Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 30

Fixing/Clean up of List of Settlements in X County by Population articles

I have nominated all the List of Settlements in X County by population articles for deletion. (The UK wide version was deleted almost 10 years ago). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of settlements in Bedfordshire by population. But it looks like they will be kept. The articles mostly define settlements using built-up area subdivisons (which I don't think is useful, partially because built-up areas and subdivisions don't follow county boundaries by design so splitting them out by county adds confusion) and then plaster over any anomalies using Original research. I will now list some of them most glaring problems:

What do we want to do with these articles? If they aren't going to be deleted we could change them to be lists of built-up areas which I think is a lot more useful than subdivisions, but then we'd run in to the same problem of cross county areas. We could do them by region and merge all the articles into it. Despite the many cross regional built-up areas and subdivisions the ONS data does split them by region. We could also use parishes instead but unparished areas prove problematic. Eopsid (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I've attempted a clean-up/fix of List of settlements in Bedfordshire by population including columns for populations of the built-up area as well as parishes. Leaving blanks where not applicable. Eopsid (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
All should probably use the BUA or BUASD not parishes or wards as they are different to the settlements themselves. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I was planning on using BUAs. The main reason I included parish counts as a seperate column in List of settlements in Bedfordshire by population is because the ONS data does list each parish in each county (well district) but BUAs are by region. Its not perfect but I've got some code which is using the parish list to check which county the BUA is in and generates the table. It automates the most laborious part of the process but does require sanity checking after. Honestly I'd prefer splitting the article out into two a List of Built-up areas by population and a list of civil parishes by population. Or just move all the civil parish info to the existing civil parish articles. Just looking at List of civil parishes in Suffolk and List of civil parishes in Northamptonshire they are incomplete, lacking useful information on parish population. Eopsid (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Loch Alvie

I just created an article for Loch Alvie. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal

An editor has requested for Geography and identity in Wales to be merged into Geography of Wales. Since you had some involvement with Geography and identity in Wales or Geography of Wales, you might want to participate in the merger discussion (if you have not already done so). Bonoahx (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

UKPLACE and Yorkshire

There is a RM at Talk:Houghton Hall, East Riding of Yorkshire#Requested move 21 January 2022 suggesting that we use "Yorkshire" alone for places in 1 of the Yorkshires as long as its unique in the Yorkshires, this is likely IMO to cause problems for places that were in Derbyshire but now in South Yorkshire. Would this also apply to the Sussexes? Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Honestly I don't think it would make much of a difference if we used Sussex or Yorkshire instead of the actual ceremonial county if the ceremonial county was just Sussex or Yorkshire prefixed with a cardinal direction. But it goes against the longstanding consensus on disambiguating British places and sets a dangerous precedent in favour of Historic county loyalists which could trigger lengthy edit wars. Eopsid (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Agreed Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
There's also the issue of two places with the same name in different ridings. Consider Tunstall, East Riding of Yorkshire and Tunstall, North Yorkshire. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately it looks like it was moved back to Yorkshire... Eopsid (talk) 09:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, are we now going to look at moving all places in the Yorkshire counties to "Yorkshire" alone if unique in them or is that building going to be an exception for no good reason? Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
No, it was moved back to the status quo ante because no consensus was achieved. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Salford Metropolitan Borough Vs City of Salford

Well I recently made a change to the Salford city article but it requires the use of City. So what do we do about it? Remove it back to City of Salford or accept it as Salford Metropolitan Borough? DragonofBatley (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted this undiscussed move to the usual form for this type of split article. Especially as it is a Good Article. Keith D (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I have no idea why DragonofBatley changed City of Salford to Salford Metropolitan Borough in not only the City of Salford article but several others. It has never been known as Salford Metropolitan Borough although like City of Leeds it is a metropolitan borough. I suggest they change them all back to the correct wording. Salford is the city settlement, City of Salford is the metropolitan borough run by Salford City Council, it's not that difficult to understand. Esemgee (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
The talk page is still Talk:Ciy_of_Salford, can someone sort it out, I have no idea? Esemgee (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
It's complicated, because of the multiple redirects the earlier redirect pages have to be removed first. I've tried to set it in motion, we'll see what happens. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
All that should have been necessary was to move Talk:Ciy of Salford back to Talk:Salford Metropolitan Borough and then move that again, back to Talk:City of Salford. But your redirect-blanking has screwed that up. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
OOps, sorry, thanks for sorting it out. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Murgatroyd49 for trying and Redrose64 for sorting it out. Esemgee (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Fixing botched moves by a user

Anyone around with more experience than I in fixing pages that have been moved without discussion? We now have the hot mess that is St Helens. and History of St Helens.. Koncorde (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I have moved History of St Helens. back to History of St Helens, Merseyside, the other has been set-up as a full move request rather than a technical move to restore original title. If there are no objections I will WP:SNOW move it back later today. Keith D (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Looks like someone else has reverted St Helens. while I was out. Keith D (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Cheers. I've had prior issues fixing moves when the earlier article name still exists so hopefully this all gets ironed out. Koncorde (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Debate on merging "urban area" ("built-up area") articles into the primary settlement area

Raised here at [1]]...and raised on behalf on @John Maynard Friedman: for discussion here...

I have proposed merging the Dunstable Luton Urban Area article on the grounds that the article contains aside from Dunstable and Houghton Regis...Luton almost as a whole and as @Crouch, Swale: has checked the ONS BUA site. It seems to have been renamed as just Luton instead of the current title.

I also proposed a merger of the Greater Manchester Urban Area into the Greater Manchester article.

Please comment on this what you think and debate any key points...thanks

DragonofBatley (talk) 07:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

There was discussion last year here some were merged or deleted and some were kept. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose for larger UAs (200,000+) and large articles like Oxford and Cambridge etc. I have two primary reasons
    1. The boundaries of settlements have not been revised in about 50 years so no longer reflect reality on the ground, but there is no political appetite to do anything about it. Settlements have grown, merged and become polycentric. The remit of the City Council is often smaller than the settlement is in reality. All this, as C,S says, has been discussed before and I don't see that anything has changed to justify raising it again.
    2. The articles about large settlements are typically already large. They often need to be split to keep them sensible: Sport in xxxxxx and xxxxx Council being typical examples. The urban area statistics are another obvious candidate – why expand a large article with material that will only have to come back out at a later stage.
    In summary with respect to the Luton urban area article, it is not broken, there is nothing to fix. The same is even more true of the Manchester urban area. IMO, any other RTMs for this reason need be flagged here as well as at the article talk page.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Per above comments, but also: Settlements are forever, "Urban Areas" / "Built Up Areas" and the like are transitional arbitrary methodologies which may or may not align with political boundaries or other practical definitions of a settlement. Bad habit already of some articles creeping into combining the UA / BUA as being one and the same which results in conflicts then with overlapping boundaries, while then being exclusionary of actual regions traditionally within the "settlement" that are outside the UA/BUA due to its arbitrary measurables. Koncorde (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't think we need seperate articles when the urban/built-up area doesn't contain much more than the "settlement". I'm not sure why you mentioned Oxford and Cambridge, they dont have seperate built-up area articles. This topic was heavily discussed last year when we merged a load of these articles. There might be a couple still worth merging, like the Milton Keynes one, because we have seperate articles for the borough and Milton Keynes itself but the Milton Keynes article seems to already be using the urban area to define milton keynes? But I think the overall current situation is fine. But I do have a problem with Built-up area subdivisions being mislabelled as built-up areas, which I've fixed in a few places recently, or misused as settlements like in the List of settlements in county by populations articles (List of settlements in Gloucestershire by population) that I tried to get deleted a while back. I still need to clean these up, I was going to move them all to using a more useful measure like Built-up areas, instead of subdvisions. But thats another topic. 22:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eopsid (talk • contribs) 22:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Yes, I realise that Oxford and Cambridge don't have BUA articles: my point is that this would be a logical place to split those articles if and when they get too big to be useful, per my point #2 above. Cambridge in particular extends significantly into South Cambridgeshire, so it is misleading to give only the CCC area data. Milton Keynes burst its 1967 designated area boundary many years ago and the urban area now extends into the areas controlled by Buckinghamshire Council and Mid-Bedfordshire UAs, as well as its own Borough. So it is far more useful to the man on the Szechuan Omnibus to use the ONS definition of MK as it is now, than the 55-year-old version (which is not collected in any case). And yes, I agree totally regarding misuse of BUSAs. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment List of urban areas in the United Kingdom has links to built-up areas (over 100,000 population) so each such area needs either its own article or a subsection about the built-up area. A built-up area and an administrative area with the same name will have different population figures. These figures need to be clearly explained in the article(s) otherwise people will try to "correct" them. Each case should be considered individually. In some cases the council covers a much larger area. For example, the Bedford article, which refers to the built-up area, and the Borough of Bedford article are quite clear. If there are only minor differences between the areas, one article with a built-up area subsection might work well. If the council only covers part of the built-up area, the places covered by other councils might reasonably argue that they are separate settlements, and the best solution is probably to have an article called "ONSname built-up area". JonH (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Craigie, Perth and Kinross#Requested move 23 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Craigie, Perth and Kinross#Requested move 23 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 07:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Stretford

I have nominated Stretford 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. (t · c) buidhe 11:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Histon and Impington

I'm currently in the process of splitting this article to Impington after this is done the article should be moved back to Histon. The BUASD which covers both settlements is called "Histon" so that article would cover the BUASD as well as "Histon" parish. Input on what should remain in the "Histon" article after splitting would be helpful. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I have no special knowledge of Histon and Impington, except what I have just read in the article, on the parish council website, and on Google Maps. But this seems to be a similar situation to that of Leighton Buzzard and Linslade. It seems that there is now just one settlement, with a joint parish council. They describe it as "a cohesive, single community" and they say that the parishes "are regarded as a single settlement for planning purposes".[2]. If the ONS call it "Histon" you seem to have a good plan. I would limit the "Impington" article to history from the time when people knew which village they were in (such as the church) and to things that indicate they are part of Impington (such as the village college). Everything else I would put in "Histon". I would ignore postal addresses showing places that are technically in Impington (such as those for Histon F.C., Histon police station, and the International Whaling Commission). JonH (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I support a split. I dont think you need to use the BUASD at all. BUASDs should only be used if there is no alternative measure for a settlement. Histon and Impington are seperate parishes and data for the individual villages is easy to come by. Links to the NOMIS pages on the parishes: https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/localarea?compare=E04001806 https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/localarea?compare=E04010465. I see reading the article that there is a parish council website for a combined parish. But I cant find any info on when it was merged or if its two parishes with one council. Eopsid (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I've added a split notice to the article which links to this discussion Eopsid (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I've started a draft at Impington. The Impington article should deal with things just for "Impington" while "Histon" can deal with that "individual" settlement as well as "Histon" BUASD. As the user who proposed merging them noted they are joined together. While merging them was inappropriate we can still use general facts for both places for the "Histon" article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I've merged a bit more of the Impington parts into your new Impington draft. The Histon and Impington article has some "very reliable" references, one of them is "A walk round the centre of Histon". Eopsid (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done Dr. Vogel (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

How to write about districts

Should the 3rd criteria on Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about districts be removed because it links to an article that was deleted, then created as a redirect to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom. Or changed to: The built-up area population is roughly the same, or larger than the district. Then it would better match what its linking to. Eopsid (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I think we should consider both BUASD and BUA. If the BUA is larger than the district this points to not splitting even if the BUASD is smaller, for example Chesterfield district is 103,788, Chesterfield BUASD is 88,483 but Chesterfield BUA is 113,057. There are 3 points, (1) if the BUASD of the same name as the district is roughly the same or larger this indicator suggests not splitting, (2) if the BUA of the same name is larger than the district (even if the BUASD is smaller) this also points towards not splitting or (3) the BUA of a different name to the district is commonly seen as being the settlement area this may suggest not splitting, an example (like the Newcastle example in the section above) is Manchester since the Greater Manchester Built-up Area is commonly used as for defining the settlement of Manchester. I'd consider rewording it to say BUASD or BUA but keep the link as it may be useful to those unfamiliar. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Foul End - Merger into Hurley?

I think this article which uses a lot of already existing sources for Hurley should be merged into that article as there is no real village centre for Foul End and it be better placed alongside Hurley for mention which is in the Kingsbury Parish of North Warwickshire. It also uses a lot of none-reliable articles using school websites, Ofsted reports and a ward profile which it has no mention under.

I propose a merger of this into Hurley article which has more stead then this one.

DragonofBatley (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I suggest following this guide Wikipedia:Merging and adding a merge proposal to those pages. Youre more likely to find people interested in the subject there than on the overall UK geography discussion. I would probably support a merger for the reasons you have already listed. Eopsid (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Splitting the York, East Riding of Yorkshire, Slough and Newcastle upon Tyne articles

I think each of these articles have plenty of grounds to split as the city of York covers a larger area including the town of Haxby and larger villages, the east riding of Yorkshire should have a district article to cover the unitary authority and maybe merge the council into it so we have two...one for the unitary and one for the ceremonial county as the district doesn't include Hull but the ceremonial county does.

The Slough article could have its own borough as it has a notable built up area and includes larger villages and the town of Langley. Also the Newcastle upon Tyne article has many notable areas such as Jesmond, Gosforth and other areas...like we have the city of Sunderland, we could have one for Newcastle upon Tyne...

I would say the best ones for article splits are East Riding of Yorkshire and Slough but the cities could as York has some notable settlements too and Newcastle upon Tyne... Thoughts?

DragonofBatley (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I think of the three, York is the most worthy of a split. Then Newcastle then Slough. The Slough borough is almost entirely urban, and Slough's built up area extends beyond the borough boundaries. The only thing I can find in favour for splitting is that Slough borough contains three parishes: Britwell, Wexham Court and Colnbrook with Poyle. I would support a split in York's case, for Newcastle I would be neutral, and for Slough I would oppose a split. I also agree with your split on the East Riding of Yorkshire, I think every unitary authority area which shares a name with a ceremonial county but doesnt occupy the same area deserves its own article. Eopsid (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I'd agree with Eopsid in that York and the East Riding of Yorkshire should be split. I'm less sure (but weakly support) Newcastle upon Tyne and Slough. Newcastle fails all of my tests at User:Crouch, Swale/District split other than being unquestionably larger than the settlement, the problem with this is that it can get confusing if we say the settlement is in the district yet the settlement may be considered to includes places like Gateshead, that said I still weakly support splitting. Slough is even more difficult but at least it has 1 (or 3) parishes and has recent boundaries? Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I would disagree with splitting of the articles as it just creates significant duplication and people putting wrong information into the incorrect article. With the East Riding of Yorkshire it was created as a single article to cover all manifestations or you would end up with several articles covering different periods of time with loads of overlap. There would be another one when they get the devolution thing sorted out. Keith D (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Borough of Slough, verifiable?

Hi, I have only started this discussion as I wish to see if my new article, Borough of Slough met both the WP: Geography and Notability parts of Wikipedia. It has two towns but has an undefined urban area with parts of Buckinghamshire and also has a civil parish, Colnbrook with Foyle. Was hoping to ask if this is okay to keep or needs more citations or sources etc...DragonofBatley (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  • @DragonofBatley: The list of wards has uncited, undated, populations: Pplease source and date the figures. Please don't use informal language like "don't" in an article. You list 5 items after the reflist: are they "further reading" or what? PamD 22:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

"City of X" unitary authority much larger than the core city

Anticipating that Borough of Milton Keynes (a UA) will become City of Milton Keynes in a few months time, members' thoughts would be welcome. The potential difficulty is that the UA is much (x10?) larger than the MK urban area, with widely separated towns and villages. This can't be novel: is there another 'City of ' article with similar issues that I can learn from? --John Maynard Friedman (talk)

Specifically, how to avoid edit wars when changing 'X is a town in the Borough of Y' to 'X is a town in the City of Y'. Oh no it isn't! Oh yes it is! Absolutely not, it is ten miles outside the city. Etc. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
City of Carlisle is probably a good example. Its the largest city by area in England. Eopsid (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Also now that we are going to have to use the word "city," are we heading for the clash of the titans with regards to the constituent towns of the New Town designated area (Bletchley, Fenny Stratford, Wolverton and Stony Stratford) and the other towns in the Milton Keynes urban area (Newport Pagnell and Woburn Sands). In all cases, could we not just swap the word "Borough" for "City". Also, should the lead sentence on the main MK article continue to say "Milton Keynes is the largest settlement in Bucks..." or "Milton Keynes is a city in Bucks...". There have already been quite a few edit wars over there today. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the lead sentence, I think it should say neither and instead say built-up area. On a semi-related note the BBC's coverage can't decide what the population of Milton Keynes is https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-61506835 uses the borough but https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61505857 uses the built-up area subdivision... but mislabels it as the urban area... They havent even copied this off Wikipedia because all the Milton Keynes articles are pretty good at defining it. Eopsid (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
If the district does then yes per Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about districts#Naming conventions it should be "City of Milton Keynes" also note that the OS usually adds the prefix to unitary districts with city status (example City of Nottingham). Yes it can continue to state its the largest settlement in Buckinghamshire or just state its a city, both would probably be OK. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
The problem with saying city or largest city is because its not currently a city yet. They have to wait for letters patent or something. I'm no expert, I've just read the talk pages when the edit war around this happened with Southend. Eopsid (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely. Formal city status is perhaps six months away. The reason I raised the question now is to give time work out how we will handle the Borough being renamed, as it is going to be a bit messy. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Looking at some examples of towns inside districts that are also Cities, Bishop's Waltham and Keighley both sort of side step the issue. Bishop's calls it Winchester district except in the info box and Keighley calls it the City of Bradford borough in the opening paragraph. Not sure of the best approach but for Olney we could say near Milton Keynes, in the city of Milton Keynes unitary authority, just city of Milton Keynes. The latter might start an edit war. I'd go with City of Milton Keynes Unitary Authority then its clear its a district rather than forming part of that city's urban area. Eopsid (talk) 11:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the use of City of MK UA. Its effectively a middle ground - it states the fact that Olney is in the UA with city status, whilst also (hopefully) avoiding any flare ups by not making it seem like it states that Olney is part of MK's core, contiguous urban sprawl. I suspect though that this may get more messy on the Newport Pagnell and Woburn Sands articles; I get the feeling that City of MK UA and MK urban area in the lead sentence may not ring well with some people who just skim read the page. I don't think we should get rid of the MK BUA article, but as many things have changed since the 1970s, could we just state on those articles that they are either suburbs of MK or (though this may seem like a stretch) constituent towns of MK (with a citation that says that it is outside the designated area, but in today's urban area), because, lets be honest, the 1967 new town boundary is archaic and largely irrelevant considering that, e.g., in the Fairfields article, it is stated clearly that it is a district of MK, despite being outside of the 1967 boundary. Obviously we have to consider local sensitivities, but it is just a suggestion. Yet again another example of how politics/geography/culture don't mix. (Side note, the rampant edit wars have seemed to have calmed down ever since hidden notes were added to relevant pages, and that they have been protected. Peace at once!) Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

There is a 'near enough' list District (and UAs) with city status at City status in the United Kingdom#Local government districts that should provide plenty of examples to study and learn from over the next few months. Unfortunately, without knowing local sensitivities in each case, it won't be easy to see what was done to avoid treading on bunions. So if anyone has any hints to drop, feel free to use my talk page. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Infobox UK District

Should they be a district infobox made from parts of the UK place and the county infoboxes. This will enable UK place to be shorter (no police etc) and able to have room to add other fields. 80.6.150.53 (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

It was merged with {{Infobox settlement}} in 2010, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 April 1#Template:Infobox UK district. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
I think it should be revisited after 11y&1m. Police and fire services are tied to the district rather than just the places, the auto fill would be better on the district/borough/city articles. Statistics also tend to be for the district on the bigger places’ articles which are also be better on just the district articles because they is statistics for the specific places available by NOMIS.
By the way the first message was me. Chocolateediter (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
That would probably standardise UK infoboxes on one format and is a good idea to revisit. Keith D (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
@Keith D and Chocolateediter: Perhaps similar to the discussion about the parish infobox at User talk:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes#Infobox we should revisit the 2010/2011 discussions at Wikipedia:Deletion review. I have no strong opinion either way but if you 2 think we should have them again I'd be happy either way. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
@Crouch, Swale and Chocolateediter: I was going to modify {{infobox UK place}} for that but did not get round to it. Should probably do both for consistency. Keith D (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
@Crouch, Swale and Chocolateediter: I have added places to {{infobox UK place/sandbox}}. You can see it in the first example of Template:Infobox UK place/testcases (just under Sovereign state). You can try it out yourself, details of parameters are in {{Infobox settlement}} documentation - see |parts=, |parts_type=, |parts_style=, |p1= to |p50=. Default is Places rather than Borough. Keith D (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I have put the parts processing live. Keith D (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Sussex and Yorkshire disambiguators

There was discussion at Talk:Houghton Hall, Yorkshire#Requested move 21 January 2022 about using "Yorkshire" and "Sussex" instead of "East Riding of Yorkshire", "North Yorkshire", "South Yorkshire", "West Yorkshire", "East Sussex" and "West Sussex" for places unique in the Yorkshire and Sussex counties. Editors pointed out that this may cause more problems (such as places never within Yorkshire but now in one of the Yorkshire counties) and goes against the longstanding consensus of not using historic counties, however editors pointed out that if unique in the Yorkshire counties or Sussex counties the shorter historic county is more concise and is sufficient if unique.

Should WP:UKPLACE be modified to allow places that require disambiguation in East Riding of Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire that are unique in all of these counties use just "Yorkshire" and those unique in East Sussex and West Sussex use just "Sussex"?

Should places in Scotland unique in East Ayrshire, North Ayrshire and South Ayrshire use just "Ayrshire", those unique in East Dunbartonshire and West Dunbartonshire use just "Dunbartonshire", those unique in East Lothian, Midlothian and West Lothian use just "Lothian", those unique in East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire use just "Renfrewshire" and those qunque in North Lanarkshire and South Lanarkshire use just "Lanarkshire"?

For example move Morley, West Yorkshire to Morley, Yorkshire etc

  • A, do this for all types of places (settlements, landforms, buildings etc)
  • B, do this for only certain types of places such as only landforms or only settlements (please specify)
  • C, only do this for places that are in more than one of the named counties and otherwise unique in the named counties such as Barnsdale being in both South and West Yorkshire but there doesn't appear to be any other places called "Barnsdale" in any of the Yorkshire counties.
  • Oppose (or D) keep things as is (though C may already be acceptable)

Note that in Scotland many landforms use "Scotland" already so as long as that's correct this wouldn't change anything there. This is not a discussion about if we use brackets or commas (such as Houghton Hall, East Riding of Yorkshire/Houghton Hall (East Riding of Yorkshire) but only what the text is in the disambiguation tag. Pinging users @Amakuru, Asukite, Eopsid, Extraordinary Writ, Facts707, JimmyGuano, Keith D, Martin of Sheffield, Mcmatter, Necrothesp, and Paine Ellsworth:. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 2,700 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
@Crouch, Swale: How about "Should UK disambiguation for divided counties use "(Sussex)" or ("East Sussex"), etc?" Or if "divided counties" is considered in some way controversial, just plain "Should UK disambiguation use "(Sussex)" or ("East Sussex"), etc?". That title will make sense to people with enough understanding to make a useful contribution to the discussion. The "UK" limits the scope; the "etc" shows that this is an example of the broader question under discussion. PamD 08:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


Should UK disambiguation for divided counties use "(Sussex)" or ("East Sussex"), etc? For example should we use Litlington, Sussex or Litlington, East Sussex? Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Responses

  • Oppose while I'm generally in favour of using more concise qualifiers if needed I think the confusion and complication this may cause isn't worth the marginal benefit of using the shorter name given the controversy of county changes in England. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose I would seriously consider redrafting the question. By confining it to places unique in The County (and of course in the same way Sussex, Ayrshire, Dunbartonshire, Lothian, Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire) a point is being missed. There are some places that are not unique in The County, and therefore need to be disambiguated by East Riding of Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire as appropriate. This really is the key point, that these places need the longer term. The question then is "Should places which are unique to The County be treated differently to those which are not unique". I would suggest that this comes down to a WP:RF issue, indeed almost an Occam's razor that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". Saying that Tunstall, North Yorkshire lies within Richmond (Yorks) (UK Parliament constituency) is simply confusing to readers unaware of the history of 20C British local government reorganisations. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is only one issue resulting from a deeper problem of how we best handle UK counties because the current system does not work as well as it should. To make the suggested changes in the RFC will only add further confusion and not really solve anything. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. Completely. There is absolutely no need to use a longer disambiguator when the shorter one will do perfectly well. The only time the longer disambiguator needs to be used is if there is more than one place with the same name within the historic county. Otherwise, Yorkshire, Sussex, Ayrshire, etc, are perfectly understandable. After all, this isn't America. We only add a county name if it's necessary for disambuation, not as a matter of course. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Invited by the bot. Good luck. I think that only about 1% of potential responders will have the specialized knowledge to even understand the question. And I'm not in the 1%  :-) North8000 (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
    Just the point I was making about WP:RF. Readers not versed in UK geography will be confused by the multiple designations. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Echoing above, the RFC is unclear in what this hopes to resolve, what ultimate language or logic would be used. Is this RFC to ask for interest in making such a change, or proposing an actual solution to something because it seems unclear. Koncorde (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Introduces more complexity and uncertainty than it solves. Disambiguating according to the current legal polity is straightforward and uncontroversial; yes, it's at the expense of an extra word but I don't believe anyone is going to be confused by "West Yorkshire" or "East Sussex". Also, these so-called unique placenames often aren't unique, so if we adopted the proposal, it's possible that when an article is written about the second place in Sussex or Yorkshire the title would become ambigious (though admittedly this is still a risk if there are two places with the same name in West Yorkshire, for example). Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Mild oppose - More specificity seems to be helpful when there are multiple places with the same name, and Martin of Sheffield's argument is fairly compelling as well. I don't have a particularly strong argument to add as my knowledge of UK geography as an American is limited, if slowly expanding. (For a laugh, check out Springfield, Wisconsin, I agree we could use some help with naming over here.) ASUKITE 14:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of the precedent any change would set in favour of historic county loyalists and potential edit wars that could bring. Yorkshire and Sussex don't currently exist as "official" entities using them in disambiguators implies they do. Eopsid (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  • C - For now, do this only for things overlapping two counties. Also "East Riding of Yorkshire" really needs to be just "East Yorkshire" for these types of entries. Facts707 (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    But Facts707, East Yorkshire isn't the name of that county, and we shouldn't be inventing a new one for our convenience. Rcsprinter123 (prattle) 14:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    Not a big issue to me, but East Yorkshire is an accepted alternative name for East Riding of Yorkshire. Odd to me why there are North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, but "East Riding of Yorkshire". Anyway, I would suggest "East Yorkshire" is clear to all readers and more concise. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
    Regarding why there is no East Yorkshire, see History of local government in Yorkshire#Changes in 1974. Regarding the peculiarity of East Riding: see History of local government in Yorkshire#1990s UK local government reform. This begs the question: why were there only three ridings before 1974, no South Riding? It's because the term originates from Old Norse þriðing, "third part", see History of local government in Yorkshire#Ancient divisions. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
  • East Sussex Can't make heads nor tails of the oppose or support above, but the disambiguation should disambiguate to the current geography, as many readers will be unfamiliar with the history. Length is not an issue here, but clarity is. SportingFlyer T·C 00:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Missing BUAs

I've produced a list of the BUAs or BUASDs with a population of 5000 or more without articles here and that weren't previously excluded for a reason explained further back, see User:Crouch, Swale/BUAs/Revised 4. User:Crouch, Swale/BUAs/Revised 3 also lists those with more than 1000. Of those with more than 5000 Ackworth Moor Top and Burghfield Common could exist but may overlap with the parishes, Westergate and North Walney (settlement) may overlap too much with other topics and Kibworth Harcourt should probably be split since although the BUA includes Kibworth Beauchamp both are separate parishes. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Are these all basically villages in civil parishes which have multiple villages? Or anomalous areas of towns that are outside the main Built-up area? Which seems to be the case for north Walney and Barrow. I don't think they necessarily need their own articles if they are covered suitably in the article for the parish. Eopsid (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

District splits

Any thoughts on splitting/merging more districts at User:Crouch, Swale/District split? As far as I can see Peterborough, York and Warrington should definitely be split and most of the partly parished ones could. Blackpool could probably be merged like Luton was recently and the only unparished one I'd consider splitting is Gosport, thoughts @DragonofBatley, Eopsid, and John Maynard Friedman:? Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I would support splitting all those. They all encompass rural areas and villages distinct from the main town/city's built-up area. Eopsid (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The only issue is, Peterborough doesn't really have any notable settlements outside the city. It has a few villages I agree but does it really have major grounds to split away? York I agree with as it has town of Haxby and villages of note. Warrington I heavily support as it contains notable villages like Lymm, Glazebrook, Stockton Heath and Risley. But to me other articles I'd be in favour of seeing split to give more entry to them would be the city of Wolverhampton (contains Bilston, Wednesfield and Tettenhall even Bushbury), the City of Gloucester might be worth splitting as it does contain Quedeley and Brockworth. These might be worth considering to split especially as Brockworth is a parish of Gloucester and Quedeley was, @Crouch, Swale:. DragonofBatley (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Peterborough does have villages like Eye and Thorney inside the city district but outside the built-up area. As well as stately homes like Burghley House which I only just learnt wasnt in Lincolnshire. Regarding Gloucester and Wolverhampton, all those places are suburbs rather than physically distinct. Brockworth isnt even in the City of Gloucester but Tewkesbury district. I wouldnt support a split for Gloucester or Wolverhampton and when you proposed the Wolverhampton split Talk:Wolverhampton#Splitting the article into a borough and the city there was no consensus for it. Although I'm not strongly against. With London Boroughs though everyone has its own article with an article for the settlement/town/city/area suburb too so there is precedent (kind of) for what you want to do to Wolverhampton. Eopsid (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Wolverhampton is a single unparished area which is why I didn't !vote supporting splitting it, Gloucester does contain other parishes and has even more recent boundaries (1996) but doesn't contain any distinct settlements, like Slough I'd lean supporting splitting it but I'd be fine keeping as is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I've corrected the lead for Brockworth as it had district of Gloucester without any leads and been left unchecked since an anon made the changes in July 2018. I added the Tewkesbury borough in and why I did in my edit summary.

I'd be honest a place worth looking at splitting would be imo, Southend on Sea has towns and villages which could warrant seperate article to the main city. Same with Nottingham (contains Bulwell, Clifton and other areas) and maybe Lincoln as it contains Bracebridge Heath and Canwick as well as Boulton Moor etc...I am just suggesting might be wrong DragonofBatley (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Southend does contain Leigh but its even part of the BUASD, I'd again lean towards splitting due to Leigh being a separate parish. Clifton is a BUSSD of Nottingham thus its a separate BUASD but part of Nottingham BUA, Bracebridge Heath and Canwick aren't in Lincoln district and Boulton Moor is in Derby. The last 2 districts tick all but perhaps for Clifton somewhat being distinct so I'd probably not split those. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I mean sorry Boultham Moor (Lincoln) @Crouch, Swale:. I'd agree with Southend and Nottingham given they contain parishes and Bulwell being a town under Nottingham as well as Clifton. Would make sense to split. To be fair, I think Leicester contains parishes too and so does Hull DragonofBatley (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@DragonofBatley: Southend indeed contains 1 parish which was formed from the single unparished area. Bulwell despite being a market town is today part of the BUASD so likely doesn't qualify as distinct. Nottingham and Leicester do not contain any CPs[3][4] or other unparished areas and have post 1974 boundaries[5] (aside from "Shire Hall, Nottingham")[6]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I dont think we should be using BUASDs to work out whether an area is distinct or not. That data set has too many anomalies and they redid all the boundaries and split and merged loads between the 2001 census and 2011 census. But I don't support splitting Nottingham either. However I can't think of a good consistent rule on when we split or not. Local government boundaries in England are an inconsistent mess. I was thinking we should never split somewhere with civil parishes but that would mean not splitting the London Boroughs. Eopsid (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
@Eopsid: I agree BUASDs may be a bit inconsistent but after BUAs they are an additional indicator, I was mainly in this case using it as evidence its not distinct, that is to say because Bulwell is in the BUA and BUASD of Nottingham that is generally good evidence its not distinct now since Clifton is a BUASD of Nottingham BUA that suggests it is distinct in some way but not completely. Consider Thorney for example its in the district of Peterborough but not the BUASD or BUA and is clearly an independent settlement. So while a place like Bulwell may have some distinct identity it is clearly part of the settlement of Nottingham and while Clifton is a separate BUASD is is part of Nottingham BUA so this should probably not be split. I'm assuming you're last sentence was that we should never split a district without parishes? If so keep in mind that while a district may be completely unparished it may contain multiple unaprished areas such as Bury containing Prestwich, Radcliffe, Ramsbottom, Tottington and Whitefield. All London boroughs other than Harrow were formed from merges so would fail that point regarding combining them. I'd actually say generally don't split districts that only contain a single unparished area meaning they have post 1974 boundaries and no parishes currently exist eg Byfleet was formed post 1974 and abolished so Woking passes this criteria to be merged. There seem to be 3 possible exceptions to this ignoring Harrow, they are Fareham, Havant (possibly a special case as the unparished areas is "Havant and Waterloo") and Gosport. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Related to this topic, I don't understand why towns and cities have administrative boundaries which are sometimes ridiculously larger than the core built-up area. It just seems bonkers! Is it just for convenience sake? Are there political reasons involved? Or were these boundaries just drawn by some commissioners on a couch at 12 O'clock midnight? Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Its because the towns only grew that large after the Local Government Act 1972 when the adminstrative boundaries were drawn. Most of the towns and cities with tight boundaries have them because they used to be county boroughs. Eopsid (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
It seems to have been because the government wanted to save money by assigning larger areas to districts eg Wokingham was formed from the previous borough of Wokingham as well as Wokingham Rural District so the "Borough of Wokingham" article deals with the new district while the Wokingham article deals with the town (and parish) as well as the older district (though with some like Municipal Borough of Chorley we have separate articles for the former district) while in the case of Reading its boundaries are the same as the pre 1974 borough probably because it was large enough to stay as 1 district so we have 1 combined article. If we did decide to split Reading (which would probably not be recommended) we would probably also cover the older district in the article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Reading seems to have the opposite problem to many other urban areas where the BUA is bigger than the borough, and pretty significantly as it includes Wokingham, and used to include Bracknell. It's the same with Middlesbrough, which has a separate article for the Borough. I think in these instances, one article for both the core settlement and the borough is fine, especially considering the fact that in Reading's case, the boundaries haven't changed since it transitioned from a county borough to a unitary authority in 1974. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 09:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Middlesbrough has civil parishes whereas Reading doesn't. Also the borough crossed over into Redcar and Cleveland and Stockton so it's town and borough have different coverages. Reading is the same as it was 1974 DragonofBatley (talk) 12:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The Borough doesn't spill over into Redcar and Cleveland and Stockton. They are all seperate boroughs. The Built-up area spills over into those neighbouring districts. But the same is true for Reading. Eopsid (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

But on that, Borough of Middlesbrough (Unlike Borough of Blackpool) has civil parishes at both Nunthorpe and Stainton and Thornton. I would say if any towns contain a civil parish or notable settlements. They should have grounds for a seperate unitary authority article. Tamworth has no civil parishes but Goole for instance has a town council and so does Darwen despite them being in two Unitary Authority areas. Reading has none from when I looked online but Slough has some, Chesterfield has some, Warrington has some and so does Boston Lincolnshire. Point is if the town or city cover a wider area and those notable settlements have town councils or are civil parishes. They should help towards an article for the borough separate from the town. Because could you just imagine if you merged the wider Blackburn with Darwen unitary area into just Blackburn? Many people in Darwen would be mad to be mentioned just under Blackburn alone without a standalone article for their town and villages/hamlets surrounding the borough with it all mentioned just in Blackburn? It be debates asking where a standalone for both towns is to cover the unitary authority and not the town alone (Blackburn) just mentioning it. DragonofBatley (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Looking at Bracebridge Heath today I found yet another dead link to 2011 census info[1], and updated it to link to NOMIS.[2] I imagine there are many hundreds (possibly thousands?) of these useless links within articles for UK towns, villages, parishes, perhaps counties, etc.

It would be great to have a systematic project to find and fix all these dead links. I don't think it could be done entirely automatically by a bot, but perhaps someone could create a Category:Articles with dead links to UK 2011 census pages, perhaps sorted by county/wikiproject, so that editors could pick off and fix articles they chose? It would give us an idea of the scale of the problem, for a start. Any thoughts? PamD 08:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@PamD: I'd might be able to do some tagging if I have an idea of what to look for!
So, am I on the right track here?
In the example above:
I don't see any commonality in the parameters, so I don't see a basis for automated conversion. And the archives at https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadKeyFigures.do?a=7&b=11121003&c=Bracebridge+Heath&d=16&e=62&g=6446661&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1461410766903&enc=1 are useless: just redirects.
AFAICS, the whole of http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk is dead.
I did an insource search for http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/, which gives 9,159 hits. Gulp!
So I have a suggestion:
  1. create a custom tag as a variant of {{Dead link}}, possibly named {{UK neighbourhood statistics dead link}}. This tag would behave like dead link, but have a) some specific data in the displayed text; b) populate an extra tracking category like the one which Pam suggested.
  2. Tag all these links with the new tag. Using AWB, I can do that within a day or two.
  3. Then editors can use WP:Petscan to make sub-lists for their own use. It would be quite easy for example to create a list of articles with {{UK neighbourhood statistics dead link}} which have the WikiProject Borsetshire banner; I can post details of how to do that, but give you an idea of what's possible here are 2 crude examples:
How does that sound? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
PS It jut occurred to me that Wikidata wizards may find some way of bringing some automation to the process. For example, the Wikidata page for Bracebridge Heath is Q4953229, which has a lot of identifiers. I dunno what to do with them, but a "help me lord" note at WP:VPT often brings forth a wizard. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Oh! One of those Wikidata identifiers is "GSS code (2011)" showing "E04005787" for Bracewell Heath, which is the code used in the new NOMIS link https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/localarea?compare=E04005787 and the 2011-specific NOMIS link https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/sources/census_2011_ks/report?compare=E04005787 . NOMIS tells us that's about "Bracebridge Heath Parish" which is what we want, as opposed to "Bracebridge Heath and Waddington East Ward (as of 2011)" https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/sources/census_2011_ks/report?compare=E05005621 . If Wikidata's correctly made such distinctions and has a fairly complete set, might that be a good start for automation? NebY (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Except that Wikidata has E04005204 for our other example, Silverdale, but NOMIS https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/sources/census_2011_ks/report?compare=E05005204 is about somewhere else enirely. Sad now. NebY (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
One awkward wrinkle: the content of the nomisweb.co.uk pages looks likely to change as the 2021 census data arrives, so for example https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/localarea?compare=E04005787 would no longer be a good reference for Bracebridge Heath's "increasing to 5,656 at the 2011 census" and archive.org hasn't archived that page. NebY (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
@NebY: Thanks for pointing that out. We also have {{NOMIS2001}} which already seems not to be working! The example from the template documentation is {{NOMIS2001|id=1170215054|title=Silverdale Parish}}, which does not work: the output " UK Census (2001). "Local Area Report – Silverdale Parish (1170215054)". Nomis. Office for National Statistics. " leads to a search page, not a result. The information for Silverdale Parish 2001 is still available, at https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/sources/census_2001_ks/report?compare=30UH027, which has no obvious mapping from the previous system. It looks as if all our UK census data is in serious trouble. PamD 12:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
But I now find that the link to the 2001 data in Silverdale, Lancashire (ref 24), which uses the {{NOMIS2001}} template, is still working OK! Perhaps some glitch in the documentation, which I'll look into, but things may not be as bad as I feared in terms of 2001. PamD 12:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Oh that's good! And I've just found NOMIS has specific 2011 reports eg https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/sources/census_2011_ks/report?compare=E05005241 for Silverdale, https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/sources/census_2011_ks/report?compare=E04005787 for Bracebridge Heath Parish. NebY (talk) 12:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
  1. I've fixed the problem with the 2001 template documentation - a change had been made to the text but not to the examples, now all sorted. Phew. Apparently the code is now a "Government Statistical Service code": perhaps @Trappedinburnley: can join in this discussion as they obviously understand these things. Will that help us to map old URLs into NOMIS2001 templates, to rescue all the old dead links to "Neighbourhood statistics"? If the GSS code is a permanent identifier for an area (eg civil parish), should we consider adding it to our infobox, just like schools have their Ofsted number, as a unique identifier for either human or machine manipulation?
  2. Does that mean that we (ie "someone") should update the NOMIS2011 template so that it creates the 2011-specific URL (ah, the joys of templates: one change to update umpteen articles. Brilliant!) PamD 13:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
    I don't know if the GSS code changes with boundary changes, and I've just found one example of Wikidata having the wrong one (as a NOMIS parameter anyway), and I am quite out of my depth, but yes, that change to the NOMIS2011 template looks totally viable! NebY (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
    Certainly the numbers changed a while back. Long numbers like 1170215054 aren't valid any more, it is all E05005241 now. Initially at least, NOMIS would accept the ten-digit number and return the result using the E+8 form. It may be that an FoI enquiry [@KeithD:?] will produce a conversion table including a list of exceptions? (split/merged parishes, districts, UAs etc. Many minor changes can add up over 20 years so that it becomes an apples and oranges problem. We have a couple of extreme examples in MK if anybody thinks that they can come up with a universal rule and wants their brains frying. Links available on request on signature of an indemnity clause .) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Probably need 2 tags, one for 2001 & one for 2011 census links, or a parameter, so that you can have a couple of tracking categories. Will need to create a {{NOMIS2021}} when we know what they are doing with the 2021 census. Keith D (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Another problem is they have incorporated small figures from adjacent parishes, so the actual figure may cover a couple of parishes. Thus automatically converting may not be a good move as will need to identify on a case by case basis and skip in this case or add an explaination to the text. Tagging though would be good as those still in need of investigation will be identified. Keith D (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I've proposed making {{NOMIS2011}} more 2011-specific at Template talk:NOMIS2011#Change URL to specify 2011 census - it looks safe but that's a high-risk template. NebY (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Civil parish population 2011". Neighbourhood Statistics. Office for National Statistics. Retrieved 23 April 2016.
  2. ^ UK Census (2011). "Local Area Report – Bracebridge Heath Parish (E04005787)". Nomis. Office for National Statistics.

Borough of Warrington

This page is created to cover the wider civil parishes of Warrington which the town article does not really cover. Also, it covers the geography and historic boundaries of the whole borough (Not Exclusively Warrington) and unlike towns like Tamworth, Reading, Crawley, and Colchester, it has many parishes and civil parishes even a town council (Birchwood) and the borough is notable for its historic boundaries and many affluent villages and hamlets. Feel free to discuss the stance but the borough is almost parished (Except Warrington). I have asked @Crouch, Swale: to check the City Scope and any other requirements the article needs to meet but I argue that like the Borough of Chesterfield, Borough of Slough, Mansfield District and Borough of Burnley. Warrington has its own civil parishes and only the town is unparished. Also the article is about its borough and not a repeat of Warrington's long-standing borough. DragonofBatley (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I support the creation of this article Eopsid (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Glad you agree with it @Eopsid:, to me should have been split years back but better late then ever. Also had to fix two articles without sources too. And rewrite a lead of one but aside from that. Easy enough DragonofBatley (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
@DragonofBatley: Yes Warrington fails all the criteria to be combined hence should be split, per User:Crouch, Swale/District split#Partly parished. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
@Crouch, Swale:, glad it passes the right to be split and like I said to Eopsid. Shocked it wasn't split years back but then I suppose the geography part wasn't fully integrated till recent years but glad it can at least remain and two support it DragonofBatley (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT for churches - by location, or not?

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#DEFAULTSORT for churches which may be of interest. PamD 16:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography/Archive_25&oldid=1097498965"