Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

B/built-up A/areas

Looking at Category:Urban areas of England we have inconsistent titles: Accrington/Rossendale Built-up area, Brighton and Hove built-up area, Farnborough/Aldershot Built-up Area. Can we agree on one capitalisation, and move the others, please? NOMIS, whose creature these BUAs are, uses titles like "Farnborough/Aldershot Built-up area", so perhaps we should follow that model.

And I wonder whether various other articles such as Blackpool Urban Area and Milton Keynes urban area (yes, more inconsistent capitalisation) should be moved to new titles using the current terminology. PamD 11:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks like user RealIK17 moved a load of them Eopsid (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
@RealIK17: I suggested we should discuss and agree: please stop moving the articles until there is agreement on which form to use. I'll do it as a formal move request now. PamD 21:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I have made a formal move proposal for Accrington/Rossendale built-up area and West Yorkshire Built-up Area as a couple of test cases. Please discuss at Talk:Accrington/Rossendale built-up area. PamD 21:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

City size, London, Birmingham, Leeds and on down.

Can we have a look at what is going on with the use of figures in intros for these cities. I can see a lot of messy definitions in the first sentences which introduce concepts like government districts etc when functionally the average reader isn't going to care about such definitions and it seems to be just a reason to slip in things like: "The city proper is the most populated English local government district" for Birmingham and "second largest city" for Leeds. This is conflating in both cases district with city size, which we known is problematic with regards to London being a city made of many such districts. We should be using the commonly understood definition of city and not trying to (or allowing) this sort of language meaning creep to effectively mislead the reader. Also, this ties back to Bradford indirectly - do we have an Admin that can help tackle two SPA over there editing disruptively. Koncorde (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

>We should be using the commonly understood definition of city
I don't think such a thing exists. Eopsid (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
@Eopsid: In the UK, a settlement may decide for itself whether it is a hamlet, village or town; but the right to be described as a city is in the gift of the Crown. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Well, what exists is that there are cities. And people agree London is the biggest city in the UK and we should be able to infer quite clearly which is the second, third and fourth and so on using reliable sources. Instead what we have is Death By Statistical subgroups, and then finally the fact that our own articles do not actually reflect London as the greater city anywhere:
Leeds (with a 474,632 population) is the largest subdivision of the West Yorkshire Built-up Area (2011 census classification) and the Yorkshire and Humber region's most populous. West Yorkshire BUA is the UK's fourth-most populous urban area with a reported population of 1.8 million in 2013. The metropolitan borough governed from the city had a population of 793,139, the 2nd most populous district in England.[8]
To me what this paragraph says is very convoluted and unclear, and seems to have been written expressly to maximise the city by omission and conflation (intentional or not is not my issue, this is very common). We should be able to say quite clearly Leeds is the xth most populous UK city, or the most populous city in the West Yorkshire BUA (based on 474,632) but using "largest subdivision" is heinous, especially when immediately following we introduce a completely different region and "populous" - and then top it off with the Met Borough and 2nd most populous in England. If we compare this with Birmingham:
It is the second-largest city, urban area and metropolitan area in England and the United Kingdom,[b] with roughly 1.1 million inhabitants within the city area, 2.9 million inhabitants within the urban area and 4.3 million inhabitants within the metropolitan area. [6]
and it is a very straight forward nesting doll situation. But then we reach this:
The city proper is the most populated English local government district.
And I cringe because there is no context for a local government district, and it is "the most populous" by distinction of London being made up of many government districts. So while it is factually true - it is also a messy inclusion - because anyone clicking on that link is going to see the glaring absence of London. This same issue exists at List of cities in the United Kingdom but at least there is some context given - but it makes wikipedia internally inconsistent with articles like List of largest cities. Koncorde (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


By all definitions there are seven cities in Yorkshire (Leeds Sheffield Bradford York Hull Wakefield and Ripon), two in Lancashire (Preston and Lancaster) & five in West Midlands Region (Birmingham Coventry Wolverhampton Worcester and Hereford). East Midlands Region there are four (Leicester Nottingham Lincoln and Derby). In North West England there is of course the cities of Chester Manchester Salford Liverpool Lancaster Carlisle and Preston. In North East England there is Durham Newcastle upon Tyne Sunderland & Teesside. In East Anglia obviously Peterborough Cambridge Ely Norwich. Then other cities like Chelmsford Brighton and Hove Southampton Portsmouth Plymouth Chichester etc and I think dependent on the county a count of population should be in lead if it has more then one city. For example Leeds is the Largest City in West Yorkshire. Bradford is the second largest city in West Yorkshire. & Wakefield is the third largest city in West Yorkshire. Same with Peterborough is the largest city in Cambridgeshire. Cambridge is the second largest city in Cambridgeshire. Etc as it helps with ranking of urban or borough areas. Don't forget Leeds has the largest area of any borough in UK followed by Kirklees and Doncaster. It's just formal as Bristol is the largest city in South West England followed by Bath Gloucester etc RailwayJG (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

We can only use the data provided by the ONS, which usually comes in multiple choices:
  1. The built-up sub-area, which typically equates the 1974 boundaries. No-one outside a ten-mile radius would understand that to be credible, typically it is defended by the Canutes of adjacent villages that have been swept up by expansion.
  2. The built-up area (formerly urban area), which is (IMO) the only credible and useful figure, because it tells it like it is now.
  3. The city council area (which can include settlements clearly outside the city, but worse still can exclude contiguous built-up area, in Cambridge, for example
  4. The Unitary Authority, which has all the problems of the city council figure, with jam, cream and sprinklies on top.

Obviously I believe that #2 is the only credible figure. There is also a problem with the word "largest": most people or most land? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

And in our case we're often trying to present all 4 of those measures in a single paragraph with all kinds of numerical rankings. Koncorde (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
@Koncorde:, I think a solution is to use the ranking for each urban area by city so like Bristol is the 11th largest ranked urban area. Maybe one for the urban areas for say Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Preston etc...should be considered? RailwayJG (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Also following on the leads should be like this...in my eyes as easier and more concise...

"Leeds is a city in the County of West Yorkshire, England. It is the core part of the Wider City of Leeds Metropolitian Borough. It is east of Bradford, South-west of York and North of Wakefield. It is the largest city in Yorkshire and Humber region and forms part of the wider West Yorkshire Urban Area which is the (insert rank number) in England." - That would work more effectively.

Same with Manchester "Manchester is a city in the metropolitan county of Greater Manchester, England. It forms the core part of the county and wider Greater Manchester Urban Area. Historically in the county of Lancashire, it is situated directly across from the neighboring city of Salford and is split from it by the river Xx". - That there would work too..

These are just examples I think it is important to bring to the reader in the lead the name, status, county, country and historic county if it applies...It be like more easier if an urban area exists mention it in the lead. That is my idea of a more formal and less crowded lead RailwayJG (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The "Core part of the..." is too technical for the second sentence. The third sentence/fragment is more important to an average reader. Some of the fragments can be linked as well to improve the flow. So:
Leeds is a city in the county of West Yorkshire, England. It is xx miles east of Bradford, xx miles south-west of York and xx miles north of Wakefield and is the largest city in the Yorkshire and Humber region. It forms the main part of Leeds Metropolitan Borough and is part of the wider West Yorkshire Urban Area which is the (insert rank number) in England with a popualtion of xx million.
Or something Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we need to prevent the the selective use of numbers to make various areas or cities seem bigger than they are. Equally we need to use terminology clearly and accurately; if we're using the built-up area figures then we should be clear that we're talking about built-up areas, which are not necessarily cities (and sometimes are combinations of cities). In that case the wording should be something like "X is the Yth most populous urban area in Z". If we are talking specifically about cities, then UK city status is usually (but not always) conferred upon a local government entity, so appropriate wording would be something like "X is the Yth most populous city council district in Z". City status can be given to councils of various types and at various levels of the local government heirarchy so we are going to have to accept that there will be inconsistencies. WaggersTALK 13:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

So to come back to this, because Bradford seems to have two particular accounts somewhat obsessed with dick waving.
1. Can we agree "Bradford is the second largest city in West Yorkshire, England, at the eastern foothills of the Pennines." isn't an appropriate starting sentence.
2. Can we agree that this is a mess: "Bradford had a 349,561 population at the 2011 census. It is the second largest subdivision of the West Yorkshire Built-up Area, Leeds is largest and is approximately 8.6 miles (14 km) to the east. It is the third city of the Yorkshire and the Humber region after Leeds and Sheffield, northern England's fourth, sixth in England and seventh-largest in the United Kingdom. The district borough governed from the city had a population of 539,776, the 7th most populous district in England."
Second in Subdivision of Built up area, Third Region, Fourth northern England, sixth England and seventh UK, and then a district borough that is the 7th most populous district? Koncorde (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Koncorde, I agree with both of those assertions. That second one in particular is horrendous! WaggersTALK 11:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Border towns/villages - what is the difference?

I was just browsing some of the towns around Cheshire, Shropshire and Gloucestershire. And I happened across two lead summaries:

Knighton (Welsh: Tref-y-clawdd [trɛvəˈklauð] or Trefyclo) is a market town and community in Powys, Wales, on the River Teme. It lies on the England–Wales border, with a small part in the county of Shropshire, England, including its railway station.

&

Saltney is a town and community adjoining Chester on the England–Wales border with the west part lying in Flintshire and the eastern part in Cheshire. It is part of the Deeside conurbation of towns that lie near the River Dee.

What are the functions of these so called Border Towns? Are they under Welsh or English rule? And what about local government? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

They are very different. Knighton is a town in Wales, with its station and some housing (Kinsley Road) in England. Saltney is a suburb, part of which is in Wales and the other part in England. These details are explained in the text and the infoboxes, and summarised in the lead. Some would say there is a similar issue at Chepstow, where Tutshill and Sedbury - which some would describe as suburbs - are in England, but the town itself is in Wales. Again, this is explained in the text. What is the problem? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
It means that for the people of Saltney, some of them will elect councillors to an English body, others to a Welsh one. More practically, some people have their dustbins emptied by a different organisation than other people, perhaps on different days. Each local authority has a defined boundary, which will partially coincide with that of an adjacent authority, but will not overlap at the same level of local government. The jurisdiction of a local authority extends to its boundary, and no further. Generally speaking, the boundary at Saltney runs along part of River Lane and all of Boundary Lane. If you live on Boundary Lane, you'll have the pleasure of seeing two unrelated dustcarts each week - one working along one side, the other along the other side. The relevant boundary maps may be found at: Saltney Community; Flintshire Council; and Cheshire West and Chester Council. There are only three such maps, not four, because the eastern part of Saltney is in the City of Chester which is unparished (apart from Chester Castle CP, which isn't relevant). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
It's only an administrative division and a historical amusement There is no border. It is just that one house pays council tax to Powys Council and its neighbour pays it to Shropshire Council (or wherever). Politicians get fussed about these things, but on the ground it is nothing. LG02 (talk) 08:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
To an extent, yes, but to say "there is no border" is a misleading oversimplification, as there are many differences between what happens in Wales and what happens in England. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Knighton looks fun: the Built-up area (2011 pop: 3007) appears to straddle the country boundary, including the English streets on the north of the river. Might be worth mentioning in the article? PamD 09:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Only "a very small part" of the Knighton built-up area is within Stowe, Shropshire - just houses in Kinsley Road, not "streets". Llanymynech is a better example of a settlement straddling the border. Effectively, the Wales-England border was of much less relevance before 1998 than it is now, when there are an increasing number of differences in regulations and laws on one side of the border to the other. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
@Ghmyrtle: There's something odd about Knighton: the 2011 populations given by NOMIS for the BUA, and the parish / ward are identical, all 3007, although it looks from the map as if there are probably dwellings on Woodhouse Lane near Gwernaffel Wood which are in the parish but not in the BUA. Are they exactly cancelled out by the population of those houses in Kinsley Road, or has something gone wrong? The infobox shows a pop of "3,172 (2011) (3,007 in Powys, 140 in Shropshire)", which doesn't add up - 25 folk missing. Ah well, I don't know the area at all, just curious. PamD 10:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I've copied that last post of mine to Talk:Knighton, Powys#Population for those interested in that article to follow up if they care to do so. PamD
Saltney's not even in Deeside. I'm gonna fix that article. Eopsid (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Wigglesworth#Requested move 10 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Wigglesworth#Requested move 10 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Regions

They have been a discussion on North East England and South West England as of late, the official and traditional names have clashed a bit. With combined authorities being established multiple uses of simular names are starting to become vague and blurred. South West England, South West Peninsula, West of England and West Country; for example each are valid descriptions of the South West.

I think it is best to have defined traditional regions. Here is my traditional regional guideline suggestions, for sport, dialects, history and other similar non-politics:

  • North
    • West Pennines (4 historic counties)
    • East Pennines (3 historic counties + redirect "North East and Yorkshire")
  • Midlands
    • East Anglia (Norfolk, Suffolk, Huntingdonshire and Cambridgeshire)
    • North Midlands
    • South Midlands (I think Peterborough should be either Northamptonshire or by itself in East Anglia)
  • London
  • South
    • West Country
    • South East (England)

They would be smaller ones, these are just the bigger ones. With political just create a corresponding area directly covering that areas politics or just have the authority page.

Do these guidelines get the approval to put in the guidelines for UK geography or does this limbo continue. Chocolateediter (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

You have to accept that different organizations will use the same names to mean different things. So you can't use your own OR to declare what they mean. We can only record actual usage. See for example to different models at South Midlands (and Peterborough has been in Cambridgeshire for a very long time). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I just do not want to have long 1990s-created region articles listing everything under the sun and vague cast aside traditional names and areas with stubs. If they is vagueness in a traditional named area, find the best (commonly by historic county) defined area with a short disambiguation sentence saying such and such are in this for these purposes. Can we delegate and move content to some of these articles. Chocolateediter (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

That looks like original research to me. G-13114 (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
We certainly shouldn't be devising our own regions. Besides WP:NOR it would fail WP:V, not to mention WP:NPOV if the person who creates these regions draws the boundaries with the intent of placing their own home in Region X instead of Region Y. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Surely 'the Midlands' must mean Barrow-in-Furness, as the closest major town to the geographical centre of the United Kingdom? Hogweard (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

On hindsight what I put was rubbish just ignore it. Chocolateediter (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Doncaster and Skegness issues

It seems two pages are constantly getting reverted so I'll mention them.

For Talk:Skegness should all articles have the in-depth knowledge of census data with a nationwide comparing picture as per recent edits.

And for Doncaster the lead has been changed to a rapid of "including its suburbs and satellite towns and villages." I don't see what was wrong with the previous leads and despite me cutting it to "including its suburbs, towns and villages". Keep it short and sweet. It gets reverted with two ands and a satellite towns mention. This term when I looked applies more to major cities like Manchester London Birmingham and Newcastle even Leeds and Bradford Wakefield and York. Doncaster is a large town but if we are gonna start using satellite towns for it. Shall we also do so for Rotherham Barnsley Sheffield Huddersfield Halifax Burnley Preston etc? Because that term is for conurbations or major cities and Doncaster has a large population but isn't a city. Which the term refers to.

Can some editors on here chime in on these as I'm not getting into WP:EDITWARRING Or edit wars for silly things. As I've been accused of disliking something when that is clearly not true. DragonofBatley (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

To explain the issue at Skegness: DragonofBatley objects to using comparative statistics in the demography section of the article (specifically for ethnicity data), e.g. "Skegness's population is x% white, y% black and z% Asian, compared with X%, Y% and Z% for England as a whole". They removed the material in January. When I noticed this yesterday, I restored it; they removed it again and I've taken the issue to the talk page and, as this is a Featured Article and this is the first time this issue has been raised, I've restored the text pending further input. Dragon has asserted that these comparisons are irrelevant and are not done in other articles, but WP:UKTOWNS advocates using comparative statistics, I've found numerous instances where FAs make use of comparative material, and I've argued that it helps the reader to contextualise the demographics of the settlement they're reading about. I welcome input on this matter either at the talk page or here (if this is a general policy discussion, it probably should happen here). —Noswall59 (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC).

And as @Crouch, Swale: mentioned it could come under the policy he mentioned on talkpage. Can't link it as I am on mobile writing this but it could fall under that as having meaning but being too in-depth to read. Also you need to take into account pending a ward profile made for a town or city or so like a shift in population. The percentage of people in good health or with disabilities could have changed more Asian people moved into a town or a religion has gained more adherence. All I'm saying is those types of percentages might be better off let off if a new ward population by the local council is undertaken and use those figures instead. I don't object yet again I'm having to keep explaining when what I challenge falls under the WP policy of Wikipedia:Too much detail. If it was just compared by figures then fine but then to go into doctors work etc it just puts too much information in the demographic tab. Yes its sources but you can overwrite too much or just be repeating the same thing. Why don't that case you make a table like I seen on some articles with the working unemployed ethnicity religion and other important things for Skegness then England as a whole instead of tons of paragraphs? DragonofBatley (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

And why don't you read [to write about settlements, Demography] and then understand that WP:UKTOWNS was arrived at by editors coming to a consensus not a single editor trying to impose a particular viewpoint. Noswall59's edit is fine, prose is perfectly acceptable and has been approved by various editors who consider that Skegness meets the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria to be a featured article. Esemgee (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

And how about you and him stop assuming I oppose it? I said twice and you two still misinterpreted me. Where are these various editors who approve? You only have an issue with me since my silly edit on Batley and okay I will add all the Skegness information to every single village town and city article then? Will that be okay? WP: TOO MUCH DETAILS is definitely in play but no worries 🙂 I'll take my wings and fly out of this discussion carry on. I'm literally not bothered either way as I supposedly oppose it. 🐲 DragonofBatley (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

DragonofBatley is being reverted because he/she insists of making edits that have no merit e.g. spelling of Sprotbrough, claimimg there is no such thing as a "satllite town" even though there is a Wikipedia article on such, etc. Emeraude (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

And also please @Esemgee: and @Noswall59: don't ping me again or involve me in any discussions again with you two. I'm asking you politely now. Carry on we all disagree with one and other and I'm not on here for edit wars. But you two make it feel like it. So please don't ping me or bother involving me in further discussions on this or anything to do with Skegness and this too much detail demographic national picture you are painting on there. Thank you and have a nice day. DragonofBatley (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Emeraude: they do exist but not for towns but for cities as major cities and conurbations which Doncaster is not. DragonofBatley (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Says you. But that's not what you said in an edit rationale on Doncaster: to quote you: "Satellite towns dont exist". Emeraude (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

My view on Skegness is that if an article was promoted to Featured Article within the last year, and the content one editor doesn't like was in it at that stage, they shouldn't just sweep in and remove it without first discussing on the talk page. There is plenty of stuff elsewhere in the encyclopedia which needs to be updated, clarified, sourced, etc: editing effort is better spent there than on removing established content from an article which has undergone thorough examination by experienced and picky editors. On Doncaster, there have been various very clunky wordings. I don't think the other towns and villages should be described as " its suburbs, towns and villages", ie "Doncaster's". To say "and satellite towns and villages" allows them their own identity. Words matter. PamD 16:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

But PamD satellite towns are used for major cities towns and conurbations. Yes Doncaster is a large town but it is not a major town like Middlesbrough York Leeds etc. I get what you mean but that term would apply to those mentioned. Otherwise Rotherham Barnsley Sheffield Huddersfield Halifax Burnley Preston Blackburn etc would have satellite towns in their leads only saying not arguing it. :) DragonofBatley (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

No problem with "and other towns and villages", then. Don't claim that they belong to Doncaster. Actually, as the article is about Doncaster, not the borough, there's no need for this sentence at all. Just saying that Doncaster is the main/largest settlement in the Borough of Doncaster is enough: it implies that there are other settlements. PamD 17:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you 😊 bit like with Salford and it being the main city and settlement and Chesterfield too. I'll edit that now DragonofBatley (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay @Emeraude: I'm not going to argue with you any further have a nice day DragonofBatley (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

That about sums it up. And a real shame, because I was hoping to discuss your edit that had the River Calder running through Doncaster. Emeraude (talk) 08:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

What you wanted to argue further about it? And what river Calder edit? I've not even added that. Are you just trying to pick fault with me? Cause it looks like it to me DragonofBatley (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

If you have such an issue with me maybe @Emeraude: this is an issue for the notice board? Your qualms with me just saying DragonofBatley (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Nothing to do with YOU. No qualms about YOU. I said it's about your edits. You have just denied adding River Calder, so how you account for this diff?

Okay no problem and that original diff on edit was me trying to do a rollback edit as the lead was becoming a constant as you know edit war but I didn't know how a rollback edit worked as it kept saying couldn't undo edit. I didn't know that happened honestly never thought the river was involved in the edit so I'll own up to that one as it was meant to be a rollback on the lead and not the river bit which I didn't look at as more interested in sorting the cramping settlement borough and village bit DragonofBatley (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Sheerness

I have nominated Sheerness for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I think this article should be either merged into Shotton or deleted as it is not really a notable village other then it has the Deeside Community Hospital and nothing else to actually clarify it as a village. It is very badly sourced, written and lacks anything to clarify it other then a bowling green and a sweet shop. It fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:NOTABILITY quite easily. I think some other articles exist for parts of Wales and England which do also fail these so I will see if there are anymore. DragonofBatley (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale:, @Ghmyrtle:, @Eopsid: and @PamD: DragonofBatley (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, this one looks unencyclopedic, though I wonder whether after 15 years existence with edits by multiple editors the page should perhaps be AfD'd rathe than PRODded, to make sure that everyone gets a chance to discuss it. I'm amazed that no-one seems to have tagged it for sources or notability over that 15 years. The creating editor stopped editing in 2008. In general it's probably better to add a few tags such as {{unreferenced}} and {{notability}}, then come back and PROD or AfD after a few weeks. I note that the two ELs were one to a sweetshop (possibly once had an address on Aston Park Road, but nothing visible), and a dead, archived (yes, the archive was of a dead version) link for the bowling club: I found an earlier archive which did at least exist. But nothing suggesting that Aston or Aston Park is enough of a place to merit an article, though it does get a mention in List_of_United_Kingdom_locations:_As-Az#Ask-Asw. PamD 14:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
And the Ordnance Survey's "Get outside" systemdoesn't include this Aston, or Aston Park, though it has Higher Shotton - we don't even have a redirect for Higher Shotton, though it's mentioned as an alternative name for Aston Park. A mention of these two names (Aston and Higher Shotton) in the Shotton article, and redirects from them both, seem to be the answer. PamD 15:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@PamD: here's another one at St George's and Priorslee DragonofBatley (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@DragonofBatley: Not at all: that is a civil parish, as the article clearly states. It now (after a few minutes work by me) has a population, an area, and a reference - it's disappointing that the article had existed since 2008 without any sources. It's often easy to improve a longstanding article, rather than trying to undo other editors' work. There probably need to be a lot of incoming redirects from various punctuations and missing apostrophes etc: I'll create a few. PamD 10:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
It's also now got a link to the parish council website. PamD 10:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
And on checking I see there are what looks like a full set of incoming redirects: congratulations to previous editors. PamD 10:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
And two more refs to support statements which have been there unsourced for some time. It's easy, and satisfying, to improve the encyclopedia rather than trying to get things deleted. PamD 10:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • There is an Aston in Flintshire that's an OS settlement but not an Aston Park, per the coords this is the same place so perhaps rename to Aston, Flintshire even if merged? Per Pam civil parishes are always notable and per WP:ARTN it doesn't matter if an article currently is in poor shape as long as its notable, there's no deadline to improve them generally as long as there aren't serious problems like false information. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Barningham

List of Royal Observer Corps / United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation Posts (A–E) links to DAB page Barningham. The place in question was formerly in the North Riding, but transferred to Co. Durham in 1974. It's OS NZ07811157 (Google Maps).

Startforth Rural District links to Barningham, County Durham; but that is 15 mi north of the correct place, which is the one mentioned above.

List of United Kingdom locations: Bar also links to Barningham, County Durham, but with the wrong grid ref - NZ0810 instead of NZ320356.

Is the place which used to be in the North Riding significant enough for a redlink, and if so what should be qualifier be? Should it be added to the UK locations list?

I haven't checked the links-in to Barningham, County Durham for other bad ones, coordinates or grid refs. Narky Blert (talk) 08:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  • I can't find anywhere at NZ320356, it seems to just be part of Coxhoe. NZ07811157 also doesn't appear to show anything, its just north of NZ0810 anyway. As far as I can see there is only 1 place called "Barningham" in the north of England and NZ07811157 is also in Barningham parish anyway but for NZ320356 Barningham, Coxhoe would be the correct qualifier if such as place does exist as NZ320356 is in that parish but it I can't find any evidence it exists. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC) @Narky Blert: Can you provide any evidence of the Coxhoe one? NZ0810 for List of United Kingdom locations: Bar is where the village of Barningham is. As noted NZ07811157 is in the parish and the parish was part of Startforth Rural District[1]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    Ah, sorted - the grid ref in Barningham, County Durham (NZ320356) was wrong, placing it in Coxhoe. It's actually NZ08511045, and I've corrected it. I'd been working on the hundred or so DAB and bad links in that ROC article using the grid refs alone; some of which are out of town, e.g. TQ05225071 for Clandon. Narky Blert (talk) 10:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks, I see now, it was the incorrect grid reference in the article Barningham, County Durham where you were getting the Coxhoe grid ref from. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
    @Crouch, Swale: How comprehensive is your very useful geograph.org.uk link (which I see is sponsored by OS, suggesting rock-solid WP:V)? |os_grid_reference= in {{Infobox UK place}} calls Google Maps, but I know which I'd prefer to rely on. It might be an idea to have |os_grid_reference= and |coordinates= link to those two different sites. You might like to open a discussion on the template page.
    (At least most OS codes are on land; I've seen {{coords}} which would have needed a boat and a balloon to reach (but not a bathyscaphe, if the HAMSL could be trusted). Narky Blert (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
    Geograph seems to be useful for determining OS settlement status etc but it seems to be out of date a bit, see this search for Barton, as can be seen from it showing "TA0223 Barton Waterside, North Lincolnshire, Great Britain [Other Settlement]" it uses non-metropolitan counties not ceremonial counties but as can be seen the entry for Barton-le-Clay says just "Bedfordshire" even though its been in Central Bedfordshire unitary authority since 2009 and thus the mapping is out of date. To check the most up to date name for places I use the TO but searching is difficult if there are many places (since unlike Geograph it doesn't return DAB pages) or if the place has an unusual character in it such as Rùm having a diacritic but to link to a place you can link to a place in the same area. Unfortunately the mapping has recently changed to be much less clear though. The other major thing Geograph can be used for is finding images for places, for example to find images for Barningham on Commons you type Barningham (or only the 1st part if its unique otherwise it takes you straight to images nearby) into the 2nd box (unfortunately it seems to be playing up a bit, parts of the boxes are obscured with the left sidebar but hopefully will be fixed soon) then when on the DAB page click on the right one then click "Breakdown list", then "Year Submitted" and images up to most of 2011 are on Commons but later images aren't unless manually uploaded.
    I guess the OS grid reference link (which is used by Great Britain only) should go to an OS map rather than a list of generic maps which are the same as the "coord" template which is used globally. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
    The primary purpose of Geograph is as an image repository: the original intent was to obtain at least one photo for each 1 km x 1 km grid square. Some grid squares have many more than that - NX0810, for example, has 28 images. They're normally licensed CC BY-SA 2.0 which is absolutely fine to be copied to Commons, as I have done several times. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
    Commons:User:GeographBot already does that, the most recent one, File:Elizabeth Gaskell Building (memorial stone) - geograph.org.uk - 2624448.jpg was submitted to Geograph on 30 September 2011. My point was for people looking for images here (or creating Commons categories) can find more images of 2011 and before. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
    Out of date? that's a pity. OSNI will inevitably be OOD, of course. Should there be a good site for OS refs, it would definitely be useful; but since the 1980s they've been under orders to return a profit any way they can, not just by selling mapsheets.
    Searching via Commons is one of my DABfixing tricks. Where else is this pic used? If I can find it in an article in the home language, I'm very likely onto the answer. Narky Blert (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
    Small note, if you want to see OS maps (not sure 'bout the refs), Bing Maps, has a relatively detailed OS layer (sadly, the only place you can get the extremely detailed OS Mastermap is by paying OS for a small extract) — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 17:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing geological mapping for UK articles

I have both initiated geology articles on various UK localities and added geological information to existing ones and have often wished to see good quality geological maps to accompany the text. Some have copies of maps which have dropped out of copyright, others have maps which have been redrawn from various sources; they are of variable quality ranging from the excellent to the less so. I'd value others' understanding of the extent to which we can make use of the material available from Geology of Britain Viewer and indeed its sibling facility at GeoIndex Onshore which is aimed at 'the more professional user'. Both are excellent resources in themselves of course. The former opens up this map app which then links via the icon at top right) to BGS intellectual property advice and thence to using BGS copyright material - in the latter case the Open Government Licence is set out here.

My key question is this; do the rules permit us to use that material, or map imagery redrawn from it, within Wikipedia? Any of the articles at for example,

or

would benefit significantly from good quality geological maps. cheers Geopersona (talk) 05:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The only OGL-licensed mapping from the BGS is here https://www.bgs.ac.uk/geological-data/opengeoscience/map-data-downloads/. The rest can't be used.--51.7.92.104 (talk) 06:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Copyright law applies, so 'out of copyright' maps may be used. See for example https://maps.nls.uk/geological/one-inch/ at the National Library of Scotland collection.
Whether they should be used is a different question: how useful are they? Images in articles are "to illustrate, not to decorate". It seems to me that they are certainly citable but I can't honestly see a case to include them 'willy nilly' in locality articles, outside of explicitly geological ones. I expect you will see push-back if you start adding them indiscriminately without consensus. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
They have a place in certain geological articles where they can more efficiently convey information than text alone but who's arguing for adding geological maps for decoration? Geopersona (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Newsletter WikiProject Worcestershire

Worcestershire - one of England's oldest and still existing (with some minor boundary changes) ceremonial and political shires, famous for its nearly 1000 year old cathedral, the River Severn, the AONB of the Malvern Hills, some of the oldest schools in the country, England's fastest growing university, apples, pears, cider and cricket, and of course its world famous sauce. The Wikiproject is now in need of some attention. Created 12 years ago, this project amassed a huge resource for editors working on all kinds of articles and categories related in some way or another to the county. Kudpung is more or less retired from Wikipedia getting on for 2 years ago and it would be good if a group of editors could get it up to date and continue to maintain it.
Opt out of this message list here.
WikiProject Worcestershire 14:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Birchington-on-Sea

I have nominated Birchington-on-Sea for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Herne Bay

I have nominated Herne Bay for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Bmcln1 and his recent Mansfield edits

I respect Bmcln1's edits and contributions a lot. But can we please address this recent edit on Mansfield page. Bmcln1 has changed the lead from saying, "Mansfield is a large market town in Nottinghamshire" to "Mansfield is a large commercial town in Nottinghamshire". Now I have not stumbled across any town articles or city articles in England Wales Scotland or Ireland even USA etc which say large commercial town. Is that even a term? Or was market town just enough to have been left alone? I do not wish to engage with WP:Editwarring I want to ask for other editors to please maybe reach a census on it as to me using terms like commericial should be more in the economy or amenities tabs and not the actual main lead DragonofBatley (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

and the word "large" is deprecated too, since it can't be defined. See talk: Milton Keynes#"Large" town. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
also, market town is a 'thing'. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Concur. The original was better. Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Oops. Looks like I wondered into a live fire zone. I just fixed a broken Short descriptions and then saw that there was an open discussion — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 20:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Mill town

The article Mill town has an unsourced list of English "mill towns", split by current county but with no criterion for inclusion (Skipton? Manchester but not Leeds?). I think this may be being used as the source for the addition of "is a mill town" to leads of articles - thereagain, it may be that the list here has been assembled by looking for "mill town" in articles. Who knows, as it isn't sourced! This is long-standing: the first short unsourced list of Lancashire mill towns was added in 2005. Any thoughts? Please discuss at Talk:Mill_town#UK_mill_towns rather than here - or improve the article if you have any useful sources. I see that the much-missed ClemRutter raised concerns on that talk page 10 years ago, but the problems remain. Thanks. PamD 07:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Bircotes and Harworth. (Possibly other civil parishes)?

I think that given we have some parish councils which are merged to form town councils or wider parish councils. Maybe pages like Harworth Bircotes could cover the history of all the settlements involved as I see Bircotes only came into existence roughly 100 years or so ago due to coal being discovered but it and Harworth have been conjoined and form a town council. So would it make logical sense to just merge both towns into the one article and maybe a section covering each town's history and landmarks? Prehaps other civil parish pages could be done this way too. DragonofBatley (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I think both settlements can maintain their own articles and wikilinks from the parish and each other work fine. The history of each settlement should be covered in its article while the parish and council should be in the parish article. Just because places are combined doesn't mean they should be merged, Sudbury, Suffolk and Great Cornard are separate articles even though they're now conjoined though those places are separate parishes and larger. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
This isn't a case of one council covering two parishes, as sometimes occurs, but one parish covering two settlements. Different, and the wording above confuses them.
On balance I'm with Crouch on this and think the two settlements and the parish need three articles. But it's a strange one: ONS at Nomis lists three units with identical population (7,948 if I remember): the parish of Harworth and Bircotes, Harworth ward and Bircotes BUA! There's nothing in the Bircotes article which isn't in the Harworth one. (Which is perhaps an interesting example of the care with which BUAs need to be handled, and populations quoted.) It would be useful to raise this on Nottinghamshire WikiProject page, or the talk pages of the article, to see if those with local expertise and sources can add anything to either article to make the two/three articles more justifiable. PamD 23:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
I think Harworth is in my eyes and opinion of the source and material in a much stronger stance to Bircotes because the entire article has a lot of history and context and has the population. However, Bircotes lacks a population using pretty much the same population as Harworth Bircotes and seems to struggle to find much context with. I am also not convinced it is a town as it was founded only in the 1920s with no town hall or civic hall. Harworth has been around a lot longer and has a church and town hall. Bircotes is more an area that developed around the former colliery. Maybe a bit more work needs to be done but I think for a status before changing it. Bircotes was never a town, a village likely at that. So maybe it should be changed from a mining town to a mining village or area of Harworth? And keep town for Harworth? as it had it before? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
@PamD: For some reason there are quite a few BUAs that have the same population as a CP, see User:Crouch, Swale/BUAs#Suffolk for example. If you look at Drinkstone Green for example on City Population you can see the map shows the same area as Drinkstone CP and lists a population of 600 (for the 2020 estimate) in both cases but the area listed for Drinkstone Green is 0.2825 km² while for Drinkstone it is 9.081 km². There are several others that we have articles for such as Little Weighton having the same population as Rowley. If you look at NOMIS for Drinkstone Green it shows a far smaller area, the area of Drinkstone Green alone and a population of 548 in the 2011 census which is the same as Drinkstone even though that map shows the entire parish. I think this is because they are somewhat based on output areas so if the parish is an output area and its a small one they only give the parish sometimes? I'd consider putting something along the lines of "in 2020 the built-up area had an estimated population of 8683, the same as Harworth and Bircotes parish". Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
@Crouch, Swale: I took it just to be that there are no outlying residential properties, so that all the houses in the parish are included in the BUA - no 200m gaps between them (unlike my own village where the parish has a pop of 1,519 but the BUA has 1,326, because it is quite gappy). But Drinkstone on NOMIS is quite worrying, as the Drinkstone Green BUA shown on the map clearly doesn't include what looks, on OS maps, to be an inhabited place, Drinkstone, yet the BUA pop is said to be the same as the parish pop. So NOMIS is beginning to look like an unreliable source! Aaargh. PamD 09:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Worrying indeed, at 3.4 of the guide it says "figures are aggregated up from whole OAs that have been best-fit to the areas" and "caution is needed when using statistics for built-up areas and sub-divisions with a population of less than 1,500 people". So perhaps this unreliability is only for those with less than 1500 people? With Silverdale the map at City Population is closer to the one at NOMIS, the main difference appears to be sea and open land. If we create an article for Drinkstone Green and give its population as being 600 but its area as 0.2825 km² in the infobox then we are effectively giving wrong data since the automatically generated population density will be wrong. How many others could this affect? I wander if the figures at Woodbury Salterton are correct? Perhaps we need wider discussion on if the BUA population should be added for less than pop 1500 figures. I also created User:Crouch, Swale/BUAs/Revised excluding those that were the same as a parish. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
For Silverdale there are certainly some identifiable groups of houses in the parish and outside the boundary shown as the BUA, so the pop figures make sense ... but there's also an interesting northern section of the BUA which is a non-residential caravan site (permanent vans, but only as second homes - owners are required to show a council tax bill for elsewhere) which is outside the parish, district and county, crossing into Arnside parish in Cumbria! PamD 09:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
@PamD: I have produced an example of this problem at User:Crouch, Swale/Drinkstone Green which gives the population density of Drinkstone Green as 2124/km2 while Drinkstone only 66/km2! As noted I thought this problem was only with smaller than 1500 BUAs but the original case, Bircotes has 7948. What about other BUAs? Hadleigh BUA is 8150 with 235.5 hectares with the parish 8253 and 1726.42 hectares while Halstead has the same population (11906) but 307.25 hectares for the BUA and 507.66 for the parish. If the population is unknown or can't be disclosed for privacy reasons then I don't understand why the BUA is published at all. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Trafford page

Why is the Trafford page infobox on ethnicity completely a mess? All pages use "white" "Asian" "black" and others but this has like British Arab British African white Irish etc...it should be simplified and maybe moved to a table further down. This clogs up the whole infobox these do and be better placed under the demographic and ethnicity section of the article. DragonofBatley (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Minor Concerns about Knighton (Powys) & Brighton and Hove

I've been reading these articles but found two minor concerns.

1. The population of Knighton doesn't seem to be correct in that the additional bracket says 3k live in Powys and 401 live in Shropshire but then the figure says 3,721. So another three hundred are missing from the sum and it's unsourced.

2. Brighton and Hove's geography tab is completely unsourced and seems to have been written in the form of a journal. I think that needs addressing as only a photo is used to show marker posts of the border between the areas of the cities. But the geography is too scripted and needs some addressing.

DragonofBatley (talk) 06:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Knighton, Powys sorry minor fault on my part

DragonofBatley (talk) 06:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, the Brighton and Hove paragraph is very ropey. Leave that with me – I will rewrite with sources. (The boundary markers aren't even on the boundary any more, funnily enough: it has moved some distance to the north!) Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 14:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Tamworth as capital of Mercia

You might like to take a look at the discussion going on at Talk:Tamworth,_Staffordshire#Capital_of_Mercia. As to whether Tamworth, Staffordshire should be described as having been the capital of Mercia, as multiple sources describe it. G-13114 (talk) 09:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography/Archive_22&oldid=1055832859"