Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

City region articles

Thread retitled from "Liverpool City Region".

Thread retitled from "Liverpool City Region and Leeds City Region".

I'm a little concerned by the Liverpool City Region article. It seems to treat the area as if it were a county and Liverpool City Region Combined Authority as it it's a county council, for example in the lead: "Since 1 April 2014, the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority has become the top-tier administrative body for the local governance of the city region." It also uses the 'settlement' rather than 'legislature' infobox, with a collage of the area; has a list of MPs; and the transport section of Merseyside was recently moved to it despite including transport outside the scope of the combined authority.

Now, as far as I'm aware combined authorities are simply collaborations between local authorities (and occasionally other bodies) which have been put on a statutory footing, so we shouldn't be treating them like counties. The article was created in 2005, well before combined authorities were established, for a long time covered the less formal collaborations between the local authorities in the area. If we were covering the government of the area from scratch we'd probably have a single article for the combined authority and city region; although the latter has some pre-combined authority history, it currently only serves as an area for the combined authority and its associated bodies (e.g. the local enterprise partnership). I'm inclined to merge the article into 'Liverpool City Region Combined Authority'. Thoughts? A.D.Hope (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it's important to keep a sense of perspective about what things are and maybe what some contributors imagine they are when they get that fever for expanding articles. For all 'place' related things, including your transport example, Merseyside does the trick (and Borough of Halton). County is the appropriate subject for these topics. We need a consistent way to write about city regions, which to be fair have evolved in various ways legally since they appeared on Wikipedia, and keep only those topics that apply to the city region, but not the county, in the article. I note that in England, Liverpool and Tees Valley are the only city regions to have separate articles for the CR and its combined authority. They are either dealt with in one article, ie Greater Brighton, Bristol & Sheffield, it's combined with the met county article, ie Greater Manchester, West Midlands, or they are special cases where the city region and combined authority do not have the same boundary, ie Leeds/West Yorkshire.

In short, consolidation and keeping topics in their most appropriate place is what we need to look to do. Rcsprinter123 (express) 17:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

So when we've sorted out this mess, can we move on to Sunderland and City of Sunderland? The latter has way too much information in it overlapping with what's in the former. As a Geordie I'm no fan of the Mackems, but as they have so many problems it would at least be nice for them to have decent Wikipedia articles. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah! I do love a WP:NPOV. Mackems and Geordies, they're all north of the Tees and halfway to being Scots. :-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Oops! You make a good point. Can I be sanction for a personal attack on a whole city of (Mackem) people? At least they don't hang monkeys like our neighbours a bit further south. Perhaps I should ask for my comment to be struck from the page history! 10mmsocket (talk) 10:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Sunderland should be easy to sort out, just collapse the Governance section to a very brief summary of and {{main}} to "City of Sunderland"? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Back onto Liverpool City Region, which recent edits seem to suggest a merger is imminent. Not opposed to one, and can see merits for a merger considering it largely overlaps with Merseyside, with some of its contents moved there, and the existing LCR article is not too long or can be summarised. If a merger were to occur, surely all combined authority (CA) areas (in England), such as Tees Valley and West of England should be merged into the respective CAs too? (as long as the area did not pre-exist before CAs). I guess in line with Rcsprinter123's comment. There were recent edits to Liverpool City Region that made it too much like a county, but avoided reverting it.

Pinging @A.D.Hope as this seems to apply to you again :) Although not sure if a merger proposal should be set up to gather as much consensus. DankJae 18:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I can't say I've given the combined authority areas a great deal of thought — as DankJae knows I'm focussed on the ceremonial counties and national parks at present — but several of them have morphed into county-like articles and I do think we should reverse that. The combined authorities aren't counties, so should be sub-pages of the relevant ceremonial county and local authority articles.

The only combined authority areas with distinct articles are Liverpool City Region, Tees Valley, and West of England; Cambridge and Peterborough, North East, and North of Tyne only have articles for their authorities, and the rest are covered the articles for the metropolitan counties they're coterminous with. On that basis I think we should merge the three combined authority area articles into the relevant combined authority articles, with sections such as 'Economy', 'Transport', and 'Sport' being merged into the ceremonial county articles. That will give us consistency across all the combined authority articles, whether they correspond to a county or not.

(Pinging @Chocolateediter, who seems to have done a lot of work on these articles.) A.D.Hope (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I would I been here earlier, l've done many paragraphs twice and decided not to use them. The LCRCA's specific powers from {{websitelhttps://assets.publishing.service.

gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa ds/attachment_data/file/608522/Plain_Eng lish_Guides_to_Devolution_Liverpool.PDF

}} are investment finding, business rates,

local transport, land planning, apprenticeship grants and adult education. Excluding Halton borough from these in the Merseyside article where it can be covered in the LCR article seems silly. Once one section goes, most of the article follows. Things evolve, combined authority "devolved areas" can now sit between counties and regions and share names with each.

All authorities/councils to me can be merged into the corresponding area articles. The module field of the settlement infobox is ideal to put the legislation infobox in.

If the devolved area articles are becoming more county like that’s just he standard settlement guidelines and since they is no combined authority how to, the right balance of county and region how to following is needed. Chocolateediter (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, I should say that I appreciate the effort you've put into these articles, your enthusiasm is great and not the problem here. The root of the issue is that we treat the ceremonial counties as the 'main' page for English areas, and that hasn't changed. Combined authorities aren't counties — most areas don't even have one — so they should be subordinate to the county articles. This means that CA articles should only contain information directly relevant to the combined authority, such as its governance and remit.

In Merseyside's case, the article links to Liverpool City Region and both it and Halton are mentioned where appropriate, such as in the lead: 'The boroughs primarily collaborate through Liverpool City Region combined authority, which also includes the borough of Halton from Cheshire.' A.D.Hope (talk) 10:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I’ll bide my time til they cover the whole of England then plead my case to change it, could be anytime from 5 to 20 years. I’ll focus of borough and district articles. Sorry if I have the odd night of random edits I should know I’m too tired sometimes to edit properly. Chocolateediter (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree that 'Economy', 'Transport' etc... should be merged with Merseyside. Merseyside and the Liverpool city region are two separate areas which have a different economy and different transport. In fact, the economy and transport of this area is now coordinated at the Liverpool city region level. That is explained in the lede of the Liverpool city region article. Plus, the transport and economy of the Liverpool city region includes a part of Cheshire - therefore, it makes no sense to merge that information with Merseyside since it then excludes relevant information concerning Cheshire. If someone confuses the city region with the county of Merseyside or Cheshire then that is through their lack of understanding - not the fault of the article which explains the differences. It is not a good idea to merge this information and I suggest that this idea is dropped. Richie wright1980 (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is a rather large article for Leeds City Region and a separate article for the West Yorkshire Combined Authority which controls that area. You would have to rip up the Leeds city region article aswell and risk upsetting the contributors to that. So I suggest you consult on that page too before altering Liverpool city region so there is a consistent approach. However, as per the complex nature of English local government, the Leeds city region is coterminous with the county of West Yorkshire whereas the Liverpool city region is not coterminous with Merseyside. There is more reason to abolish the Leeds city region article over the Liverpool city region so it is funny how people would start there.Richie wright1980 (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

In Merseyside's case, 'Transport' covers more forms of transport than those Liverpool City Region Combined Authority organises, and 'Economy' should cover the general economy of the county but is in a poor state. There's no reason why the combined authority article(s) couldn't cover the responsibilities of the authority in relation to travel and the economy, but 'Merseyside' should remain the main article for those topics in general.

The Leeds City Region article suffers some of the same problems as Liverpool City Region in that it's developed into something of a county article, despite combined authority areas not being counties. There's a fair bit which relates directly to the combined authority, but anything about West Yorkshire in general should really be in the ceremonial county article. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like you might be projecting your own political ideology on to these pages. City regions blur the lines between metropolitan areas, travel-to-work areas, retail catchment areas, housing and labour markets and sometimes go beyond county boundaries. Therefore, as much as they have been the subject of legally specified devolved powers, they are also Politico-Geographic areas where the boundaries are still under discussion or where the powers are being negotiated over time. It is rather difficult for there to be a consistent approach when there is no consistency in how they are all arranged.

See:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economicoutputandproductivity/output/articles/cityregionsarticle/2015-07-24

Given that each city region is operating on a rolling bespoke basis, is it fair to suggest that the page content will not always strictly be about what the combined authority does or does not do? It is impossible to compare one city region with another when some of them have more or less powers, different powers, some have elected mayors and some do not! Some don't even have combined authorities yet or have no intention of having one.

When English devolution is as messy as it is and an area like Liverpool city region is morphing more into the function of a county then that is the result of how that area has evolved compared to how another city region might have evolved. I don't see why everything within a city region article should always pertain to the respective combined authorities anyway - that's like saying everything in the Liverpool article should pertain to Liverpool city council or everything in the United Kingdom article should pertain to the United Kingdom government.

Lastly, there is no reason why a reader should confuse Merseyside with Liverpool city region when the very top of the page already states 'Not to be confused with Liverpool Urban Area or Merseyside'.Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not projecting any political ideology, and I'd appreciate it if you would take that remark back.

From a local government perspective Liverpool City Region is primarily the area in which the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority operates. Given the large overlap the city region and combined authority articles should probably be merged and the article focussed on the activities of the combined authority, with additional information (e.g. history) where necessary. In short, it should look more like Liverpool City Council than Liverpool (but better, LCC isn't a great article).

I agree with you that English devolution, and also local government, is messy, and that's why I think it's so important to keep these articles focussed. Merseyside (and Cheshire, in Halton's case) is about the area in general, so Liverpool City Region can be more specific. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. Your approach is rather inflexible and unnecessarily so. For example, how would you then deal with a city region that has no combined authority and has no plans to have one? How do you deal with city regions where only some devolved powers have been given to the relevant city region body and some retained for the county? You would need in depth knowledge of every single city region on a case by case basis and given your logic there would have to a debate every single time a new power is conferred or where a boundary changes or a where another authority co-operates in a city region. You are opening up an unnecessary minefield and creating a problem that does not need fixing. Again, and for the third time, the Liverpool city region articles says do not confuse with Merseyside. I stand by my comment that this is about your own political ideology since it is you that seems to think the definition and discussion of a city region begins and ends with its (as yet) combined authority powers when it is clearly not the case. City regions, as a concept, have been in discussion in human geography for decades. They long precede any formal or informal arrangement by the UK government and continue to evolve.

To confine them to neat administrative powers and boundaries is to defy their ethos and you might as well rip up the whole concept of what is and what isn't a city region..(Richie wright1980 (talk) 10:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC))

I find your comment about me imposing a political ideology on articles offensive, as it implies I've been editing in bad faith. If you won't withdraw it then I'd rather not continue the discussion. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

If you cannot acknowledge how you have approached this then perhaps this discussion does need to end and your idea be dropped. By your logic, all city region articles should be merged or deleted only, and until such times, as they develop a combined authority with a level of power determined by whom? You? That clearly does not reflect the reality when city regions are evolving at different paces according to local circumstances. I am sure Wikipedia contributors simply do not have the time to refer back to you every single time there is a new development in their respective area or whether you see their governance arrangement or powers worthy of article inclusion. Given that city regions and their definitions are widely debated within human geography, I feel that you are imposing an inflexible ideology on the subject. It is quite clearly a separate subject in contrast to formal governance. This is not an unfair comment given your contribution to the subject.(Richie wright1980 (talk) 11:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC))

You're making this discussion very personal. If you want a discussion about what form the city region articles should take I'm open to that, but you currently think I'm trying to impose a political ideology and that I want a veto over all other editors. There's no chance of a proper discussion while you hold that view, as I'll always be the enemy rather than someone you can collaborate with to improve the article. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything in your arguments to suggest that city region articles need to be deleted or merged. They are whole separate subjects different from how the government has chosen their (ever evolving) powers. I am sorry you have chosen to take this personal but suggesting that a narrow political ideology espoused by you is clouding the judgement as to whether fellow contributor work should be moved or deleted is not unfair. In fact, it is against Wikipedia policy. Nothing you have said so far suggests that you intend for collaboration other than to implement a radical reorganisation of city region articles according to the narrow understanding that you have of them. And the discussion has shown that there is absolutely no need to confuse any of them with counties. That could only happen through lack of comprehension and not the fault of the article.(Richie wright1980 (talk) 11:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC))

As far as I can tell the city regions are not 'whole separate subjects', but areas created by the government. The 'History' section of the Liverpool City Region article states that the region was first identified in 2004 by the regional development agencies set up by the Labour government, and that by 2009 the boroughs which currently make up the combined authority had begun collaborating. Various initiatives since have strengthened that collaboration, resulting in the current combined authority for the city region.

What I can't see is much evidence that the city region has a significant existence outside local government. I therefore think it's appropriate to combine the city region article with the combined authority article, as the combined authority is the current expression of the political collaboration the city region was identified to produce. The resulting article should cover the history of the city region and combined authority, the current functions of the combined authority, and other relevant information such as the LEP. The combined authority has quite wide-ranging powers, many of which are presently covered poorly by the article, so there's plenty of room for expansion even if some areas (e.g. non-CA managed transport) are scaled back. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, you make absolutely no sense and are simply going around in circles. You still haven't answered what you would do with a city region that has not developed a governance model. Or even a city region that is presently, or in the future, 'hypothetical'. I'm afraid the only person advocating for this is you and I suggest you raise this discussion on every single city region page to establish a consensus. You are raising too many grey areas. You came to the discussion without even knowing that there was even a Leeds city region article, Glasgow city region, Brighton city region etc....and you seem intent on making this subject political rather than what it is - politico-geographical.Richie wright1980 (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing the above comment is by you, @Richie wright1980:,even though it's unsigned.

I do make sense, you just don't seem to want to engage with my points. My concerns here are the Liverpool City Region and LCA combined authority articles (and to a lesser extend Leeds), so it's unfair to use the fact I haven't addressed city regions more widely against me. Having said that, I don't see an inherent issue with city regions that do not have a governance model having standalone articles providing there's enough notable information to fill them; if there isn't then the information should be included in the relevant county/local authority articles. Hypothetical city regions are unlikely to be notable enough to warrant an article, I'd have thought. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

You actually do not make sense. Leeds city region is exactly the same area as West Yorkshire. Therefore, using your reasoning Leeds city region should be deleted and everything transferred to either West Yorkshire or the West Yorkshire Combined Authority. You also suggest that developing city regions that have no governance model deserve their own article yet because certain aspects of the Liverpool article - because they don't align with your version of how great powers need to be - should be merged. Furthermore, the article should be deleted. There are so many holes in your thinking I am surprised you are actually continuing this. You are wasting everyone's time.Richie wright1980 (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Leeds City Region and Leeds City Region Combined Authority can probably be combined, for the same reason the two Liverpool articles can be merged. I've explained my reasoning above. A developing city region may be notable enough for its own article, but it can hardly contain information on a combined authority if none exists yet.

I'm sorry you don't understand me, but that's not really my problem. I've been clear. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

According to you, the city region is only defined by its authority. If a developing city region has no authority then what do you suggest the articles is about? If you suggest that the city region has no subsection on Transport or Economy, then why should a county article contain that information? Why not merge the transport and economy sections of the Greater Manchester article into the Greater Manchester Combined Authority? By your logic, those subjects are the strict preserve of the authorities, therefore, they should be transferred to relevant authority page - in Greater Manchester's case that is the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. From what I have read, your main concern is for readers not to confuse the city region areas with counties. Since that argument has been rebuffed the rest of your arguments fall to pieces. Richie wright1980 (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Liverpool City Region did not have a combined authority until 2014, but the article existed and was about developments up to that point — you worked on it yourself. I don't see why other city regions couldn't have similar articles if they've become notable enough.

The ceremonial county articles are in some sense the 'hub' or 'main' articles for areas in England. They contain general information about topics such as history, geography, transport, and the local economy, but also link to more specialised articles. In this case, general information about transport in the LCR belongs in Merseyside and Cheshire, with the LCR article containing a more specific 'Transport' section about the areas the combined authority is responsible for. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I am afraid you are trying to suggest that there be a precedent for which there is none and for which there is no consensus. By your logic, a developing city region article is only justified up until the point when there is formal governance. That is what you have suggested for Liverpool. At the point of formal governance, it should be merged with the relevant authority page with aspects returned to the ceremonial county. In that case, I suggest you rename 'Greater Brighton City Region' to 'Greater Brighton Economic Board', Glasgow City Region should be renamed 'Glasgow City Region Cabinet', 'Swansea Bay City Region should be renamed 'Swansea Bay City Deal', etc..... wikipedia will end up with very few city region articles since most of them are at some stage or another in some form of formal arrangement. Or you could go with my logic that you are opening a can of worms that does not need to be opened and be open to the fact that city regions follow no set pattern - least of all should they be solely defined by the date that their authority (or combined authority if they have one) was created. Richie wright1980 (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that logic and the renames you suggest, although I don't think there should be separate city region and authority pages in the first place. It's a position which reflects the diversity of structures within city regions and recognises their primary function as local government entities. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Further to that - 31,689 businesses within the Liverpool city region use the term 'liverpool city region' in some form or another...

See: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/search?q=liverpool+city+region

Furthermore, Liverpool city region renders about 796,000 results in Google. Thousands of businesses, organisations, media publications etc...use the term freely when not referring to the Combined Authority. Your proposition that city regions, especially the Liverpool city region (which is fairly well developed compared to some) are merely government structures and nothing else is narrow to say the least. There is a whole section on the Liverpolitan identity - with your logic that belongs in no man's land since it is neither connected to Merseyside nor the Combined Authority. I suggest that you go with the flow with these articles and accept that they are evolving political and geographical areas which are (or will) spawn cultures of their own. You needn't worry that they be confused with counties since we should have covered that by now. The Liverpool city region article has existed for nearly 18 years - I would suggest that your understanding of how the city region has reached the position it is in is limited, let alone the journey of every other city region and local area. There is clearly a need to differentiate the city regions with the chosen authority since they are clearly different subjects.Richie wright1980 (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

My position is that city regions are primarily, not 'merely', local government structures. There's latitude to include secondary topics in their articles so long as they're notable. The fact that city regions are evolving does not mean that we should be loose about what they are now. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Well that's one hell of a climb down since on 10 June 2023 - you stated that you were inclined to merge the Liverpool city region article into the 'Liverpool City Region Combined Authority'. You have maintained that position until now when it looks like you can finally see the sense in there being two separate articles. Since you now agree that city regions are primarily, not 'merely', local government structures you should also see the sense that these emerging city regions are, by their nature, sui generis. There is nothing in the Liverpool city region article that does not directly relate to the city region as a geographic location or point of reference. If people wish to study the Combined Authority or its powers they have the option to do so on that article. I will leave this discussion with your words "The fact that city regions are evolving does not mean that we should be loose about what they are now." That needs to be considered on a case by case basis. For example, the Liverpool city region is considerably further down the line in its development than Greater Brighton in every sense.Richie wright1980 (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Throughout this discussion I've stated my preference but been open to changing my mind. I think you've read 'inclined to merge' and interpeted it as 'determined to merge and nobody will stand in my way', building me up into some sort of anti-city-region bogeyman. The reality is quite different, and it's been frustrating having to defend my character so heavily when I'd be very open to a less confrontational disussion. You've worked on the article a long time, why wouldn't I want to listen?

At the moment I'm still not convinced that my position is the wrong one, but I don't think today has been particularly productive when it comes to changing minds. What I would appreciate is if we could leave this for a while, then return on better terms and have another go. What do you think? A.D.Hope (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

If you are not determined to merge or force this issue any further then I do not see the point in any further discussion. I suggest you engage with another city region page user - or several of them - if you see this as confrontational. I continue with my assertion that you are attempting to force your own controversial and inflexible political notion of what a city region is on to topics that are not inflexible political notions. In fact they are the direct opposite of that. Criticsm of your attempt to force your own political opinion on to fellow contributor articles is not an attack on your character - it is a warning that you are in potential violation of Wikipedia policy. That is why I am distancing myself from any of your attempts to radically reorganise these pages when there is absolutely no logical or compelling need to do so. There is nothing else to discuss.Richie wright1980 (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The latest discussion of this issue turned into a back-and-forth between myself and User:Richie wright1980, and the earlier discussion from 10-22 June didn't reach a conclusion. I therefore feel it would be helpful to broaden the discussion again, by alerting editors who have previously participated and inviting some who have not previously participated but who have worked extensively on either Liverpool City Region or Liverpool City Region Combined Authority:

User:10mmsocket User:Chocolateediter User:DankJae User:John Maynard Friedman User:MRSC User:Jonjonjohny User:Dn9ahx User:RichardHC User:Ghmyrtle

Apologies for the summons, please do not feel obliged to participate. To be absolutely clear, I am not calling for reinforcements and do not expect the editors I've pinged to agree with me. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

For the attention of participating contributors. To save insulting the intelligence of wiki readers, I have added the following to the Liverpool city region page: "Liverpool city region' is also widely used as an apolitical umbrella term to describe the geographical area containing the six council areas. For example, for promotional, media, business or tourism purposes." The term Liverpool city region has quite clearly been in use for the better part of 20 years and is used by thousands of businesses, organisations, media outlets and individuals to refer to the geograhuc area surrounding Liverpool. This quite clearly has nothing to do with politics or the Combined Authority which came in to existence after this development. The above user A.D.Hope has made no effort to engage the talk pages of all the city region articles on wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers) and proposes a radical reorganisation and renaming of those pages. There is no such consensus and it would result in there being no city region pages left at all on wikipedia unless they directly concerned governmental organisation. Given his logic, they would also have to be constantly renamed every time there was a change in constitution of those city regions and constantly monitored every time a new power was conferred by central government to that city region. I have suggested that the above user A.D.Hope is in direct violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as he seems determined to project his own view that city regions are purely political creations and can be nothing else. This is clearly not a neutral view and is politically motivated. I would like to make a counter proposal that once the relevant city regions have made further progress in their development - which is exactly what is happening - that they too have the flexibility to expand on the knowledge of their local areas and to create their own city region pages separate to that of their relevant authorities. In a rather obtuse manner, he has also summoned other users to contribute on two articles concerning Liverpool when clearly there is a much wider discussion to be had about ALL city region articles.Richie wright1980 (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I really think you should step away from this discussion for a while. I've asked other editors for input, let's both leave them to it should they choose to provide it. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

User:10mmsocket User:Chocolateediter User:DankJae User:John Maynard Friedman User:MRSC User:Jonjonjohny User:Dn9ahx User:RichardHC User:Ghmyrtle

I will not step away thank you. You raised this discussion and anybody is free to participate. If you do not wish your point of view to be challenged I suggest you close the discussion.Richie wright1980 (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I have just invited more editors to participate precisely because I want my view to be challenged. I am suggesting we both step away from the discussion to allow those views to be heard and to calm the discussion down — give WP:COOL a read and see if anything applies to this debate. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

And so it should be challenged. I have commented for the attention of other users in which I am willing to participate with. This is a discussion you raised but you do not own the discussion and you are not at liberty to dictate who is able to participate within it. See Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia. You are also being warned that you are not at liberty to persuade contributors to leave the discussion should they of course remain civil. I have already discussed with you that you are likely in breach of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You have continued to ignore this warning and chosen to take this personal.Perhaps you should cool down but of course being an open platform no-one should compel you to do so and I will stand by that.Richie wright1980 (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Merger discussion: Metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties

There is a discussion taking place at Talk:Metropolitan_and_non-metropolitan_counties_of_England#Merger_proposal about merging Metropolitan county and Non-metropolitan county into Metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties of England, or merging the latter into the two former articles. Please participate if you'd like. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Worcestershire newsletter

Note that if you are in mobile view you will have to enter desktop view to see the Newsletter.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Can anyone help Bickenhill?

It's a pity when an editor removes a chunk of uncontroversial content which has been present, but unsourced, since being added 14 years ago, without any other editor objecting to it or tagging it as {{cn}}. I've found a source for one small item, so have re-added it. Other editors might like to chip in. PamD 19:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

uncontroversial? So terms like "Bickenhill is, however, in a very important location in terms of transport corridors and it is thus inevitable that it be developed." Which is WP: Crystal not factual and how it was written with words like "proper", fake speculation like "The area had been rapidly suburbanising because of the opening of a railway station at Olton, which allowed those who worked in Birmingham to live there and commute." And "The focus of the parish is now very much the sprawling Airport-NEC complex, and the village itself is very small, overshadowed by the airport and very close to the busy M42 and A45 roads and WCML railway." All of which are unsourced, I explained enough why I removed them and only you take issue with this. Nobody else has, so I stand by my removal of present and slang narrative crystal ball projections with no sources. If you want to go back to that blatantly bad narrative then discuss it on talkpage but the improvements are far better then that bad narrative before with sources and not sounding like a personal interview of the place by one non active editor. Of course all articles get content added and removed, but of course another pot shot at me for making necessary tweaks because it doesn't fit one editors narrative of uncontroversial when articles are always been added and removed content DragonofBatley (talk) 08:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking more of material such as:

Many changes to the area were made during the nineteenth century. Solihull parish received a detached part of Bickenhill parish, known as Lyndon Quarter, in 1874. The area had been known as Lyndon or Ulverley, after the Ulverlie family who were the original land-owners in the area. When they constructed a new town at a nearby crossroads, which was to become Solihull, old Ulverley became the Old Town, later corrupted to Olton. Though Elmdon parish lay between Olton and Bickenhill proper, the area was administratively Bickenhill until transfer to Solihull, and finally independent with the building of St. Margaret's parish church. The area had been rapidly suburbanising because of the opening of a railway station at Olton, which allowed those who worked in Birmingham to live there and commute. It soon became a suburb of Birmingham. Marston Green, in the north of the parish proper and now the other side of the airport, suburbanised similarly due to having its own station.

PamD 08:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Which feedback to my above points as quoted, if it isn't controversial removing some quite clear and obviously bad grammar like proper and crystal thinking/speculating like suburbanising and clearly not a suburb of Birmingham but Solihull. Then I don't know what is DragonofBatley (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The postpositive use of "proper" is not bad grammar (see Wiktionary or other dictionaries for its meaning) and is quite conventional in such contexts (as in Britannica 1911 on Parish). NebY (talk) 10:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, DragonofBatley, in this sense 'proper' is being used to describe an area which is itself part of a larger area. For example, you could say that "Wigan lies between Preston and Greater Manchester proper", because although Wigan is part of Greater Manchester it isn't part of the central conurbation. Does that make sense? A.D.Hope (talk) 10:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps this is besides the point, but I do find that passage quite difficult to follow — most of it is about an area which is now part of Solihull, isn't it? If not removed, it could do with being rephrased. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Cheshire East changes

I'm currently updating for the recent changes in parishes and several changes have occurred in Cheshire East for example Burland and Acton being created from Acton and Burland and it seems most if not all of Edleston but looking at GeoNames it seems some of Edleston may have gone to Nantwich, compared [1] to [2]. I can find various recommendations but nothing actually confirmed and the recommendation is hundreds of pages long and isn't clear what changes have actually occurred. For Cheshire East I'm manly relying on Mapit for the changes but it would be good to be able to add information on when these changes happened (probably 1 April 2023) and what changes actually happened, complete merges v merges with part going elsewhere. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Borough of Hove

I've split a new article for the 1974-1997 district of Hove per WP:UKDISTRICTS and I've partly used South Wight as a model. There are the following suggested improvements:

• I've only been able to add the population data for the area before the merge namely the 1961 census does anyone have access to the 1990s census data.
• What was its seat? Presumably it was Hove Town Hall but I can't verify this.
• It could do with a map similar to South Herefordshire along with some of the other former districts abolished in the 1990s. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. I'll take a look tomorrow or the next few days. I have an extensive range of Hove-related sources. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 22:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC) (Hove resident!)

@Crouch, Swale: I've made a start; possibly more to come once I've investigated the sources more fully. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 17:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Hassocks5489: I've also created Draft:Borough of Brighton for Brighton district which also doesn't exist. Unlike Hove Brighton survived the 1974 changes (though it did loose its independence from the county council) meaning that per Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about districts#Reconstituted districts the article will be about the previous municipal/county borough as well as the 1974-1997 non-metropolitan district. I'm limited to 1 article a month (and not intending on using it on this) but if you want to expand it and move it to mainspace you can. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: Many thanks; I've added it to my watchlist and will update over the coming days and move when ready. Again I have some decent sources on this. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 19:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Unparished areas in infobox

See Template talk:Infobox UK place#Unparished area parameter for a proposal to add this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Infobox change

Hello, I have just put live a change to the CSS used in {{infobox UK place}} to try and solve a blank section displaying when |embedded= is used. If there are any new problems with infobox display then revert out this edit. Keith D (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

BUASD undefined

We use the term BUASD in various places, in connection with census figures or as a way of defining the boundary of a place. You (probably) and I know that it's an ONS term, defined precisely by them. But we don't seem to provide that info for our reader, who comes across it in our articles. BUA dab page includes Built-up area, where the UK section defines the ONS kind of BUA and says that 501 of them have subdivisions (though its source seems to be a dead link): should we expand that text, and redirect BUASD there, or what? PamD 06:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

yes, definitely. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Historic county maps

I really hate to bring up the ceremonial/historic debate yet again, but I thought it would be important to establish whether we have consensus for changes like this, which Chocolateediter is making to many of the articles about ceremonial counties which largely share boundaries with pre-74 entities. It adds a switcher map so you can choose which period to see. Is our position that the article/infobox is about the ceremonial county (as indicated at its top), or also about a defunct one? (Apologies if missed a discussion elsewhere.) Rcsprinter123 (inform) 10:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any discussion on it. I've no strong view personally but looking at examples like Hampshire it's very hard to see the differences at that scale - you can spot that the Isle of Wight changes colour but the detail around Bournemouth is hard to spot, so I'm not convinced it adds much value. WaggersTALK 13:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I dont like this. The maps are undated. I would accept the map if it said when the map was from. But just calling it historic is too ambiguous. Eopsid (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, @Chocolateediter has taken the initiative here and that's great, I'm just not sure this format is the best way to go about explaining the difference between historic and current boundaries. Infobox images are quite small and the scale of the England/UK maps being used is too big to easily show any differences.

What I do think would be good is more images like the one to the right which overlay the ceremonial and historic boundaries. It's much easier to understand than flicking between two images, I'd say, so long as we're clear about which historic borders are being used. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

If the newer passports have historic county boundaries from across the UK on them do they need dating and use them, if you must around 1965 was when cleaning up exclaves had just finished with a start to making cross-county county boroughs and the London county. Historic is a word meaning "of note” not just "in the past" and the of note definition is more common now since historical is already the word for in the past so they is a set map out there the OS one I think you have to pay for.

Yes they are small hard to make out differences and that Lancashire map is great I wish they was one for most counties with the switcher able to have a field showing it amongst the other maps. I also like that the map switches between England and Britain, in Wales and Scotland it is a more subtle change, England is quite big to not notice it as much but it makes more sense to show the county in England and the UK (RoI is in green). I mainly put the switchers in the county articles I know they is a notable enough difference between the definitions, emergency service maps for areas with the same name are also ones I put (NYorks) and the district if it shares the article with it (ERofY).

Yes an article with anything in history from before 1974 is covering the historic county unless you want to go down the rabbit hole of creating an article with a similar name for each historic county. They has been an effort in the past decade to celebrate historic counties more by government to appease people that feel strongly about historic counties, may as well follow and make an effort to show it than hiding away flags (a recent trend) and maps in a small section of an article. I am not fully historic county so don’t think I’m a loon looking to erase ceremonial counties, don’t much identify with south of York in Yorkshire or north County Durham, they tend to ignore us and are far away from the Tees area. Chocolateediter (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Chocolateediter: So what you did is based around trends, celebration, and feelings of identification? We generally choose to make things clear and relevant for the reader and I'm not convinced the changes did that. We can probably all agree that maps such as the displayed Lancs one would be a good compromise, but until we figure out how to make them, are you in favour of leaving the switchers in, or not? Rcsprinter123 (tell) 13:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The irony is the ceremonial county is without religious or cultural significance in the UK, while the historic county is barely noteworthy on wiki. The exact opposite of what the words ceremonial and historic mean.

Dr Greg is the one that created the Lancs map, I don’t know whether Dr Greg is still able to since it was created in 2010. If the switchers stay for now it is a good reference for which need the map most and the template won’t need re-adding later on. Chocolateediter (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I have added a maplink to County Durham similar to the Lancashire map, it took quite a bit of work (too much I don’t think I’ll manage to do any more before going mad). The code might need to settle in (if it ever does) before I can set historic to red then I’ll make ceremonial green (temporarily ceremonial in blue because I felt like it). Chocolateediter (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

That's an innovative idea to show the differences, but I think it needs changes to the implementation. Putting it in the infobox makes it more easily missed if the reader doesn't notice the radio buttons, and simultaneously crams the infobox with too much stuff. If you had it inline in history or geography sections there would be more room to put it in context. Also, there's no kind of key, so nobody will know which parts are from the historic definition and from the modern.

And I am pinging @Dr Greg: for their opinion on the matter and for what they did with Lancashire. Rcsprinter123 (utter) 11:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Just a note: if this does end up being rolled out across the ceremonial county articles it would be good practice to note which historic county boundaries are being used. They did change, particularly from the nineteenth century. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Scarcity of FAs on places

I was hoping to contribute something useful to the discussion above at #Ceremonial county infobox images, by looking at recently-promoted Featured Articles about settlements to see what they do, but was thwarted: there are hardly any. I'm posting here instead, rather than distract in that main thread above.

It's often interesting to see what style is used in the very best of en.wiki, so I've had a look through the lists of Featured Articles since 2020 (Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2020 etc), looking for articles on places - towns, cities, counties, states, villages, "settlements" - which might feed in to our discussion.

The most striking thing is the sheer lack of recent FAs on places! Two or three, literally, since Jan 2020: Kigali, Skegness, and the ghost town (does it count?) of Manganese, Minnesota. A fair few articles on archaeological sites, railway infrastructures, bridges, individual buildings ... and lots on video games, songs, species, crimes, footballers, politicians, etc. But very few places. (I may have missed some, but was mouse-hovering over everything I noticed which looked plausible).

Of those: Kigali has a collage of 4 images, very varied in size, and uses "clockwise" in its caption although to my mind a top, middle, bottom listing would be clearer, but that is the way it was when promoted; Skegness, I think, looks good: two simple captioned landscape images, as when promoted; the ghost town has just one image, though that's understandable (there aren't many in the article).

So not much to go on for "Let's see how FAs handle this question", too small a sample, but ... why so few FAs about places? There are quite a few earlier ones, looking at Wikipedia:Featured articles#Geography and places, but perhaps even there they are underrepresented. I suppose a populated place is hard to write about comprehensively, as it has so many aspects, and changes over time, all the time. It would be fascinating to see the ratio of FAs to stubs, or to total articles, in different subject areas: I'd be inclined to put money on archaeological sites as one of the winners in the former.

Having done this little bit of analysis, I thought I'd share it with you even though it doesn't add much to the infobox discussion. PamD 09:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @PamD: The problem with getting settlement articles to FA is their size. Any decent article on even a fairly small town is >140 kB and at least 6,000 words (usually considerably more). Reading all the way through would take an hour, even before the review starts. As part of the FA process, it's up to the nominator to recruit reviewers, but the longer the article, the harder this gets. Most FAs tend to be in the range 20-70 kB. Even getting settlement articles reviewed at WP:GAN is a struggle. Woking (180 kB) waited almost six months for a Good Article review. I've had Reigate (150 kB) nominated now for over a month. I'm sure the length is the main reason why reviewers are slow to pick these articles up.

So the obvious, knee-jerk answer is to drastically reduce the length of the articles. I would argue that this is impossible if the WP:UKTOWNS guidelines are followed. UK settlement articles also tend to have long history sections - simply because there's a lot to write about. Settlements in "younger countries" have a shorter documented past to discuss. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

At this point I do think its standard to spin-off a 'History of [Place]' article. Although I've not done a thorough check I think most of the cities (big and small) and larger towns have them. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope: That's certainly true of most cities and of the largest towns in the UK, but for the medium-sized and smaller towns that's not the case. Often the "History of X" articles are pretty poor and no more than patchily referenced timelines. My focus on the articles that I work on has been to try to get a relatively detailed historical overview in one place (which I think is of most use to readers), rather than splitting things up, where they are much harder to maintain. Mertbiol (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Long-term I do think the best approach in many cases is to have a separate history article and a comprehensive, but shorter, summary in the main article. The history section of a good place article can usually serve as the basis for its standalone history article, so the two concepts aren't inherently opposed. It's worth noting that a similar process often occurs at articles for geographic areas — we have Snowdonia and Geology of Snowdonia National Park, for example. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say we should take a top-down view, and work on getting some more of our high-importance articles up to GA standard (although the categories aren't perfect — why are the Lakes and Scafell top-importance when the other national parks and mountains are only high?). This should be pretty simple for places in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, and for geographic areas and smaller settlements in England, where the guidelines are pretty clear.

When it comes to larger English settlements, counties, and metropolitan areas, before we start on GA work we really need to work out which articles should function as main articles, which should be secondary, and what information should go where. It's no good putting in the effort to bring Manchester up to GA article status if we subsequently decide that large chunks of its content should be in Manchester city centre. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem with this approach is being able to marshal willing volunteers to work on the same areas. For UK geography, we tend to be fairly "territorial" and to work on parts of the country that we know well. That's not just a "tribal" instinct, it's also about the availability of sources. I write about Surrey because I know it well and because I can easily get useful resources from the local library. I wouldn't be able to contribute the detail required for articles on, say, the Lakes. As far as deciding what material should be in what article, any discussion started here will simply go round in circles. The best approach, I feel, is for one editor to tackle one article in depth and then, after a decent draft has been put together, to seek feedback here. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The high-importance list includes articles from all over the country, so it should be possible for editors to work on areas they know well. The much bigger issue is stopping discussions from going around in circles, it's can be very difficult to successfully bring anything to a conclusion here (although I'm pretty hopeful for my ceremonial county discussions up above). A.D.Hope (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the discussion that you (with others) have led about the ceremonial county infoboxes has been very well handled and is one of the few on these pages that that have led to widespread, positive and tangible improvements in the articles concerned. The detailed data for the 2021 Census is about to be releases and I hope that that we will be able to have a similar constructive discussion as to how best to incorporate information into articles here. My point remains that editors will work on articles that interest them and that they can find high-quality sources for; they will not choose articles on the basis of importance attached to them by this or any other wikiproject. Mertbiol (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, that's kind of you to say (and I didn't expect our paths to cross again quite so soon!). I'll be happy to give constructive input to the census discussion when the time comes.

I do agree with your point that editors will almost always work on things they're interested in. It's much better to work with that tendency rather than against it, and in this case that could take the form of directing editors toward 'high-importance' articles in areas they're interested in. That's not to say editors shouldn't work on other articles, far from it, I just think it might give the project a boost to get a few prominent good article promotions under its belt. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

One more point for @PamD: FA reviewers tend to be very "hot" on making sure that all sources are reliable. They are particularly critical of local history association or local museum websites. In fact, I can think of at least two A-class reviews where reviewers have insisted on this type of source being removed on the grounds that they were self-published. A lot of UK towns articles are heavily dependent on web sources (many of them self-published) and this will also prevent them from climbing the assessment ladder. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Geography of Ireland FAR

I have nominated Geography of Ireland for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)