Template talk:Districts of Southampton
Outside area administered my unitary authority
[edit]What? --Flutefluteflute 08:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Which bit don't you understand? Southampton is governed by a unitary authority; not all of the areas listed are governed by that authority (some are governed by Eastleigh, Test Valley or New Forest district/borough councils). Waggers 12:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Disambiguation
[edit]We seem to use Hampshire as the disambiguation area. Is this really sensible? I find it a bit offputting to say Hampshire. What's wrong with Southampton? It is, after all, a unitary authority outside of Hampshire County and so the only reason for using Hampshire is ceremonial reasons. Should the disambiguation tag not simply be the next largest place in the location hierarchy? AlanFord 17:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- You may wish to start a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography, where we can decide a nationwide policy on disambiguation for unitary authorities. In this particular case though, I don't think there should be much opposition to using Southampton as the disambiguator (is that a real word? It is now!), since it was a county corporate for centuries, IIRC. Certainly, that's the way things are done in Bristol (though that's even more complicated, because of the Avon situation!). Joe D (t) 22:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have no strong preference either way, although a short while ago an editor moved all the "XXX, Southampton" articles to "XXX, Hampshire" in an effort to ensure national consistency. Provided we're consistent, I'm happy. At a push, I'd say "Southampton" makes more sense - after all, if we go with pre-1970s counties we'd have to move Christchurch, Dorset to Christchurch, Hampshire and I can't see that happening without kicking up a great big fuss. Waggers 22:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography. Joe D (t) 22:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC) And then found you'd done the same. Doh! Joe D (t) 23:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Dubious Districts
[edit]I'm rather unsure about New Town, Southampton and Regents Park, Hampshire. I have no idea where Regents Park is, and New Town is not a term I've ever heard used for the area in question. Do these really exist, and if so could the articles be expanded? If not, I'm minded to get rid of these two.
AlanFord 18:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- New Town is sometimes also known as Nicholstown and it's a small area between Bevois Valley and St Mary's - essentially the area around St Mary's Road, including Clovelly Road etc. Arguably it's a subdistrict of St Mary's itself, although I have friends who would disagree with me on that. Regents Park is essentially the posher end of Millbrook, around the Regents Park Hotel. I don't think we have enough information about either locality to merit an article of their own - there are plenty of similar areas (such as Merry Oak and the Moorlands Farm estate in Bitterne) which don't have articles and, frankly, don't need them. Waggers 20:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarifications. I know of Nicholstown but forgot its 'New Town' name, and it's also not where described on the page! (Nowhere near Polygon!) I'm going to clarify this and use the 'Nicholstown' name. Regents Park I'm still highly dubious of, the page has no content and as far as I can see is still pretty much Millbrook. I'm going to propose deletion and see if anybody has any comments. As regards any new district articles, my general thought is, if somebody can write some decent content about it, it's probably worth it. For example, Harefield is not (as far as I know) large enough to justify having an article, but the article itself is good and encyclopedic so is actually worthwhile! AlanFord 22:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've had a bit of a change of mind over the weekend and think Regents Park is suitably distinct from Millbrook to justify an article of its own. (I also think Harefield is notable enough on its own). I've started to expand Regents Park and have removed the PROD tag but feel free to go through AFD if you still think it should be deleted. I won't be offended, I promise! Waggers 08:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- No that's fine by me! So long as it has content to describe it and it adds something, which it does now, and it really is a distinct area, that's worthwhile as an article. I've reinstated it on the template. AlanFord 14:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Cool. PS, you shouldn't really have removed the link from the template unless/until the article itself was deleted! Consider your wrist slapped. :) Waggers 15:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- No that's fine by me! So long as it has content to describe it and it adds something, which it does now, and it really is a distinct area, that's worthwhile as an article. I've reinstated it on the template. AlanFord 14:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've had a bit of a change of mind over the weekend and think Regents Park is suitably distinct from Millbrook to justify an article of its own. (I also think Harefield is notable enough on its own). I've started to expand Regents Park and have removed the PROD tag but feel free to go through AFD if you still think it should be deleted. I won't be offended, I promise! Waggers 08:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarifications. I know of Nicholstown but forgot its 'New Town' name, and it's also not where described on the page! (Nowhere near Polygon!) I'm going to clarify this and use the 'Nicholstown' name. Regents Park I'm still highly dubious of, the page has no content and as far as I can see is still pretty much Millbrook. I'm going to propose deletion and see if anybody has any comments. As regards any new district articles, my general thought is, if somebody can write some decent content about it, it's probably worth it. For example, Harefield is not (as far as I know) large enough to justify having an article, but the article itself is good and encyclopedic so is actually worthwhile! AlanFord 22:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Alan, on my talk page you mentioned maps. I'm now trying to get away from using the pink maps showing distinct areas (such as Image:Southampton City Centre.png) and instead use Template:Location map Southampton. I'm working on a location map linking to all the geography articles in the area, but I've literally only started work on that today so there's a way to go yet. Waggers 20:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Title
[edit]There have been a lot of changes to the title of this template since it was introduced. It's certainly correct that we don't use "district", since that has a more formal meaning in local government terms. However, all the areas listed are suburbs of Southampton. (Incidentally, I don't agree with the definition of the term in that article - suburbs aren't necessarily on the outskirts of a settlement, as the article goes on to say in the Definitions section). They are not all in the City of Southampton, as some are outside the city boundary. We don't really need a link to the City article, that's superfluous. So I can't really see what objection there could be to "Suburbs of Southampton". [shrug] Waggers 11:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Wards of Southampton Template
[edit]I have now carried across the changes that I introduced in the Wards of Southampton template to this template, and the Wards template now redirects here. My only qualm in doing this was the loss of a full alphabetic list. Still, I think there was too much duplication, and the value of including the hierarchy of areas is more significant than alphabetical order. I have retained the original template name and navbox title, all previous suburbs/areas are still linked, and articles with the template will still be included in the Districts of Southampton category. Playclever (talk) 12:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)