty. Looks awkward and unprofessional to litter it with eye-poking caps, needlessly. "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalisation", the guideline says. Tony (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bogus? You are mistaken (see how easy it is to AGF?) in your assertion that the Countryside Council of Wales “has it only in a heading, so not relevant”. Basic research of the search facility on their website shows your assumption to be false e.g. here, here and here. Please substantiate your claim that Scottish Heritage use the phrase in lower case. Please explain why you think that bodies, such as the National Trust, are promoting upper case use of AONB and why their use should be discounted if they are. Hundreds of examples exist showing upper case use of the phrase. I chose official bodies as examples because they should know what they are talking about. Nevertheless: the BBC “Opponents say the complex would ruin the landscape in what is an official Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.”; Financial Times “As well as more castles than anywhere else in England, the region has two designated Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty … “; Daily Telegraph “The Draft National Planning Policy Framework, unveiled in July by the Department for Communities and Local Government, safeguards the status of National Parks, Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.”; The Guardian “Bristol airport is situated in the Green Belt of rural North Somerset close to the Mendip Hills an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty" and scholarly book after book after book. Daicaregos (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – I cannot see any benefit in moving to a non-cap version, when the capped version is so very commonly used, by so many authoritative sources. The several less frequent variants thereof serve to contrast with how widely this term is used in its fully-capped form. The assertion that the most authoritative source of all (the Act) dissents from this use may be true. Even if it is, usage in the Act is not of sufficient weight to justify overturning all the other sources, which whilst individually less notable - and in some cases, such as formal use by Natural England, only very slightly so - are far more numerous. It seems to me that the OP is using this specific renaming process to make the more general point that use of written language and in this case specifically capitalisation should always be modified in order to fit exactly with the letter of the law. That's a defensible stance, and an interesting proposition. But I don't think it's one that should be debated here in this way. Naturenet | Talk 10:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The only argument for the move seems to be a legalistic interpretation of WP:CAPS and similar guidelines. The purpose of the title is to identify its contents; This isn't about just any area of outstanding beauty, but about a particular list. It's for exactly the purpose of making such distinctions that proper nouns are capitalised in English. Perhaps the guidelines do need some tweaking. Andrewa (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Rather surprised this is being raised again: previous arguments against were conclusive. These two statements are the ones which do it: firstly, usage of caps in legislation is not the same as in general usage, and secondly (and sufficiently), general usage is with caps, and on WP we follow general usage. Any contrary view has to explain why both of these are wrong. There are very many similar examples, and indeed some exceptions (such as ancient woodland, which logically ought to be capitalised but rarely is). There is a long history of general usage differing from the relevant legislation – for example, for fifty years (1949 to 2000) the main Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) legislation did not use the phrase "site of special scientific interest" at all, caps or no caps! Even the words used were not consistent: for many years the "I" stood for "Importance". I'm afraid those of us with an excessively pedantic nature sometimes just have to leave things "wrong". Richard New Forest (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Maps

[edit]

I've replaced the old map with a new one. The old map was not very clearly drawn, and is out of date as it showed the South Downs (now a National Park) as an AONB. However, the new map does not show Northern Ireland, and a request to the Graphics Lab for an NI-specific map (or expanding the new England and Wales map) has not so far produced results. I will try again. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Promotional Material

[edit]

I removed the PR puffery added by Handlens, but I've included a wikified version of the link to Landscape scale conservation that he/she wanted. 86.6.26.122 (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful pictures

[edit]

People can see pictures and post to facebook Manma emotion (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New map to include NI?

[edit]

Given that the article deals with AONBs in England, Wales and Northern Ireland it's a shame that the map only covers the first two - might someone with the ability to do so, create a new version of the AONB map or, alternatively a second one for N Ireland alone. thanks Geopersona (talk) 05:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you need to make the request here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ghmyrtle - will do! Geopersona (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what happened to my request - can't seem to find any trace of it - but it could also do with the Clwydian Hills extent being revised as the area was extended south to the Dee valley. cheers Geopersona (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could somebody else request (or make) the revised AONB map as it seems that my request has been lost! thanks Geopersona (talk) 12:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The request was dealt with here, following which the NI AONB map was added to the article. If you want them combined on one map, it seems that the person who did the NI map couldn't do that, so you need to ask again. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GHMyrtle: My thanks to you for that - and indeed to RaviC - I'd been checking the graphics lab pages (though somehow missed that entry) rather than the AONBs page - a combined map would still be preferable I think though useful to have that other. The issue of the England & Wales one being considerably out of date remains a real issue for the article. cheers Geopersona (talk) 12:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And it needs now to take account of the extension of the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB. cheers Geopersona (talk) 05:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re-name discussion

[edit]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#AONBs are no more on AONBs being re-named National Landscape and whether it applies to NI, leading to a potential split if the article is re-named. DankJae 13:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rebrand: update

[edit]

I've put together a table showing which National Landscapes have updated their websites and which are still AONBs. Wales hasn't updated at all, which I know @DankJae is aware of, but England is mostly there – the Chilterns and North Norfolk are the only ones not to use NL branding at all, with the former still being an AONB and the latter using distinct 'protected landscape' branding.

Name NL? Website Notes
England
Arnside and Silverdale Yes arnsidesilverdaleaonb.org.uk/
Blackdown Hills Yes
Cannock Chase Yes cannock-chase.co.uk/ Uses 'AONB' as a subtitle
Chichester Harbour Yes conservancy.co.uk/ Uses 'Chichester Harbour Conservacy' as main brand
Chilterns No chilternsaonb.org/
Cornwall Yes cornwall-landscape.org/
Cotswolds Yes www.cotswolds-nl.org.uk/
Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs Yes cranbornechase.org.uk/
Dedham Vale Yes dedhamvale-nl.org.uk/
Dorset Yes dorset-nl.org.uk/
East Devon Yes eastdevon-nl.org.uk/
Forest of Bowland Yes forestofbowland.com/
High Weald Yes highweald.org/
Howardian Hills Yes howardianhills.org.uk/
Isle of Wight Yes wightaonb.org.uk/
Isles of Scilly Yes islesofscilly-nl.org.uk/ Uses 'AONB' as a subtitle
Kent Downs Yes kentdowns.org.uk/
Lincolnshire Wolds Partial lincswolds.org.uk/ Gives 'AONB' equal weight
Malvern Hills Yes malvernhills-nl.org.uk/
Mendip Hills Yes mendiphills-nl.org.uk/
Nidderdale Partial nidderdaleaonb.org.uk/ They're getting there, bless them
Norfolk Coast No norfolkcoast.org/ Seems to have unique branding as part of a 'protected landscape'
North Devon Coast Yes northdevon-aonb.org.uk/
North Pennines Yes northpennines.org.uk/
Northumberland Coast Yes northumberlandcoast-nl.org.uk/
North Wessex Downs Yes northwessexdowns.org.uk/
Quantock Hills Yes quantockhills.com/
Shropshire Hills Yes shropshirehills-nl.org.uk/
Solway Coast Yes solwaycoastaonb.org.uk
South Devon Yes southdevonaonb.org.uk/
Suffolk Coast and Heaths Yes coastandheaths-nl.org.uk/
Surrey Hills Yes surreyhills.org/
Tamar Valley Yes tamarvalley.org.uk/
Wye Valley Yes wyevalley-nl.org.uk/
Wales
Anglesey No https://www.anglesey.gov.wales/en/Residents/Countryside/Areas-of-Outstanding-Natural-Beauty-AONBs/Anglesey-Area-of-Outstanding-Natural-Beauty-AONB.aspx The AONB does not have a dedicated website
Clwydian Range and Dee Valley No clwydianrangeanddeevalleyaonb.org.uk/
Gower No swansea.gov.uk/aonb?lang=en The AONB does not have a dedicated website
Llŷn No ahne-llyn-aonb.org/Home

I envisage keeping this updated as the rebrand continues. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised Cotswold abandoned their original National Landscape branding as the first one to have it year(s) ago tbh. Per UKGEO discussion, I think there is to be an announcement for Wales' soon hence why none have done it (yet). Still nothing on NI? I assume this would merely be the beginning of building a case for a move, but I think secondary sources would quickly adopt the change, so unless there is a desire to move it all at once, if the website is mostly National Landscape and lets say three news sources about the NL generally (not on the name change), use the new name then WP:NAMECHANGES can apply.
Although we need to consider whether this article is to reform into NL (therefore separating NI), or keep the current status arguing AONB is the legal term. But still early stages. DankJae 21:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of secondary sources they're still catching up – the BBC is still using both terms, for example (AONB, National Landscape). I'd say we still need to wait a while, but it looks like the new name will be widely adopted in the media.
Keeping one article makes the most sense to me. All National Landscapes are designated AONBs, after all, so functionally speaking they're the same thing despite the two names. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh my god, Nidderdale, indeed bless them DankJae 12:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A.D.Hope, the first one Dedham Vale has since been moved to Dedham Vale National Landscape by @Mark999. DankJae 16:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm still a bit hesitant. Without doing a full check, 'AONB' still seems quite popular. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@A.D.Hope, Mark999 did them all anyway. DankJae 16:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Maybe we need to direct them toward this discussion? A.D.Hope (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tbh, it would've happened anyway, was looking at proposing the Cornish one to move, as I have seen articles use NL. Unless you oppose these greatly. Slightly annoyed our more careful approach was torpedoed, but expected it tbh. We'll see if anyone else has great opposition. DankJae 16:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I doubt Mark999 knew, it's very easy to miss discussions on Wikipedia unless you know where to look.
I don't greatly oppose anything, but I'd prefer we properly considered the change so that we don't jump the gun. The rebrand is still very new, we don't want to unduly surprise readers who are still looking for AONBs. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to quickly give some examples, Reach Plc and the BBC have both used 'AONB' in the past month, but examples of 'National Landscape' are appearing. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry didn't mean to get in the way of a discussion already, the majority do seem to be branded as National Landscapes now, it really depends on source, I think the reason a lot still mention AONB on websites ect is because ultimately they are small organisations that don't have the resources for a full rebrand, for instance it looks like all the new logos were centrally designed. So I think you will find AONB every increasing phased out going forward. I did plan on trying to expand some of the smaller articles too as some are very sparce! Mark999 (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, as I said above it's hard to find discussions sometimes. Now you've moved the articles it's probably not worth moving them back, although whether or not to move this article is a slightly different question. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the rest of Ireland not included?

[edit]

Would be a good topic to address. As a tourist I’d like to know about the full country 185.147.89.117 (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AONBs only apply to Northern Ireland, as well as other parts of the UK. The rest of Ireland doesn’t have AONBs nor part of the United Kingdom. DankJae 08:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland has seven national parks - see too https://www.nationalparks.ie/ Then there are the non-statutory Geoparks of which there are five in the island as a whole, one of which is transnational. Even within the UK, AONBs in Northern Ireland differ slightly from those in England and Wales as they were established under different legislation.Geopersona (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Area_of_Outstanding_Natural_Beauty&oldid=1210470600"