Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

List of windmills in the United Kingdom

I reorganised this list List of windmills in the United Kingdom according to current UK subdivisions and it was reverted. A discussion is ongoing here: Wikipedia_talk:MILLS#List_of_windmills_in_Middlesex MRSC (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Greater London task force

I am focussing some attention to several high-priority settlement articles in Greater London that I want to get up to good article status (and eventually FA). These are Bromley, Croydon, Ealing, Harrow, Hounslow, Kingston upon Thames, Ilford, Romford, Sutton, Uxbridge and Wood Green. I think Croydon and Romford are most developed and have the best chance of getting there first. Anyone interested in developing London settlement articles, please focus your resources here. Thanks. MRSC (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This now exists here: Wikipedia:WikiProject London/London districts task force MRSC (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Canals and county templates

Currently the county templates contain a section for rivers. Should canals be included in the river section, probably with a name change, or should we have a separate section for these? I would probably favour just adding them to the rivers section as there are few of them in a county. Keith D (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Some counties may have several canals, whereas other may have nill; there may be an inverse relationship between the number of rivers and the number of canal. I would prefer a seperate section for canals. Pyrotec (talk) 10:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Too many overlapping projects?

Deeping St. James is tagged for Wikiproject_England. None of the other closely related pages in The Deepings are. Why? Surely WikiProject_UK_geography is enough? There seem to be too many overlapping projects. Can't the UK geography and the England ones descend from some common ancestor or something? --Brunnian (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the two projects you mentioned have different scopes. WP:England covers (in theory) everything related to England, and WP:UKgeo covers the geography of the UK, not just England. There is a significant amount of overlap, for example settlements may as well be tagged by both projects. Is there any harm in having more than one project tag the same article if they've got similar scopes? No. It doesn't divide attention as the two projects you mentioned cover significantly different topics. Does it benefit the article? Not really I suppose, but there's no harm in it. Nev1 (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Calderdale

Hi, was wondering if people could have a look at Calderdale where a user has come in insisting that West Yorkshire is a ceremonial county rather than a metropolitan county and that the borough has unitary status and dropping in numerous references for this. If this is right then this would affect a lot of other articles and the output of {{Infobox UK place}}. Keith D (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It's something of a red-herring the user is pushing. Calderdale is effectively a unitary authority area, but it is still defined legally as a district of a metropolitan county. The sources used are less than reliable. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

National Nature Reserves in ...shire

Recently, I updated the links in National Nature Reserves in Bedfordshire and noticed that there are 9 of these articles for English counties with slightly varying formats. National Nature Reserves in Cumbria was created in 2002 and has been edited 9 times since then, but it does still not name any reserves! It could easily be updated from [1], but it makes me wonder what the point is of these pages. If they are just to be lists of reserves, each will be quite short and it might be more useful to merge them into National Nature Reserves in England where there is already an incomplete list. JonH (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

A fair question. It's not very helpful to have a list of just names (except for very long lists), but shorter lists can deal with their subjects in more detail and break down subjects into manageable pieces that can be linked (in this case by geographic location). Good lists include more information, sometimes a lot more. Take a look at listed buildings in Widnes for an example of what can be done with a list. A concern about short lists (such as a list for Cheshire would be) is that of content forking, ie: unnecessary lists that could be covered in an overarching list. What could be done is divide the lists by region rather than county. Nev1 (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Westbury-on-Trym

Cn someone take a look at Westbury-on-Trym, and the recent addition by an IP of a section about a community website. I've already deleted this once (and also similar at Clifton, Bristol), as it appeared to be spam. Would value a second opinion. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look and removed the section as I completely agree with your characterisation of it as spam. Thryduulf (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Do county projects include all "people from x"?

Within the Somerset wikiproject we are utilising a new tool which identifies the most popular pages within the projects remit in terms of the number of page views they get each month. I was surprised by the dominance of biography articles over geography within the top 100. This has led to a discussion about whether a county project should include people who may have been born in the county, but later emigrated & their "notability" is related to activities unrelated to the county. They were originally included when the project was set up & a bot tagged all articles in Category:People from Somerset with the project banner. I would be interested to know what other county project do on this or whether there is any guidance or previous discussions on this which I'm unaware of?— Rod talk 09:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There was a breif discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Greater_Manchester#Relevant_and_interesting, for what it's worth. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

River naming

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers#Correct ambiguity in naming section regarding disambiguation, which may require the attention of UKGEO participants as one of the options contradicts Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers. Jeni (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Westbury-on-Trym

Cn someone take a look at Westbury-on-Trym, and the recent addition by an IP of a section about a community website. I've already deleted this once (and also similar at Clifton, Bristol), as it appeared to be spam. Would value a second opinion. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look and removed the section as I completely agree with your characterisation of it as spam. Thryduulf (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Service station AfD

Someone has bulk nominated every UK service station for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norton Canes services (2nd nomination). It seems sensible to post a notification here than at the UK roads wikiproject, as that is dead. Jeni (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

England at GAC!!!

Alerting all WikiProject UK geography members that England is undergoing a reveiw for WP:GA status. Things you can help with are listed here. Please help if you can, thanks, --Jza84 |  Talk  14:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Lists of places in England

I'm having a look at the lists of places in England linked from {{List of places in England}} with a view to standardising them. They are quite variable, with some offering grid refs, others having maps etc. etc. Any thoughts on how these should be formatted would be welcome. MRSC (talk) 11:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's always been my view that London's is the strongest list, but still short of what I'd personally expect. I suppose we'd have to consider what style would meet the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria ultimately (that guideline also requires that "[a list] has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list." - something which is presently missing). We certainly need to get a grip on these lists though, and Yorkshire still let's the set down by not having lists for modern units which as WP:UCC says, the "approach is consistent with most local and national government literature, some private sector literature, will be familiar to most readers and writers, and indeed the approach will apply even if boundaries change again. It is also easy for people to find out where a particular village is, as maps with administrative boundaries are freely available online". --Jza84 |  Talk  11:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
We definitely need to split the Yorkshire list. If I had better local knowledge I would do it now.
The List of places in London I worry has too wide scope for featured list status. It might be worth merging the first section about boroughs with List of districts of London and then I don't know what do with the rest, it is a (slightly) random selection of hills, rivers and buildings etc. MRSC (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for starting this discussion. Having looked at the London list (which includes all sorts) + List of places in Bristol which includes Parliamentary constituencies, Council wards, Neighbourhoods & Places of interest, I'm not sure we are going to find a standardised inclusion criteria & format which is going to apply in all places. My starting point is List of places in Somerset which includes cities, towns, villages and hamlets (although many hamlets are redirects) in the ceremonial county. So a few questions/thoughts:
If we try to include all of this & more into one list it is going to be enormous. Thought welcome.— Rod talk 13:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I think we should somehow include the districts. This could either be done by splitting the list into sections, or by putting it in sortable table format. I'm tending towards the sortable table option as this effectively gives us the complete list and the list split by district. MRSC (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's practical too include listed buildings in "list of places" articles as there are literally thousands. Stuff like lists of windmills and monastic houses will be much smaller, but if you include those you may as well include lists of schools. The phrase "list of places" is so vague that it could include any site. To keep them to a manageable size, we'd have to settle on some arbitrary limits. It's radical, but I suggest stripping back these kinds of lists to essentially disambiguation pages or directory pages, linking to all the lists of schools, civil parishes, castles, listed buildings, windmills, SSSIs, etc, and splitting off the useful stuff into "list of settlements in..." articles. Nev1 (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Here's a list of nearly two dozen things that could come under the term "places". Three or four of the lists don't exist but could conceivably be created. Nev1 (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Grade_I_listed_buildings_in_Greater_Manchester is a featured list with a good lead and split according to local government district. But, I'm still not sure the system could be adopted.
Is there even a need for these lists? Where did they come from? List of places in Merseyside gets about 9 views a day ([2]) and I suspect most of those are by people who are editors-first rather than readers. The London list fairs better at around 180 views a day ([3]) so I guess there is demand. Do these lists need to be retitled List of settlements in X perhaps? Perhaps there is a good style from an American/Canadian/wherever list of places we could consider using? --Jza84 |  Talk  17:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I had considered editing List of places in Bedfordshire to make it more like this list. (Note that the linked page on the ex-county council site may display as white text on white! Selecting the text shows it as white on blue.) This was because many of the villages in Bedfordshire are made up of small parts (often named Xxx End) that do not have their own articles (and which I do not think are really notable), but it would be useful to have some sort of index to them. However, I didn't actually get around to editing it. JonH (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

M1 motorway requested move.

I have just started a requested move discussion for M1 motorway to move it to M1 motorway (Great Britain). Another user has been trying to move-war this request into being, so I have started said discussion as I'm sure this was her intention. Comments welcome at Talk:M1 motorway#Requested move. (Again, posted here due to the inactivity on the UK Roads Wikiproject) Jeni (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Foo, Barshire and Foo (district) mergers/splits

I'm reviewing the 150 or so districts in England that take their name from a settlement. I want us to codify our criteria for doing a split or a merge. This will stop the occasional arguments that break out over this issue. I've listed all the examples I can find and put some possible criteria: here. Please take a look and give comments: here. Thanks. MRSC (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have started three discussions following this:

Please have a look at the results and contribute there. You might want to start other discussions based on these findings, but I am only going to focus on these three personally for now. MRSC (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What about those settlements (as they would be commonly thought of) that extend beyond the administrative boundaries. (e.g. Liverpool, Manchester etc)? Quantpole (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Such as? --Jza84 |  Talk  21:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
What is the problem that needs a solution? MRSC (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that you are addressing the 'problem' of settlements being merged with districts, which are (to keep it simple) larger than the settlement. If you are looking at that, there is also the issue of settlements which are larger than the district - e.g. Liverpool vs Liverpool Urban Area. Quantpole (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there's a problem. The articles about the urban areas should be kept separate as they describe entities separate from the settlements. Ie: it's not claimed that St Helens, which is part of Liverpool Urban Area, is part of the city. Also, there is no Manchester Urban Area, although there is a Greater Manchester Urban Area. Nev1 (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
My point is, to the person on the street, there is a city called Liverpool. This city is not the one as described on the wikipedia page Liverpool, as it is likely to include places such as Bootle. People seem to have a problem with Leeds since the merge because it has taken over some of the surrounding villages which would not usually be thought of as part of Leeds. Manchester is another case in point. To most people Manchester is that big urban sprawl inside the M60. Instead we have a Manchester article based on an administrative division. Peoples main problem with the Leeds merge was that it encompassed places that would not commonly be thought as part of 'Leeds the settlement'. why is there not a corresponding concern about the articles on Liverpool and Manchester which exclude large areas commonlu thought of as part of the city. So which is it going to be - administrative areas or actual commonly recognised settelements? Quantpole (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Citation? --Jza84 |  Talk  21:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you actually disagree with what I've written? Quantpole (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I asked for citation. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
In that case I'd like a citation for Leeds=ONS Sub-division. Quantpole (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I haven't claimed it. It's you who made a claim, that you proport to be obvious and held by "most" - it should be easy to source. It's important as we need to be sure your claims are verifiable. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not talking about changing the article to how I view things, I'm talking about the difficulties with defining settlements which is totally relevent to this. I'm actually trying to disuss the issue you know. Talk pages do not have to be sourced. And since this all comes back to Leeds, it is relevent that those who were against the merge could not verify that the Leeds they were talking about exists. Quantpole (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
We could (iirc) verify the existence of everything that wasn't Leeds, and that the total area of the district was greater than the area of everything in it that isn't Leeds. So what is this area if it isn't Leeds? Thryduulf (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
It was claimed by one of Leeds/City of Leeds most vocal pushers for a merge that the LGA72 extended cities (not boroughs mind... of course!). I would find it hard for anyone to defy that there is a settlement called Carlisle within a city called Carlisle, given that the settlement is defined as an unparished area and has this welcome sign deep within the city, at the edge of Carlisle proper. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
But if you're basing arguements on such bold claims, I think it is fair that you qualify them with reliable sources, otherwise we may as well become Wikiforum, the forum anyone can edit. I cited multiple sources in the archives of Talk:Leeds that there was a city called Leeds that encompassed Leeds and other settlements. It was stonewalled. It's also a bit of a red herring of a counter-claim you make - do I need to verify that there is a place called Sefton in the Metropolitan Borough of Sefton (which I could using any OS map)? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
You did cite sources saying that, and lots of people agreed with you, including myself. The problem we had wasn't defining the borough, but defining the settlement inside it. That's where there was a distinct lack of sources, and resorts to things such as bus timetables and where the word 'Leeds' was on maps. I suggested compromises which fell on deaf ears. Until there is some sort of ackowledgement that there is an issue of trying to define 'Leeds the settlement' we're not going to get anywhere. Quantpole (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
So, if say, I cited a source saying there is a city called Leeds that encompasses several settlements, a city that has unpopular boundaries; and then that cited Leeds is surrounded by (not encompassing) other towns.... what would you say then?
Defining the limits of a settlement is NOT a or the problem. It's an odd request: what are the boundaries of Denshaw? What's it definition? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
We had much discussion previously over this. I suggested that we didn't try to define what the boundaries of Leeds the settlement were, and simply explain what we knew from reliable sources. Quantpole (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Precisely what Salford, Greater Manchester does. A system which (even putting aside the fact there was no consensus to merge, that MRSC has a criteria to split, and that there are sources to this effect) Leeds should adopt if it wants to really give an encyclopedic account of its history and culture. This simply is in Leeds' favour, not against it. The City of Leeds would still be one of England's major cities, and Leeds, West Yorkshire would allow a space in which a restricted, historical article can be constructed (without nullifying the rest of the city). --Jza84 |  Talk  00:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
How does the current article nullify the other parts of the city? Quantpole (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Except Salford is very clearly defined by the population. It is effectively defined as the urban subdivision, which carried very precise boundaries. Now, if it is not verifiable that those boundaries necessarily define the extent of the place then that should be better explained. Quantpole (talk) 01:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've not had any specific problems raised with the criteria used, so I am now codifying How to write about districts. It would be great if someone could work on a suggested article structure. MRSC (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sheffield

Hi, have we anyone who can do a copy-edit of Sheffield which is going to be de-listed at FAR unless someone can perform a copy-edit of the article. Keith D (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) is one of the finest copy-editors, a FA veteran and a northerner too. If nobody answers the call, I'd suggest asking him. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater South East

I am proposing to merge a number of low or moderately active projects in south east England. The discussion is here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England#Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater South East MRSC (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Updated ONS figures - mid 2008 estimates now available

I've noticed that the ONS have released the new figures for mid-2008 estimates here. I was going to start updating them, but I haven't done it before, and I don't want to mess everything up! I'm also concerned that I might miss something due to the 2009 structural changes. Could someone who knows about this help me out please? Quantpole (talk) 11:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

English districts task force

I would like to propose a task force as part of this project (and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject England). I want to include the 326 English local government districts. These are highly variable in quality and content, some are developed fully and others are barely stubs. I am particularly interested in this area and have a fair bit of knowledge on UK subdivisions. It is a fairly big task and I wonder if anyone is interested in joining me? MRSC (talk) 08:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia article on Lostock Hall

To whom it may concern, As a resident of the village of Lostock Hall, Preston for the past 30 years, and also access to many historical facts on the village; I have extended the information on the original article with more facts, history of the village, and useful information. I hope that this is OK with members of the WikiProject UK geography group. I would like it if I would be permitted to continue my work on this page, and work to make the page more detailed to provide a more in-depth article on Lostock Hall. Does anyone have objections to this? If so, please let me know in due course via my talk page. Kindest regards, Gareth aka Pr3st0n (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


I have noticed that the article has yet to receive a quality scale rating, as per WikiProject article quality grading scheme. With the information that was in the original article (prior to my extensive clean up operation), I would have said it was a Category:Start-Class articles. However, since all the extensive new material that I've added to the article (with some help from a fellow wikipedia friend of mine), I would like to nominate the Lostock Hall article to either a Category:B-Class articles or a Category:C-Class articles. (Pr3st0n (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC))
Replied at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria. Nev1 (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
This thread can now be archived, as all discussions are now taking place via, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lancashire_and_Cumbria. Pr3st0n (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

M2 motorway requested move

Another procedural requested move following non-consensus moves by a the same editor as the M1 move. See Talk:M2 motorway#Requested move Jeni (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

More are happening at Talk:M3_motorway#Requested_move and Talk:M4_motorway#Unwarranted_move. Jeni (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The same has happened at M18 motorway. Eckerslike (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the M18 motorway move, and warned the user. If they move another motorway page without discussion please block them for disruption. Anyone is free to start a requested moves discussion if they want the M18 moved. Thryduulf (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The A34 also just moved. Can't see a discussion anywhere. This seems totally unwarranted as there is not even an A34 road disambig - just an A34 disambig. The other roads there are all redirects, with the exception of Isle of Man. Pterre (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Reverted per lack of discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I've also blocked this user (different to the one above) for 1 week as the previous 24 hour block didn't have any effect. Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The RM discussion for the M18 is now here. Talk:M18 motorway#Requested move Jeni (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Vigilantism

Thryduulf, stop trying to behave like a vigilante. You reverted my move of M18 motorway to M18 motorway (Great Britain) without offering any substantive reason for the revert. Your reason seems to be procedural, but it was not a controversial move -- I had disambiguated all all incoming links, and there still isn't even single a comment on the talk page about the move.

I'll open a requested move discussion there, but I am very concerned by your actions here. You are threatening blocks, but this vigilante practice of angrily reverting uncontroversial page moves is right out of line. I don't know whether there is some WP:OWN issue here, but I have disambiguated thousands of articles over the last few years and have never before encountered such ferocious hostility to disambiguation.

We now seem to have a situation where this wikiproject has taken it upon itself to automatically revert any disambiguation of an article on a Uk road, without making any effort to assess the merits of that move. This isn't the way wikipedia is supposed to work, and I hope that before this all ends up at arbcom some of this blind-revert crew will take a deep breath and recognise that disambiguation is not some sort of vandalism which automatically requires repeated threats of blocks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Moves from established titles should be discussed before the move takes place, per Wikipedia policy. Some of the suggested moves have been appropriate (e.g. M2), some have not (e.g. M1), but as you have not presented any evidence to explain why you are doing the moves I and other editors are entitled to revert until such time as consensus is clear. When editors repeatedly fail to discuss when asked to do so and continue to carry out disruptive (or potentially disruptive) actions then, per the blocking policy, short blocks are appropriate and allowed.
Regarding the M18 - I've just reverted a move by someone else without discussion to M18 motorway (England), protected the page against page moves and started a request moves discussion to see what the consensus actually is. That there are several people making these often unnecessary disambigs (e.g. for the A34) with no consistency between (England), (Great Britain) and (United Kingdom) is further evidence that the moves need to be discussed beforehand. Thryduulf (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
You say that that "Moves from established titles should be discussed before the move takes place, per Wikipedia policy". Please read the policy: that applies only to controversial moves, but there was not a single comment on the move of M18 motorway on its talk page for 24 hours after the move, and the move to M18 motorway (England) came only after you had blind-reverted my move of the article. In other words, you created the controversy for which you have been issuing block threats and abusing your powers to protect the page, and launched an unnecessary RM discussion.
As to your complaint about lack of consistency in disambiguators, you would see from the other discussion that the dab being chosen is (Great Britain) .... yet you reverted the move of M18 to use that dab, and now complain that another was used. That's your fault.
Please, just stop this. You have completely crated a wikidrama where none existed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I have apologised elsewhere already for my misuse of admin tools regarding the M18. The discussions regarding the M1, M2, M3, M4 and M18 are showing that your view of these disambiguations as being uncontroversial is not shared by others, in these situations the best thing to do is to discuss first, as this avoids people taking your intentions the wrong way. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Welsh names on English Locations

eg - Ross-on-Wye

Numerous editors have removed the Welsh place names (they're not relevant - and isn't there a Welsh language Wikipedia?), yet user Hoary seems to be on a one man campaign to keep them in place. These areas are in England, and the Welsh name has no legal standing outside of Wales - particularly the placing of the Welsh namess in the infobox under the real names seems to suggest the names have any signifiance.

92.14.197.200 (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of discusions in play on this subject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements. You may wish to add your observations and views to the debate there. Tmol42 (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Places formerly in historic counties of England

There is an ongoing discussion here on whether it would be helpful to expand the group of categories for places formerly in one county (and now in another). There is no consensus on that (yet), but it has been suggested that there should be a discussion here, to explore the size (and practicality) of such a project, and see whether consensus can be reached.

Broadly, the arguments in favour of such categories are:

  • to facilitate following up of references in texts written before 1974 or which are organised by pre-1974 boundaries (e.g. Victoria County History, Pevsner)
  • to aid navigation/browsing by readers interested in following up the history/geography of the counties involved
  • to asist users' understanding of the extent of historic counties which remain important for "identity" or "culture" (e.g. County Durham/Northumberland (see Tyne and Wear#Identity) or Yorkshire)

The arguments against are that lists are a preferable navigation aid, and that such categories will never be complete or accurate.

To assess the size of the task I have looked at what would be needed to create categories for each historic category. The major boundary changes occurred in 1974. Other big changes occurred in 1965 (mostly in the London area). There have been many minor changes, mostly additions to large cities, relatively small boundary adjustments and the clean-up of enclaves and exclaves. (Obviously, this only refers to places leaving a historic county, not joining.)

Historic county Main changes in Comments
Bedfordshire minor
Berkshire 1974 Existing Category:Places historically in Berkshire, nominated for deletion
Buckinghamshire 1974 Category:Places formerly in Buckinghamshire emptied and deleted
Cambridgeshire minor
Cheshire 1974 Category:Places formerly in Cheshire emptied and deleted
Cornwall minor
Cumberland 1974 Some in Category:Cumberland
Derbyshire minor
Devon minor
Dorset minor
County Durham 1974 Mostly transfers to Tyne and Wear
Essex 1965 Transfers to Greater London
Gloucestershire minor
Hampshire 1974 Bournemouth and Christchurch
Herefordshire minor
Hertfordshire minor Existing Category:Places formerly in Hertfordshire, nominated for deletion
Huntingdonshire 1965 In Category:Huntingdonshire
Kent 1965 Transfers to Greater London
Lancashire 1974 Category created, emptied and deleted
Leicestershire minor
Lincolnshire minor
Middlesex 1965 see List of places in Middlesex
Norfolk minor
Northamptonshire minor except the Soke of Peterborough, transferred in 1965
Northumberland 1974 Transfers to Tyne and Wear
Nottinghamshire minor
Oxfordshire minor Existing Category:Places formerly in Oxfordshire, nominated for deletion
Rutland minor
Shropshire minor
Somerset minor
Staffordshire 1974 Transfers to West Midlands
Suffolk minor
Surrey 1965 Transfers to Greater London
Sussex minor
Warwickshire 1974 Transfers to West Midlands
Westmorland 1974 In Category:Westmorland
Wiltshire minor
Worcestershire minor
Yorkshire 1974 some categorised as Category:History of Yorkshire, e.g. Sedbergh, Barnoldswick

This survey suggests to me that the bulk of the work would be where areas transferred to the metropolitan counties. There are issues (I think mainly in London) of whether you would include places which left the historic counties in the 19th century. In other cases, the process would involve moving to new subcategories. None of these issues seem to me to be insurmountable. But cases such as Sedbergh suggest to me that some consistency and cleaning up would be desirable.

Any thoughts? Mhockey (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, it seems an unclear title, since unless you mean deserted villages, and your text shows you don't, every place is still within the area covered by a historic county.
Secondly, changes to county boundaries have occurred throughout history. It seems that if such a list is required (if the naming can be resolved) then there needs to be a separate list for every time there was a boundary change.
Now, here's a thought. How would you treat Tamworth, which used to be within both Staffordshire and Warwickshire.
I think I may have other reservations, but I've not thought them through yet. Jan1naD - (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that you would need a separate list or category for every boundary change. That is detail which would be in the underlying articles (and referenced there). Thank you for drawing my attention to Tamworth. There is a similar issue with Mossley. There is also a similar issue with some places in current counties, e.g. Whitchurch, Bristol. The solution there is to include the place in categories for both counties, so that users browsing catgories for either county can find the article. Mhockey (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I think a benefit of the list system is outlined at List of Buckinghamshire boundary changes is that rather than a new list each time there is a change, it can just be added to the list. This would be my preference. We also have things like Category:Districts of England abolished by the Local Government Act 1972 that part serve this issue too. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Nice one! Jan1naD - (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Let's not rehearse the list v. category debate again, although I think an issue with the list is making users aware that the list is there. You can deal with that by introducing a link to the list in each relevant article (but that is quite a bit more work than using Hotcat). Also you would need to decide whether the list includes all places affected or just a summary. And when there is a boundary change you would need to update both the list and the articles affected (vs. updating the articles and adding to the category). Mhockey (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I've been linking to the list article like this: "It was transferred from Buckinghamshire in 1889". This is my preferred option. MRSC (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

On another note, it is quite simply a rewriting of history to suggest the 1965/1974 changes were the only significant changes. Middlesex lost 20% of its area and a third of its population in 1889. Buckinghamshire lost or gained far more territory in reforms other than those in 1974. MRSC (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I got my info from Historic counties of England and History of Buckinghamshire, but I agree that Bucks was not as greatly affected by the 1974 reforms as some other counties. It would be helpful if you could amend the articles if you have better info. Mhockey (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm slowly working through the list articles, starting with the southeast. Once complete we can create a List of English county boundary changes article to index them and provide navigation via a footer between them. It will take some time (longer than I initially thought) as the information comes from a variety of sources and there were a lot of changes. MRSC (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Rather than listing (or categorising) places moved from one county to another, wouldn't it be simpler to have two sets of overlapping categories: "places in current counties" (districts etc), and "places in former counties" (districts etc)? Places moved from one to the other (and perhaps back) would show up as being in different former and current categories. For example, Staines would be in former Middlesex, but current Surrey; Kingston upon Thames would be in former Surrey, current London, Christchurch in former Hants, current Dorset etc. Then no need for a special category for "places moved from Hants to Dorset in 1974" etc. The "former" areas would I think have to include all former boundaries (that is, one category for all previous Hants boundaries etc) – unless we had a whole set of categories for each major reorganisation (18 whatever to 1974; 1974 to 1990s, 1990s to current etc). Would also take account of counties/districts now not existing at all. Richard New Forest (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There are three aims stated for these categories (taken from above):

  1. to facilitate following up of references in texts written before 1974 or which are organised by pre-1974 boundaries
  2. to aid navigation/browsing by readers interested in following up the history/geography of the counties involved
  3. to asist users' understanding of the extent of historic counties which remain important for "identity" or "culture"

I believe these points can be summarised as trying to find a way to organise our information so it additionally corresponds to areas described in texts written before 1974. In order to do this, the suggestion has been to categorise places on the fringes that have been transferred between counties. There is an inherent flaw in this plan vis-a-vis the stated aims. That is, it will only improve navigation between those places. In order to organise articles by the areas of counties as they were before 1 April 1974, you would need to add an extra category to every article, even if it did not change county; then you would have categories that allow navigation as outlined in the aims. MRSC (talk) 06:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Vernacular geography

I raised this issue on this page in January 2008. In view of the debate that has been raging on the Leeds talk page for some days now, and the serious ordnance survey funded research can we discuss how we propose to treat vernacular geographical areas? (i.e. ones that are not currently recognised administrative entities, but which we perceive to, and "know" do, exist in reality.)--Harkey (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Putting Leeds to one side for a moment, I'm confused as to the extent this may have an effect on Wikipedia. Were there other places you believe will need changing according to this evidence? --Jza84 |  Talk  17:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe the other "urban areas" for a start. I know they exist, you know they exist, but they have fuzzy boundaries and some would say they are anachronisms. I've been examining the research that googling brings up (no one can say we're not at the cutting edge, here on Wikipedia!) and the problems that we have been experiencing in naming/locating places are being researched with a view to trying to clear up/accept some fuzzy edges and meanings that are not clear to everyone so the can be used by GIS. An article on the topic of Vernacular geography would be a good start, but I'm not sure I've got my head round it enough to do that at the moment. I was hoping that a discussion and input from users with recent academic experience would help to crystallise our thoughts and develop or modify policies to take Fuzzy logic into account.--Harkey (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
This research, particularly the use of Table 1 on page 23, might help us to formulate guidelines for acceptability/inclusion in cases where there are doubts about areas/regions.--Harkey (talk) 08:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
This would suggest that using the number of "hits" from a google search for a "place" can be regarded as WP:OR, so is not allowable as evidence of place's existence.(Even though we all "know" it exists.) I have often seen the hits argument used on talk pages when more reliable sources cannot be found. My question is: How are we to respond to this?--Harkey (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Pretty much any place has a sense of 'fuzziness' when we move away from administrative boundaries, particularly large settlements, and those that have merged together over time. A good example would be Manchester, which is vrey specific in its administrative areas, but in common parlance is not so precisely defined. There are loads of references to places being in Manchester which are not (I have a collection here if interested, and they are just from a few minutes looking). Other examples would be Nottingham, Liverpool, Bristol etc. I've mentioned this before, but if we are truly serious about separating administrative areas from settlements then we should be looking at the issue where the administrative boundary is tight, and excludes areas which many people think of as part of the settlement. (This is referred to in the intro to the State of the Cities report I believe, though I don't have the reference immediately to hand). Quantpole (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a general point from one who has not been in touch with academic geography for a very very long time, but it seems to me that the term "vernacular geography" covers a much wider area than the specific areas relating to the GIS mapping of "fuzzy" areas which are the subject of the research mentioned in the article (which is excellent by the way, so please don't take this as a criticism). I remember back in the 1960s/70s a lot of discussion of what were then called "mental maps", which covered how people perceived their local areas as well as ill-defined wider regions. (The West Country may be a good example of the latter, by the way.) It would be good to get an academic geographer's perspective on how this current research relates to earlier thinking and work. There is also the fact that, when OS first did their mapping in the 19th century, the names of many places were what (and where) the locals told them they were, in many cases not written down - which may be a point worth mentioning. Fixed boundaries and precise point definitions arose after the mapping was done - in many cases they did not exist beforehand (though in some cases, such as parish and county boundaries, they obviously did). Obviously these thoughts would need refs, but may be worth thinking about. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree that there is a lot more to be said on the topic. Beating the bounds was obviously a way of confirming our medieval forebears mental maps about their boundaries and it mattered in an age when there were different manorial customs in adjacent manors. The gangs who indulge in turf wars also have clear notions of and names for their own turf! I am not overly concerned about changes to the particular article, they will happen anyway. As Wikipedia is contributed to in good faith by non specialists whose geography is often vernacular, my problem is with trying to formulate some user friendly guideline for Wikipedia which admits to there being fuzzy areas but which maintains a rigorous standard for inclusion. --Harkey (talk) 10:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Interesting discussion which touches on both academic v general use and also the way in which these sorts of division and boundaries change over time. I think West Country is a good example of how difficult it is. There have been multiple debates on the talk page about whether to include Gloucestershire & Wiltshire. It should be compared with South West England based on government defined region but different to the South West Regional Assembly, which is different again from South West England (European Parliament constituency) and the Met Office definition used on Climate of south-west England. I doubt whether some of these issues will ever be resolved on WP as once a consensus has been achieved a new quango will come up with another definition and start the debates again.— Rod talk 11:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Getting off topic, but the GOSW South West region is certainly identical to the (former) SWRA region, and I thought also to the Euro region (apart from Gibraltar!) (But of course, there are those who think they shouldn't be included!) Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The current article has a few problems, which I started to address, but was reverted. The article is too closely using the wording the research and presenting it as authoritative, without making clear this is a piece of social science research. The tone should be changed to describing the research, rather than presenting it "as fact". MRSC (talk) 11:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Natural hazards in the United Kingdom

Although the UK is not the most prone area to natural hazards, I think an article outlining the most common hazards and causes would be a core article to WPUKGEO. Not to be confused with List of natural hazard events in the United Kingdom. Jolly Ω Janner 19:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

London is it a featured article

Should London be a featured article now? What do you think? Likelife (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

moved to Talk:London#Featured article to keep conversation in one place MRSC (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Etymology section

In the guidelines to writing about cities and countries we tend to provide suggestions that information about the origin of the name / the etymology is given in the history section, and - if there is enough material - that a sub-section can be created. In usage some editors prefer that the etymology details be placed in their own section - which is fine if there is enough data to justify it, and the information may be found reasonably interesting or useful to the average reader. But the question now arises as where to place a stand alone Etymology section. I often find them placed as the first section - ahead of the History section - and there is a part of me which can see the logic of that. However, there is a greater logic in having the history section first, as that is the first section that readers would expect - it is generally what encyclopedias do, and the history always comes before the name (I suppose there may be settlements and countries which were named before they existed, but these must be very rare!). Where etymologies are usually placed in dictionaries and references books is at the end of the entry - and that may be where someone interested in the etymology may be expecting to look. There may be other options as to where to place the etymology, and it would be useful to get some opinions and revisit the guidelines to make things clearer. As a starting point, here are four suggestions:

  1. Etymology - details of the origin of the name should be placed in the History section; if there is sufficient material an Etymology subsection should be created within the History section. (If the subsection grows so large as to justify a standalone section, that section to be placed after/before the History section / at the end of the article.)
  2. Etymology - details of the origin of the name should be placed in the History section; if there is sufficient material an Etymology section should be created and placed after the History section.
  3. Etymology - details of the origin of the name should be placed in the History section; if there is sufficient material an Etymology section should be created and placed before the History section.
  4. Etymology - details of the origin of the name should be placed in the History section; if there is sufficient material an Etymology section should be created and placed at the end of the article.

I will copy this to other related WikiProjects. SilkTork *YES! 10:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Is WT:CITIES the central place for discussion? (I don't want to repeat myself if I comment) 86.5.28.110 (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think it'd be best to hold the discussion there. Thanks for the notification. Jolly Ω Janner 14:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Devon parishes

I started creating a navbox for the parishes of Devon, but I didn't expect it to be quite as big as it turned out. Do you think it would be better to use civil parish navboxes at the shire district level rather than one navbox for the entire county? (bare in mind that Devon is a rather large county). Could this somewhat large navbox still be used of value on articles? Or even as a navbox? (I mean, it collapses automatically anyway). Jolly Ω Janner 21:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


It is quite large & contains quite a few red links. In Somerset (an even larger county - I think) we have not done this but I'm working my way through improving List of civil parishes in Somerset which then allows mapping etc & Category:Civil parishes in Somerset. We just have a navbox for the top level of the county. I'm not sure what the benefit would be of including all the parishes.— Rod talk 21:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Looking in Category:England county templates there seems to be a wide variation in what has gone into navboxes. Personally I'm reasonably happy with what I've done for Template:Lichfield (district), but that's only because the whole district is parished, and I suppose variations in navboxes reflect variations in the situation "on the ground". I'm sure I've seen some guidance (can't remember where) that navboxes should avoid red links. Just my 2 groats' worth. Jan1naD (talk • contrib) 22:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I was hoping that in time those red links would become blue. PS Devon has a template similar (pretty much indentical) to that one you showed me of Somerset. Rather than having a navbox for the towns and cities, I thought it would be good to navigate between just the civil parishes. There are a lot of parishes that aren't towns, but are just villages and rural hinterland. Jolly Ω Janner 22:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lount

Since the article isn't currently tagged with this Wikiproject's template, it probably won't show up in your usual Article Alerts. Therefore, I wanted to bring Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lount to your attention. Singularity42 (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for the notification, it looks like the article will be kept. Jolly Ω Janner 14:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Isle of Man

Suggested merger of categories. Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 23#Isle of Man ferrying.

Simply south (talk) 11:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Geography of Somerset & Geology of Somerset

Would anyone care to contribute to the debate about what should be in the new Geography of Somerset article & what should be in Geology of Somerset which is currently GA. see Talk:Geology of Somerset#Geography & Talk:Geography of Somerset.— Rod talk 19:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Floods

Move? See Talk:November 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods#Requested move. Simply south (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

District and county lists

In order to generate a little more attention as the affected articles may not be on many watch lists: I have tagged a number of lists of county and district articles for a merger. I would welcome any opinions on the suggestion. The proposed mergers are:

Pit-yacker (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Project announcements box

The project announcements box doesn't seem to be updated very often, possibly because article alerts is performing this function automatically. Is this still needed on the project page, talk page etc?— Rod talk 20:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think article alerts has rendered it obselete. Is there a way to get the article alerts transcluded in a similar way, so that it can act as the notification box. Jolly Ω Janner 20:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean by "in a similar way"? adding {{ArticleAlertbotSubscription|banner=WPUKgeo}} produces the list which is on the project page & can be added elsewhere. I believe there are tweaks which can be made to the parameters to change the display see Wikipedia:Article alerts.— Rod talk 20:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah I've just seen it in user on WPUK geography's page and it seems to do its job. I think we should remove the notification box. Seems pointless now. Jolly Ω Janner 20:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Maintaining lists of FA, FL, GA etc

A bot has recently been set up to maintain the lists of "Recognised content" for projects eg FAs, FLs, GAs, FPs etc, which can be a pain to maintain by hand. I've set this up for Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset, see User:JL-Bot/Project content for the instructions etc. Would this be useful for this project?— Rod talk 16:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a quite a nice coincidence as I was thinking of finding such a bot a couple of hours ago for WPDevon. I think it would be good to have it for WPUK geo, although without the DYK, GAN and FAC. There would be way too many DYK hooks and the GAC and FAC are already covered by article alerts. Just one question; how does the bot generate the captions for the featured pictures? Just another thought is that for WPDevon and possibly WPSomerset, that quality and valued images from Commons might be good to show off too? Jolly Ω Janner 17:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what is does for pics as I haven't used this function yet. I also don't know how it works with images which are in commons rather than wikipedia. When you set it up you can configure what you want included (or not).— Rod talk 17:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Any idea how long it takes the bot to update? I tried it out at WPDevon. Jolly Ω Janner 22:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I think its daily. I set it up for Somerset at 19.53 yesterday & the bot did its work at 04.00 this morning.— Rod talk 22:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
It has now been updated, but doesn't show any images, because they're all on Commons. I've notified the issue on the bot's talk page. Jolly Ω Janner 00:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

OK I've now set this up for this project & hopefully the bot will add the content in the next 24 hrs.— Rod talk 19:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Geographic Location box

An editor has added a "Geographic Location box" to lots of county articles (including Somerset) showing what neighbouring counties etc are. I personally don't feel this is needed, attractive or adds anything to the article & put a comment on the editors talk page. The response was that "they're a very useful way of getting information about a group of communities, going from one to another. If you take the Somerset page as an example, the map in the Infobox doesn't give the names of the neighbours. You and I know what they are but visitors from other countries may well not know them. The other map in the article has districts within Somerset, not neighbouring counties. The neighbouring counties are listed early in the Somerset article but (1) this is unusual - few other county articles do this - and (2) I feel the information is more easily absorbed from a map."

Do other editors feel they are a useful addition to the county articles?— Rod talk 13:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

To comment further on Rodw's question, he wondered whether I had considered discussing this first at WP:UKGEO. No, I was going on the wiki principle of trying out a change and letting others keep it or not as they wish. I've been doing this gradually, precisely so I can take account of any objections or suggestions for improvement. Apart from Rodw's comment, the only suggestions & revisions I've had so far have been for improvements, e.g. including sea areas, including NE/ SE/ SW/ NW neighbours as well as N/ E/ S/ W, including Pas-de-Calais neighbouring Kent, etc. I'll watch this discussion before adding further GL boxes.
Rodw has also asked what level of geographical unit I've been doing this for, noting that Bristol is a city, unitary authority, (ceremonial) county (and has been one for 600 years, which I didn't know!). Answer: 'ceremonial' counties, going by Ceremonial counties of England. OldSpot61 (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it is difficult to visualise from the Location box style depiction of the adjacent locations and find it not very useful. Though I must say that the previous version of the template with the compass in the middle was a lot better and clearer than the one we have now. The textural descriptions are not much better unless it is a very simple case. My preference would be to show the adjoining locations on some form of map but that may be too much work. There are numerous location articles with just grids on them which could do with a better method of showing the relation to other places so may be we need to come up with some thing which is clear and does not involve too much work. Keith D (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm in favour of their addition. The directions are pretty difficult to decipher when bound by such large entities. And would it be useful for Rutland? Would we be doing this for unitary authorities? Putting WP:UCC aside, which county boundaries do we use? Do we roll this out to Scotland and Wales? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
The Geographic Location template was proposed for deletion earlier this week. The unanimous conclusion was Strong/Speedy Keep. A lot of people (including me) don't like the design but until someone designs something better, it was agreed it should be kept. An outline map (as suggested by Keith D) would be great but could be very difficult to implement in practice (it would need something more sophisticated than a table).
I feel the template is most useful to people who aren't familiar with the area in question (i.e. not county articlee editors!) so those who think it deleted should look at it from the point of view of e.g. a non-UK reader, who doesn't know what the counties are. Take a look at Idaho and Allier for contrasting examples. The former uses the template so you can move quickly to its neighbouring states and provinces; the latter doesn't and it's hard to know what its neighbours are.
For Scotland, I think the template would be useful for the modern Council Areas and the historic counties, both of which are still used. OldSpot61 (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly how are the criteria for given directions worked out? Would, say, a situation where we hit county X if we move due north over a county boundary of county Y be the criteria? Or do we we specify in general terms directions taken from a "centre-point" of the county in whose article we want to put this box? Or what? If you sit down and consider it carefully, it is sometimes not clear, and until this clarified, it may not add easily grasped information. 78.86.94.17 (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wellingborough

Could Wikipedians look at the Wellingborough article and say what needs to be done to get it to a 'B' rating, thanks. Likelife (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

A few quick pointers -
  • A good representative image needs to be found for the infobox
  • The section ordering could do with bringing into line with WP:UKCITIES
  • The section on notable people needs attention, turn it into prose or create a separate "list of" article and put a link to it. Which ever way it is done every entry should have a reference showing their association with the place.
  • References need more detail adding such as the publisher, date published, accessdate, page number (for books and PDF files) etc.
Keith D (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
A few more thoughts:
  • There is a year linked in the lead section that shouldn't be
  • Quite a few more citations needed, where marked and also in other sections such as the Economy/local amenities section
  • Headings should be in sentence case (eg. Economy and local amenities)
  • Lead section should adequately summarise the main points of the whole article - it doesn't at the moment.
--BelovedFreak 21:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I've started to change some/merge sections and the lead have been rewritten. There is now a lead image and a few more references but its not complete, Thanks.Likelife (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Infobox UK place: distances

I would like to draw the attention of the WikiProject to the ongoing discussion at Template talk:Infobox UK place#Dublin. In summary: {{Infobox UK place}} has the following four fields - |dublin_distance=, |dublin_distance_mi=, |dublin_distance_km=, and |dublin_direction= - should these be kept, or removed? --Jza84 |  Talk  16:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Wellingborough higher status now?

After hard work and kind help by Kudpung the suggesstions you gave me above have been taken onboard and I hope this reflects in the article. Now again im asking for a peer review as it is or as it gets closer to a GA class, thanks. Likelife (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Postal and other geographies

One of the most frequent problems I encounter with geography articles is misunderstandings about postal geography (post towns and postcode districts) providing "definitive" boundaries and (to a lesser extent) the district ward boundaries "defining" settlements. I want to write a guideline on this, does anything of this sort already exist? MRSC (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I dont know of anything. I also find Areas generally are difined by postcoades in London. For example I live in the Forest Hill ward, but my address is under Sydenham and most people consider the area to be Sydenham inculding the council as letter from them are addressed 'Sydenham' so I also use Sydenham. There is this common error that Bromely is in Kent beacuse its got a 'BR' postcode. As you can see this is very complicated and I fear people would just become more confused even more if much was to change, saying that if London infoboxs also did show ward(s) this would be a helpful addition but yet again wards are not really suburbs but a boundary for Counciler's. Outside London I can't think of anything you can do. Thats probably not helpful, but make of it what you will.Likelife (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
It is not often appreciated that postcodes exist purely for the convenience of Royal Mail sorting offices, so it is unwise to consider them as matching other boundaries, except by coincidence. For a fee, they will sell you a current list. They are liable to change at any time: for a further fee, you can subscribe to a list of their changes, which are published at three-monthly intervals.
UK postal addresses are well-known for not following geographical or administrative boundaries. The last-named town or city in the address, known as the post town, is the town in which the sorting office is located, which is not necessarily the town in which the address lies, but is likely to be the nearest large town, ignoring any intervening boundaries.
The county is no longer required for UK postal addresses, but if provided, should be the traditional geographic county for the post town - Royal Mail don't recognise "Greater London", "Greater Manchester", etc. Hence, since Bromley was in Kent until 1965 (see Municipal Borough of Bromley), then as far as Royal Mail is concerned, it still is.
As an example combining both the above - Kingsclere is in northern Hampshire, but has a RG20 postcode and the post town is Newbury, so postal addresses in that village read "..., Kingsclere, NEWBURY, Berkshire, RG20 ..."
You can find out the correct form of a postal address, provided you have a full postcode, at http://postcode.royalmail.com/portal/rm/addressfinder
--Redrose64 (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Danger! Unexploded mention of traditional counties above! Other postal counties are available....
@MRSC: Certainly worth guiding editors on this. Some general comments:
  1. Population and area statistics are particularly liable to be inappropriately based on administrative boundaries instead of those corresponding to the area ordinarily understood to be referred to in an article. (Of course, some articles are specifically about administrative areas; others are primarily about settlements and any statistics are likely to be misleading; and for many articles there is some ambiguity as to whether the administrative or built-up area is being described.)
  2. In the worst case, a settlement called (say) Trumpton might be associated with three wards, St Janet, St John, and Trumpton Rural. An editor might then include the Trumpton Rural population not realising that these are people living outside the town itself; and exclude the St Janet and St John populations not realising that these are administrative areas within the town even though neither of them refers to the town in the name.
  3. City articles are a particular problem since, unlike "borough" or "district", "city" can be used (like "town") to refer to a settlement as well as to refer to a (typically larger) administrative area. It's important that editors familiar with administrative hierarchies do not assume that readers share this legalistic interpretation, so "city" articles need to state clearly if they include coverage of non-urban areas (as do "town" articles where the intended reference is to a town parish rather than to a town settlement).
  4. More appropriate, though imperfect, ONS Census boundaries would be (the mutually exclusive) "urban areas"[4] and "settlements"[5], though even these are constrained by higher-level administrative boundaries. (Not sure whether there are equivalents outside England and Wales.) Is there an easy way to access the corresponding population figures?
  5. As for postal geography, at least the tendency to capitalise the names of post towns subtly helps to convey the fact that what is being referred to is distinct from the built-up or administrative areas of that name. It may be worth noting that advantage in any guidance. (For line-wrapping reasons, I advocated small caps instead of all caps for {{Infobox UK place|post_town}} output, but there's no compelling reason to use small caps elsewhere, especially as small caps are rarely used on Wikipedia.)
— Richardguk (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I've started to write WP:UKGUIDE based on this. MRSC (talk) 10:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography/Archive_10&oldid=1136409998"