Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal

Hi there, I have nominated this article for GA status and would appreciate any input into ways in which it may be improved. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox pictures

Just a quick query, when it comes to putting a picture in the infobox, should you always show the town/city centre? and if there is a picture of the town in the article but not in the infobox should it be put in the infobox? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberdemon007 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 27 June 2008

No and no (IMO) Rjm at sleepers (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. In addition to the obvious townscape and cityscape type images, Town Halls are always good, as are cathedrals, parish churches (particularly for villages), or other landmarks (like a listed building) associated with the settlement... IMHO. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  20:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The geography barnstar image has been deleted. I've proposed a basic one for geography at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards#Geog proposal if anyone is interested. Ahh, roots Simply south (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Help with Severn Barrage

Can I ask for some help with Severn Barrage (if we still had collaboration of the month I would nominate it there)? The article is topical & obviously raises strong feelings amongst contributors this has led to a disorganised structure and left it with "clean up" tags all over it including; Articles needing additional references (Mar 2008), Articles that may contain original research (Mar 2008), Articles with specifically-marked weasel-worded phrases, Articles with unsourced statements (May 2007), Articles with unsourced statements (Oct 2007). Would anyone be willing/able to take a look and try to ensure it is sourced from WP:RS and meets WP:NPOV?— Rod talk 19:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Blackburn

Hello folks, just a quick note that Blackburn is gearing up for a WP:GAC. It's a great article that User:Beejaypii has worked hard on. Just thought some of you guys might want to take a look at it and help out where need be. Cheers, --Jza84 |  Talk  01:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As suggested, I've now nominated Blackburn for a WP:GAC. Beejaypii (talk) 09:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Faringdon

faringdon Needs some work, their needs to be the following things: 1. info on the folly 2. info on the faringdon arts festival 3. info on the faringdon christmas festival 4. info on buisnesses that are their.

--Madcow 93 (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Kirkcaldy

Hello team,

I've been approached about the Kirkcaldy article, which User:Kilnburn has worked hard on revamping. He's stated that he wants to take this to FA. I think it's quite some way off (it's not been through GAC). I just thought someone might want to give this a bit of the WP:UKCITIES treatment and a copyedit. :-) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Subdivisions of the United Kingdom

I've added a table that contains reliable sources, fully cited, for the different terms used to describe the various bits of the United Kingdom to Subdivisions of the United Kingdom. The table could be expanded to include further reliable sources if required. I think its addition is a net advantage to the work on the United Kingdom. I suspect the text and the article itself could do with some additional work on it, possibly as a result of the references being added, but for pre-existing reasons as well. The table was initially proposed as a means of helping a mediation attempt concerning the term(s) used to refer to England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales (Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-06-22_United_Kingdom), but which failed for a variety of reasons, with a subsequent attempt to deal with the Wales case (on Talk:Wales, in particular in Talk:Wales#'Country' issue NOT resolved! and Talk:Wales#Country) also struggling for related reasons. Nevertheless, I consider such a table to be a good resource that needs to be used in an appropriate article, which is why I have added it. I'd welcome constructive comments and constructive additional work on it from interested editors.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Lists of places

It would be useful to have some guidance on what should be included in and excluded from the various "List of places in County" articles. Some seem to have a curious collection of entries. E.g. List of places in Lancashire includes houses, railway stations, railway lines, districts, councils, gardens, organisations (e.g. Blackpool Transport), schools, rivers, ... --Dr Greg (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Good call here. From memory (going way back now) I think the idea was to create a "gazetteer" more like the List of places in London. But you're right, we do need a standard to apply consistently. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) It might help, as recent editing has added images to various of the articles (as in List of places in Cheshire.) Can anyone locate a "List of ..." geographical article with similar subject matter that has achieved FA status? If so, may be we could learn from what was done in that article and try to apply it more generally?  DDStretch  (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Most of the ones I have come across are fairly compact using the comma separated lists such as List of places in Lincolnshire as opposed to long bulleted lists with very short entries. Though a multi-column approach may be useful to get them more compact. Keith D (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

New participant

Hello. I've just joined the project and would appreciate it if someone can have a quick look over Hatley, Cambridgeshire and Waresley which I've worked on this week. If I'm making a decent job of it, I'll do some more. Thanks, Katie. Bogbumper (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Poll on merging Subdivisions of the United Kingdom to Countries of the United Kingdom

A poll is talking place on Subdivisions of the United Kingdom and Countries of the United Kingdom. The Merger proposal is here, and is where all the options (merge, redirect to or from etc) can be voted for. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: The new article is "Countries" of the United Kingdom, by the way - not "counties", as it it may first appear.--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Climate and consistency

this discussion has moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Climate and consistency

Over at Talk:Plymouth we've spotted that climate sections are pretty inconsistent, both within articles and between articles. In city infoboxes, imperial measurements are given first, while in climate/geography sections metric comes first. This is assuming that the city article even has such a section (Liverpool doesn't, for instance). So basically, should we standardise climate sections in line with infoboxes, and should we have climate sections in all city articles? (see Manchester for a good climate section, btw) Totnesmartin (talk) 10:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth raising this at WP:UKCITIES. That way, anything we home-in on can be codified into a guideline. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  11:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
true - although there's always counties to consider. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I had this issue on Somerset when going through FAC. I revised the climate box for rainfall to inches (cm) to be consistent with imperial (metric) in the infobox.— Rod talk 12:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Is the issue focussed primarily around the use of units, or are there concerns about the content too? If this is a content issue, I suppose we need to work out what we would all find useful in such a section for our settlement/county articles. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

List of towns and cities in England by historical population

Hi all.

If you haven't seen it already, take a look at List of towns and cities in England by historical population. I think that the article has plenty of potential as a useful resource. However, as I've indicated on the relevant Talk page, there are quite a few issues with the (unsourced) figures as used. Fingerpuppet (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

List of counties of the United Kingdom

A version of List of counties of the United Kingdom, that was initially flagged up here in February 2008 has been recreated at County-level areas in the United Kingdom‎ and Counties and similar areas in the United Kingdom‎. I have nominated for deletion. MRSC • Talk 18:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Help with Severn Barrage

Is anyone able to take a look at the Severn Barrage article. It covers an important and topical issue, but the article is stuffed full of cleanup tags. Attention from those with engineering, environmental, economic or other relevant interests, or those who can give editing help to bring it within the Manual of Style, would be great.— Rod talk 12:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting

Does anyone else think this list of English cities by highest point would make a good list for WP? It's sourced from the Ordnance Survey, and the original post is here. I would have already made the article but i'm not so good with tables and it's a lot of data to type up! Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You'd need a more informative title - this one looks like highest buildings per city. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
It's interesting, but perhaps a list of just highest points would be a bit slender. How about a list of English cities in the form of a table with sortable columns (or have we already got one of those)? Having several variables would make it easier to write the lead for the article. What else could be added to the article? We have List of towns and cities in England by population so maybe population figures could be taken from there, and some figures for area. Any ideas what else? Nev1 (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Population density would be interesting. I seem to remember that Portsmouth is the most densely populated city in England, for example. (Would have to find a source, though!) If the highest point was to be included—which I think it should be, as it is very interesting and appears to be encyclopaedic—it would be nice to have coordinates and a quick text description of the location. For Brighton & Hove, for example, I imagine the highest point would be somewhere up on the South Downs around Woodingdean or Falmer...? Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Population density wouldn't be a problem, neighbourhoodstatistics.gov would give us the population and area and the pop. dens. would be inferred (if not already given). The source Asdfasdf1231234 gave didn't seem to show the coo-ordinates, but we may be able to find out elsewhere. If it's just going to be cities, how about the date a settlement became a city? Nev1 (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
From what I've read from the original blog post, the writer had difficulty getting the information from the OS for the highest city points, and had to get his local MP to ask the OS on his behalf, so I wouldn't count on getting anything more specific from them! Unless there's some really good statistic hunters out there? :) but anyway, I'm glad you guys also thought it would make an interesting addition! Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

New WikiProject proposal: Biota of the UK and Ireland

I've proposed a new WikiProject named WikiProject Biota of the UK and Ireland which would encompass all species (flora and fauna) and conservation efforts within the United Kindgom and Ireland, an extremely interesting area. The project would include vegetation classification, Category:Lists of British animals, Category:Conservation in the United Kingdom, Category:Ecology of the British Isles, Category:Forests and woodlands of the United Kingdom, Category:Fauna of the British Isles and anything else to do with the flora and fauna of Britain. If anyone is interested just leave your name on the proposal page. Cheers, Jack (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

History v Mythology in UK settlements

Can anyone offer some advice about where to put mythology (as opposed to history) into an article using Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements? The Glastonbury article is mostly mythology at present & I intend to improve it. The mythology is important to this town as most of its tourist trade etc is based on it but I don't want to give it undue prominence. Any suggestions appreciated.— Rod talk 21:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Where should it go? I think notable myths and legends should be mentioned (and in my opinion interesting ones) as part of a history section (that's how I've treated them before, although there haven't been many occassions), perhaps with a note that it is just a myth (ie: no proof). Nev1 (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
If we could come to some agreement, we should probably add something to Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements. Nev1 (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Nev1 here. Seems sensible and logical. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
OK I've given the Glastonbury article a major going over & left mythology as a sub set of history - but I'd appreciate another set of eyes looking at it.— Rod talk 20:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
It's a good start but there's a way to go. As it now stands, the history section is weighted far too heavily towards prehistory. The webpage from the Somerset Urban Archaeological Survey looks perfect for expanding the history section. I think there may be too much detail on the Sweet Track, there are two and a half paragraphs on it compared to say one sentence on the 20th century. I think that maybe some of the trackway stuff should be put into the actual Sweet Track article. Nev1 (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
PS. In most articles I think myths and legends should be woven into the history section, but since there is so much about Glastonbury I think a subsection is fair. Nev1 (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Changing format from "List of British X" to "List of X of Great Britain/the British Isles (etc)" - prelim poll

All "List of British fish (etc)" should be "Lists of fishes common to Britain" surely? Providing they include Northern Ireland. Alternatives are "Great Britain" (England, Scotland and Wales), the "British Islands" (which is GB, the Channel islands, and the Isle of Man), and British Isles if covering GB and the entire island of Ireland. It seems silly to give 'citizenship' to animals etc, anyway - the "British birds" format seems to do that. They merely settle here for part of the year(!)

"Lists of fish common to Britain" is better than just "in Britain", as it excludes climate anomalies, pets and zoos etc. If just the island of 'Great Britain' is meant, that should be used for "Britain", as in the common-use cultural/political sense Northern Ireland is in Britain (and it is certainly 'British'). The "British fish" format actually constricts flexibility here: "List of fish common to X" is much better.

I'm proposing that we propose changes here - what do people think? --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Support: --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd support a name change, although the best place to have this discussion is on the article talk page. I think the name should be either List of fish common to Great Britain or List of fish common to the British Isles. I'm not sure I agree that Northern Ireland is commonly seen as part of Britain. Epbr123 (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm actually suggesting a change for all these type of "British X" geography articles (inc birds, animals etc). The British in NI can have British Passports (giving the "British citizenship") - or they can have Irish ones, or both. Whether they are in Britain or not, depends on if you see 'Britain' as being short for 'Great Britain' - some do, some don't. The Northern Irish are certainly part of "Team GB" in the Olympics (though NI is definitely not in GB!). It can all get ambiguous culturally. For pure geography though, the two large islands of Great Britain and Ireland, and British Isles to mean them both and the Isle of Man, are all solid terms.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't see any objection to a name change but what exactly does 'common to Britain' mean? Generally one would say (for example) 'species common to Britain and France', meaning species which the two countries have in common. A single country can't have species in common with itself. Pterre (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Anyone any ideas on this? Surely something can be both common to, and uncommon to, somewhere like Britain? Must it be between two seperate paces? Britain is a 'collective' word too (as is any country, in fact). Using "Great Britain" instead of Britain (which would make more sense anyway with geographical articles) would provide even more of a 'collective' term for something to be common to.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Nooo Chrisieboy I think you should read your reference again. In sense two ("it is common to find"), "to" is part of the infinitive of the verb "to find", nothing to do with the phrase "common to". Sense three says "common in", so is not relevant to discussion of the phrase "common to". The phrases "common to" and "common in" are not synonymous: "Common in" means "found frequently in", while "Common to" means "shared in common with". Surely what is intended here is something like List of X indigenous to Britain. Pterre (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
That's not a bad alternative to List of X common to Britain. I prefer "Great Britain" though, as it is unambiguous about NI. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm certainly not questioning whether "common" is correct English for senses of two or three etc. The question is, can it be used for "Britain" (or "Great Britain") as either a singular or multiple identity? "Common to the British Isles" seems to make sense - does "common to Great Britain" make sense? Perhaps 'Britain' on its own is too ambiguous. The words "of Great Britain", or "of the British Isles (if it covers Ireland) are alternatives.
There are two issues here really surrounding the currently-used "British X" format: one is to due to ambiguity (what is its boundaries?), the other is stylistic - "fish of Britain" (or "Great Britain") is more exacting and better-sounding, than "British fish". And you can't say "Great British fish". --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
What about "of the United Kingdom"? That's what we seem to use for British topics. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The UK is another alternative, but that includes Northern Ireland. In geographical issues, when Northern Ireland is involved, I would guess that the whole island of Ireland is too? --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I can see your point, but I think you're alluding to physical geography only. In human geography or political geography, NI is in the UK, of course. My rationale is that whilst the climate of the United Kingdom isn't a magic, micro-climate that only effects its sovereign territory, natural phenomina are reported upon, on this basis. Most of our articles on geology and fauna of the UK were also titled this way, until (as I've just discovered) User:Wotapalaver renamed a whole bunch of them. :(
If we use Great Britain, we're excluding alot of territory - Isle of Man, Isle of Wight, Anglesey, the Inner and Outer Hebredies, Shetland Isles, Scilly, Lindisfarne etc etc. Using the "United Kingdom" also reflects some examples of real world practice (eg. [1], [2], [3]) --Jza84 |  Talk  19:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
If it is extended outwards, we should use the "British Isles" surely? Unless there are cases of these islands being used while the Republic of Ireland is actually excluded? "British Islands" is the term for the islands outside of the island of Ireland.
Real world examples are always useful - but they can define their own terms, and don't normally have inconsistency issues with each other, of course! Matt Lewis (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
That's fine. Just my 2p's worth. Indeed if I was writing these though, I'd have just used the UK. Simple, sovereign, verifiable, uncontrovertial... ish. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  19:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem here though, I that I strongly suspect that most 'natural history' articles that cover NI also cover the whole of the island of Ireland. I haven't checked this - I'm guessing it is true. If an article doesn't cover NI, I would argue that "Great Britain" is always better, as "UK" suggests that NI should be included.
If the Isle of Man is included with Great Britain, chances are it's an article that covers the whole of the British Isles, so therefore we should use "British Isles". Again I am guessing, but it strikes me as being likely. If not, then "Great Britain and the Isle of Man" would be consistent.
I think that eventually we will need to find consistency with the 'British Isles' term wherever it is used. Or it will always get challenged, and we will always have a mix of different approaches. I don't see why some firmer "geographical" recommendations can't go into the eventual 'British Isles usage guideline' (as being formulated at WP:BITASK).--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: given that species of plants and animals are unlikely to respect national boundaries, but are going to be affected by large bodies of water, there should be separate lists for Great Britain and for Ireland. This is particularly sensible as there are species found in one but not the other (e.g. no snakes in Ireland, to give a well-known example). As for places like the Isle of Man, the Outer Hebrides, etc., we should be clear about whether particular species are present in those places in a list; if the differences are substantial, then maybe they should have their own lists. Anyway, regarding titles, "List of X of Great Britain" seems most sensible to me. --RFBailey (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Guideline for /How to write about districts

Has anyone had any thoughts about a guideline for "/How to write about districts" which is still a red link on the project page? I am thinking about improving Bath and North East Somerset, North Somerset, Mendip, Sedgemoor, South Somerset, Taunton Deane, West Somerset and would appreciate guidance. The first two are unitary authorities & I've found a guideline which says roughly use the Template:Infobox Settlement & treat as a county, but the other 4 are Non-metropolitan districts within Somerset & currently are largely lists of the towns & villages the areas cover. Any thoughts or draft guidelines which might be appropriate would be appreciated.— Rod talk 19:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

When I developed an article on Trafford (a metropolitan district) I pretty much used the guidelines in WP:UKCITIES. There were some necessary changes: for example the governance section was longer and more detailed (with info on the council), and there is no notable people section because it would be too much effort. This seemed to work, and although I'm not sure of the differences between the different types of district I should think a similar process should work for other articles. I'm not sure we need a whole new set of guidelines for districts, perhaps some amendments to WP:UKCITIES would be enough? Nev1 (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
There is an infobox Template:Infobox UK district which is used in the Ryedale article. I thought about improving this article by writing about it in terms of its functions i.e. housing, environment, refuse collection, etc. Other aspects e.g.geography have been dealt with in the natural area Vale of Pickering, so are maybe redundant in articles on administrative districts.--Harkey (talk) 07:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Template:Infobox UK district has a banner on it which says "Depreciated template. Please use Template:Infobox Settlement instead." So I will go with that one.— Rod talk 19:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Olney, Milton Keynes; Caversham, Reading; Wanborough, Swindon

There is an edit war in progress over the correct name of the article for Olney, a town in the Borough of Milton Keynes (which is legally a county). User:Mpvide65 insists that the Traditional Counties of England naming should apply, despite the fact that the Buckinghamshire article is clearly about the modern administrative county and excludes historic North Bucks. (The Borough remains part of the Ceremonial county for the purposes of the Lieutenancies Act 1997).

Mpvide65 draws attention to Caversham (B of Reading) and Wanborough (B of Swindon).

I will suspend further editing in this area until the Project has formed a consensus. I expect Mpvide65 to do the same. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between Traditional Counties of England, which John Maynard Friedman thinks I'm pushing and Ceremonial counties of England. The traditional counties were out years ago, long before unitary authorities came along. I am supporting Ceremonial Counties, which include unitary authorites. For example, Ceremonial Bucks is made up of non-metropolitan Bucks and Milton Keynes UA, meaning that Milton Keynes UA is part of ceremonial Bucks. Because of this, I see no reason in naming a town in a UA with its ceremonial county. There are other examples used above: Caversham, in Reading UA is listed as Caversham, Berkshire and Wanborough, in Swindon UA is listed as Wanborough, Wiltshire. These are exactly the same as Olney. If Wanborough can be listed as Wilts., then Olney can be listed as Bucks. Mpvide65 (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the main question is this: Should a settlement within a Unitary Authority list itself as Settlement, UA or Settlement, Ceremonial County? Mpvide65 (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I argue that these Boroughs are just as firmly detached from the modern rural counties that bear the name as the West Midlands in its day was detached from Warwickshire. It is not just misleading to readers to pretend that the settlement is somewhere that it isn't, it is actively incorrect. For example, Olney is in Milton Keynes (borough) which legally is a separate county. It is no longer in administrative county described in the Buckinghamshire article though, as stated in the article, it is the ceremonial county. The equivalent is true of Caversham and Wanborough and the names of those articles should be corrected. So I am right to see Mpvide65's attempt to reverse the tide of history in just the same way as the Traditional Counties of England proponents tried to do. The only difference is that this news is merely ten years old and the previous debate was about a change made 40 years ago. The argument remains the same - only the details are different. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
(Copied from Talk:Olney, Buckinghamshire):
A unitary authority does cover all the formal political and administrative activities of a county. However, a town does not exist solely in a political and administrative world. It also has a history, a social position, an economy, a geographical location and many other aspects. The very recent chopping up of traditional counties does not change all of those. "Milton Keynes" makes Olney sound like a suburb of a town which did not exist for almost all of Olney's history. To me, Olney is "really" in Buckinghamshire, in the same way that Southampton and Portsmouth are in Hampshire, Bournemouth in Dorset, Kingston in Surrey and Bromley, Dartford and Chatham in Kent – to pretend otherwise is to deny hundreds of years of history, and geographical and sociological reality. Olney may currently happen to be administered from Milton Keynes, but for many important purposes it is in Buckinghamshire. As importantly, I suspect that many of those unfamiliar with Milton Keynes are pretty vague about where that is (I didn't know, and I've been there...), but they will be much more aware of where the traditional county of Buckinghamshire is. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course it doesn't deny it, that is rabble rousing. The article very clearly gives its history. But the Buckinghamshire that it was in doesn't exist any more and it is dishonest to pretend otherwise. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Buckinghamshire has never ceased to exist, in Milton Keynes or the rest of the county (after 1974). The only difference is that Bucks County Council does not govern Milton Keynes (borough). However it does still exist. It is in no way dishonest to say Milton Keynes is in Buckinghamshire. Mpvide65 (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I did not say it has ceased to exist. I said that the Buckinghamshire that exists today does not include the Borough. The Ceremonial county is just that - ceremonial. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The Buckinghamshire of today does include the borough when ceremonial. A ceremonial county is not just a name, certain functions of the borough are carried out by ceremonial Bucks. Therefore Milton Keynes can still be described as being in Bucks. Mpvide65 (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
In exactly the same way as modern Buckinghamshire is in Ceremonial Bucks. Olney is primarily in the Borough and secondarily in the traditional county. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
You are confusing traditional and ceremonial counties again. Olney is as much in ceremonial Bucks as it is in the borough. Every settlement in England has a ceremonial county, that cannot be denied. Because of this, I think Olney should be listed as Olney, Buckinghamshire. Mpvide65 (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(<-) This issue is adequately covered in our policy entitled WP:PLACE, specifically Wikipedia:PLACE#Counties_of_Britain and Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(settlements)#England. We use the ceremonial counties of England for disambiguation of places, and in a geographic frame of reference. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a page I would usually chime in but it seems Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#England guideline (not policy) is a little bit short. Specifically, looking at other places in the Borough of Milton Keynes, I can understand disambiguating places in the borough but outside of the urban area to Place, Buckinghamshire, but within the designated urban area it would make sense to disambiguate them to Place, Milton Keynes. Specifically, one that popped up on my watchlist is Bletchley, Milton Keynes, which is a settlement that forms part of Milton Keynes which is then part of ceremonial Buckinghamshire. I don't know if this kind of disambiguation would also affect other UAs but it's something we need to look in to. Cheers, SeveroTC 23:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Severo, WP:NAME definitely is policy, not a guideline. However short that policy is, currently it is quite clear on what should be done right now: ceremonial counties are what should be used, so Olney, Buckinghamshire, Caversham, Berkshire, etc. are the correct titles. If you are suggesting that that policy should be changed, then go ahead and suggest that on the policy's talk page.
As the policy is quite clear, there should be no edit wars on this, and both parties are culpable. --RFBailey (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
One more thing, my personal opinion of the naming convention is that it is perfectly adequate and does not need changing. --RFBailey (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with RFBailey here, and also feel the need to point out that the naming conventions do indeed form part of official policy, rather than just guidelines. We have a policy, and until that's changed we need to respect it. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I've moved several "Placename (Milton Keynes)" articles to their correct positions according to the policy at WP:NC:CITY#England. The destinations were either "Placename" (if no dab necessary), "Placename, Buckinghamshire", or "Placename, Milton Keynes" if there is another place with the same name elsewhere in the county. In pretty much all of the cases, the target name was sensible, as they were often villages that had been in Bucks before being swallowed up by Milton Keynes. (Some had to be done via WP:RM, so thanks are due to User:Black Kite for fixing those.) --RFBailey (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Monarch's Way

Hi, Can I ask for some help, from the experts in this WikiProject, with the Monarch's Way article. It is a 615 miles (990 km) long-distance footpath in England that approximates the escape route taken by King Charles II in 1651 after being defeated in the Battle of Worcester to Shoreham-by-Sea and passes through the area covered by this WikiProject. The article is a stub at present but some of us are trying to expand it and give details of the route (along the lines of the South West Coast Path which is currently a GA). We are using Talk:Monarch's Way as a communal sandbox for this and if anyone was able to add description, settlements, places of interest etc along the route for their local area this would be really helpful.— Rod talk 12:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

MBB Canal

I've nominated this for fac. Gulp. comments here. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist please

Hi guys,

There's some disruption on the following pages, by a sockpuppeteer. Watchlisting and reverts would be appreciated:

  1. Olney, Buckinghamshire
  2. Talk:Scotland
  3. Heywood, Greater Manchester
  4. Oswestry ‎
  5. History of Milton Keynes ‎
  6. Hollinwood‎
  7. UK Film Council‎
  8. Henry Taylor (swimmer)
  9. Kinnaird, Atholl
  10. Ricky Hatton

WP:3RR doesn't apply against these socks, as the gentleman is banned. Thanks folks, --Jza84 |  Talk  20:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Bishop Auckland

Hi All. Have been working on the Bishop Auckland article in dribs and drabs for around 3 years now (my first edits pre-date me registering). As I am the only registered editor who has made significant edits in the recent past, I would be grateful if another pair of eyes could take some time to have a look at the article and provide some feedback on the improvements, future direction and standard of the article. Pit-yacker (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

British place names in other countries

Not sure this is the correct place to post this, tried at the WikiProject United Kingdom and recieved no reply.

I created a template for Scottish place names in other countries, however after I noticed that there were articles with English place names I decided to move the template and add those, for two reasons firstly because people looking for Scottish names would be likely to be interested in English ones and vice versa, but also because the of the fact that the British Empire means the two are very closely linked. However User:MacRusgail does not seem to agree and requested I stopped adding the English names to the Scottish articles, I replied on their talk page but they have not replied they simply removed the template again. In my opinion the template makes it easier for users to navigate between the two sets of articles, but is the template appropriate or not? Darryl.matheson (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any harm in it, but the closest thing I can think of to this is with lists of surnames of British origin - these have been split into "English Surnames" and "Celtic Surnames". There should probably be some consistency (personally I prefer your take on the situation - grouping by modern nations as opposed to archaic cultures). Waggers (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ireland disambiguation task force

An Ireland disambiguation task force (WP:IDTF) has been created. It will: free up various Talk pages for their respective articles, avoid inner and cross article repetition, avoid debate-postponing moratoriums from needing to be placed, and can accommodate all aspects of the issue of disambiguating the word "Ireland". --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for UK geography

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Liverpool

Hi, could someone wander over and take a look at the points raised at Talk:Liverpool#Governance? (It refers to these changes in particular.) Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

West Anglia

Okay, this isn't a discussion on a problem or anything. I was just wondering, was there a place called West Anglia, as there is East Anglia? If not, are various names and that referring to that they are in the west of Anglia? Simply south (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Help with tables on project page

Can anyone help - I seem to have mucked up the layout of the project page by adding a new featured topic by using {{TopicTransclude|FT|Physical geography of Somerset}} & it is now attaching itself to the table of participants. It works on Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset without any problems. I've tried several times to fix this but the syntax of the tables is defeating me.— Rod talk 15:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorted it myself by adding a close table tag </table> to Template:WPUKGEO Participants and clr tag {{clr}} to project page (Note to self it is still useful to be able to hack tags in this age of graphical editors).— Rod talk 16:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This project has over 20 featured lists - but they are not showing up in the progress table as this is not included in the Template:WPUKgeo. I've put a request on Template talk:WPUKgeo as the template is locked. Does anyone object to this being added? and do we have any admins, who understand complex template syntax, who could add this?— Rod talk 07:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


2008 Wikipedia for Schools

The 2008/9 Schools Wikipedia is now available for browsing and feedback is welcome. Downloads start in two weeks so final improvements are possible; this is a big project with millions of users so it is worth doing well. The list of UK Geography topics included is here. There are several portals on Great Britain but not a geography one. Feedback welcome at Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection. --BozMo talk 13:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Coordinates for linear features

I have started a page, to give guidance on adding coordinates to articles about linear features such as roads and rivers. I intend to use it to document current practise, and develop polices for future use. Please feel free to add to it, or to discuss the matter on its talk page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Capitals of English regions

Category:Capitals of English regions is up for discussion/deletion here. Comments welcome. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

New Category

I'd like to create [[Category:Irwell Valley]] as I've created and contributed towards several articles based in this area, with more to come. Can anyone suggest where such a category would be best located? Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

[[Category:Valleys of England]] seems to be a good one to start with. I haven't found anything else that is particularly suitable. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, have now created it and populated it :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Italian communities in the UK

This category is up for deletion, here. Comments welcome. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think User:Stevvvv4444 (the creator) still needs to be notified the category is up for deletion. Nev1 (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll make it so. I've left them a note about some of the other categories he's been producing. I really think this uncited "X British" stuff needs to stop from them. I'm looking at things like Category:Italian British racecar drivers in horror. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
How many of these categories are there? I can't really see them being of much use. Nev1 (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
There are a great many it seems. Some are outrageous: Category:Chinese British actors, Category:Jamaican English musicians, Category:British people of Huguenot descent. How is Stevvvv4444 deciding who is and isn't getting these labels? What source is he using? Do the people themselves want to be associated with these terms? WP:BLP must apply here.
From a cursory glance, it looks like these categories are being based on surnames (!), for example Simon Le Bon has been included as a Hugeuenot descendant, without any citation, which I think is a libellous addition to his article. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm no fan of Duran Duran either, but I'm sure the Hugeuenots wouldn't go as far as saying it's libelous to associate them with Simon Le Bon ;-) Nev1 (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
That's a genuine LOL!
I'm tempted to delete the categories citing WP:BLP - tell me that's too tactless... :S --Jza84 |  Talk  19:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
If there's no objection in the next 24 hours I'm going to speedy delete these categories as breaches of WP:BLP. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Problematic edits on a large number of articles

I've posted a message on WP:AN/I#Mass changes to articles in the UK changing "village" to "town" which indicates that we may have some considerable work to do to amend a largish number of articles which have been edited recently. Details of the problem (an editor changing "village" to "town" in many articles) can be seen by following the link. I don't think we need here to do anything other than note that some editing work may well be erquired to fix any problems these edits have caused or shown up.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I can help out when and if a list of affected articles is produced (is there any way of doing this)? Which user was responsible? Perhaps then we can use their contribution history as a guide for finding out where efforts need to be focused. This is a perfect example of why mass, or major, changes should always be discussed first. There's being bold and then there's flagrantly disregarding consensus... ColdmachineTalk 08:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer. It was Sarumio (see User talk:Sarumio#Villages > Towns for a discussion about this). It has been suggested by myself and others that the onus is really upon Sarumio to sort the problem out, but you can see what is happening on that talk page discussion where there may still be further comments. If you look at his contribution history you can see the extent of the problem, and some of them may have been individualy corrected (I corrected a couple, and I know a few other editors have done a few more.) However, it perhaps now may require a bit more work than a simple mass revert, because of the time that has passed since it happened.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Importance of Peterborough

I notice on this list that Peterborough is ranked by this project as Top-importance, whereas cities like Manchester, Birmingham and Newcastle are only High-importance. I moved from the UK some years ago, but things haven't changed that much, have they? Walkerma (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

A good point, I suggest that it's of mid-importance, similar to City of Salford. Would anyone object to me changing the article importance? Nev1 (talk) 02:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
This appears to have been changed by User:Chrisieboy on 6 July 2008. I would say feel free to change it, but feel it is just one example of the inconsistency in both class and importance ranking within the articles covered by this wikiproject. Perhaps the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/Assessment need to be improved? However some variation in 13869 articles is not surprising. We still have 821 unassesed for importance and 732 unassesed for class.— Rod talk 12:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia version 0.5 importance scale (used by WikiProject UK geography), Top indicates the "subject is a must-have for a print encyclopaedia." It is however, rated Low on WikiProject Cities priority scale, as it has "a population less than 200,000 with no international news coverage by multiple news agencies of any event or disaster." The solution, unless you change the criteria, is to reassess cities like Manchester, Birmingham and Newcastle. In any case, these will already have a higher rating than Peterborough on the WP:Cities scale. Chrisieboy (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
In case I didn't make myself clear, I have an objection. I have reverted User:Nev1 pending the outcome of discussion here. From the diff above, you will also see I changed the rating from High ("subject contributes a depth of knowledge"), not Mid ("subject fills in more minor details"). What precisely is the basis for your assertion that this article of of "mid-importance" Nev1 (other than subjective comparison to an article rated by an indefinitely blocked user)? Chrisieboy (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I should have signed my previous comment - I think we do need to change the criteria, otherwise every city (and town) would be rated top & I think that TOP should be reserved for the largest cities + countries, while HIGH should be other cities & counties, while towns, local councils etc should be MID & villages LOW. Until this sort of change is made at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/Assessment I see your point, but this would give a "top heavy" importance system where the vast majority of articles would be rated TOP or HIGH.— Rod talk 12:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree and support this suggestion (which will make Peterborough High importance); in the mean time it should remain Top. Chrisieboy (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree that WikiProject UK geography/Assessment should be changed. The system I've used for assessing setlements is Top for capital cities, High for settlements with populations over 100,000, Mid for populations between 10,000–100,000 and Low for below 10,000. Epbr123 (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd be happy with that for settlements but we need to include counties, districts etc in that. What about rivers & other geographical features which aren't settlements with a popn size?— Rod talk 14:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Regions; Top, Counties; High? Top 10/15/20/25 Rivers of the UK as Top? --Jza84 |  Talk  14:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
River Thames & River Severn might be top but River Chew isn't. What about Exmoor etc?— Rod talk 14:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest the following as a working draft:

Top Constituent countries; regions of England; capital cities; major rivers and motorways
High Counties; unitary authority areas; settlements, typically cities, with a population in excess of 100,000; Grade I listed buildings; other rivers and primary routes
Mid Settlements, typically towns, with a population in excess of 10,000 but less than 100,000; other listed buildings and Sites of Special Scientific Interest
Low Settlements, typically villages, with a population of less than 10,000; national nature reserves, etc.
None Unassessed, importance still to be determined

Chrisieboy (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd been working on a a similar chart at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Assessment - shall we move the discussion there & incorporate your suggestions?— Rod talk 14:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move of Ireland

It has been proposed that Ireland should be moved to Ireland (island) and Republic of Ireland to Ireland. To comment, please visit Talk:Republic of Ireland#Proposed move. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion continues on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)/Ireland disambiguation task force. Now there is general (but not complete) agreement that Ireland should be moved, probably to Ireland (island), so that Ireland (disambiguation) can be moved to Ireland. --Una Smith (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Mass addition of WP:CITIES project to places in the UK

Although there's no real restriction on having multiple projects "claim" single articles, I;ve just noticed that a mass addition of WP:CITIES to a large number of places in the UK is now going ahead by User:Folks at 137. For instance, Barrow, Cheshire, which is actually a civil parish had WP:CITIES added to it when I think there would be considerable strain in getting any article to comply with the advice given in WP:CITIES, and thus I think it is quite unsuitable in this instance (i've removed it.) Since WP:UKCITIES was derived from WP:CITIES as a means of catering for the UK-specific characteristcis of places in the UK, should we be doing something about all this? Surely WP:UKCITIES means that it is unnecessary to have WP:CITIES, and may well lead to disputes at GA and FA level, as well as other levels, when the two sets of advice disagree?  DDStretch  (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't see the harm in belonging to both pojects. Their article guidelines clearly state their only meant for US cities. Civil parishes are within its scope of WP:CITIES, as it states it's for all municipalities and other civil divisions. Epbr123 (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Outer Hebrides maps

Lewis has a nice map in its infobox, showing its extent; could someone produce the corresponding map for Harris? --Una Smith (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Histories cats

Just proposing a renaming of five categories to do with Histories of settlements. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 28#Histories of cities and towns in the United Kingdom. Simply south (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Including External Links when they are already in the main body of an article

I think I could do with some additional outside help on this one. Please look at University of Chester as well as its associated talk page and User talk:Ddstretch for including the University of Chester website both in references and in the External Link section. WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IAR are being invoked to include the website in the EL section as well as elswhere in the article. I'd be grateful for any outside input on the matter.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact, on reviewing it further, it seems that all but one of the ELs still in the article have already been used as references, and the other EL could easily be a ref. I could remove the section, as I have done in other cases, but I expect that it would be swiftly re-entered by editor concerned.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that if we're including an article on an organisation which has a website, then it's usually a good idea to include to link to the home page, if one exists, of that organisation, at the end of the article, where a reader will expect to find it (i.e. under an External links section). I'm unsurprised that this isn't a guideline, but it *is* standard practice across the project (random examples: Apple Inc., Asda, Académie française). It's also the way things are at the bottom of WP:UNI's best articles (examples: Cornell University, Oriel College, Oxford). — mholland (talk) 06:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I will accept that, but I think it should be more clear in the guidelines, in that case. However, the other links that were there seem to be unnecessary, and I see that another editor has removed all but one of them now.  DDStretch  (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

1981 Census data

Hi all,

I'm searching around the internet for the Key Statistics for Urban Areas data from the 1981 census (specifically table KS01 total resident population) - so far without success.

I believe that census.ac.uk has that data, but unfortunately it appears that you need to be either a staff member or a student at a UK university or college to access the data (via "Athens" or "UK Federation" logins).

Is there anyone on this project who has one of those logins? And if possible, could they get hold of the data? I'm specifically interested in the main Urban Areas (and sub-divisions thereof) outside London, so the West Midlands Urban Area, Greater Manchester Urban Area, Greater Glasgow, West Yorkshire Urban Area etc.

Thanks! Fingerpuppet (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I have various of those logins - but suspect the licence under which I have the them precludes me sharing the data as you request. Does Vision of Britain have the data you need?— Rod talk 20:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
No, it doesn't - rather irritatingly it only has local authority data. This can be seen if you look for towns like West Bromwich and Huddersfield that don't have like-named local authorities. Fingerpuppet (talk) 10:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Improving geographical articles problem

Am I the only Scottish person in this WikiProject because I am on the chart. I thought this project was for the whole of the UK. I may have the mantle of improving the whole of Scotland's geographical articles and I can't because I don't know everywhere in Scotland, but I do know a lot of places.Aberdeen fc (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth talking to WP:Scotland, raising awareness of this project. You're not expected to do everything ;-) Nev1 (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Welcome fellow Briton! Although I find it ironic that a geography WikiProject is based around a sovereign state rather than the island of Britain or the British Isles. I'd imagen there was a big discussion about this. Jolly Ω Janner 18:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Dorset

I just noticed that there isn't a WikiProject for the county of Dorset. I'm from Devon; is there anyone from Dorset out there? I would be willing to set up an assessment page and help with other things on the WikiProject, but I'm just using this place to see if there are people (Dorsetians) wanting a WikiProject. Jolly Ω Janner 18:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If there's enough interest, it would probably be worth setting up the project, but at the moment only User:Dynamization on the project page lists Dorset amongst their interests. It doesn't get much traffic, but as well as asking people here if they're interested, it might be worth putting a note on the UK wikipedians' noticeboard. Nev1 (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested moves that may interest project members

A number of articles have been nominated for a name change which involves changing the capitalization scheme used. They are:

(the links point to the discussion of the requested moves.) Members may wish to comment on the requests both for and against the proposed moves. I'm not sure where else notices could be posted to get as wide a discussion as possible, both for and against the requests), and so would appreciate people identifying appropriate projects and posting similar messages there.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to note that the article Conservation area (sic) covers Conservation Areas as designated areas within the UK, as well as "conservation areas" in a wider sense globally. Simply on the grounds of consistency with other designations, it may be worth considering if that is the best approach or whether it would be better to create a new article, eg Conservation Area (UK). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
That's a good point. How about suggesting it in the move discussion? It would at least get it mentioned in a wider context by doing that.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Please note also that Mooretwin has raised the issue here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I did notice it, and I have enquired about the correct way of dealing with non-neutrally worded notices about requested moves. The general tactic used over the past day or so, if followed in the cases of these requested moves, will be to deny all knowledge of what is and what is not acceptable, deny that one knows what one is talking about, and to make many requests for justifications and clarifications whilst repeating the same point as if no attention has been given to previous points made.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

North Sea

North Sea is currently undergoing GA review. Any assistance appreciated.SriMesh | talk 00:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"Infobox Settlement" conversion for Local Government Districts

Has anyone gone through the process of changing the use of Template:Infobox UK District in articles about local government districts/boroughs to Template:Infobox Settlement? If so, are there any tips that can be passed on to ease the changeover? I'm about to try to do some for the districts and boroughs currently comprising Cheshire as part of an attempt to plan ahead for local government reorganisation next year in the county. Thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I've done it from time-to-time, but it's quite laborious. I think at the time UK geo was last keen enough to look at this, we found that the districts of England were in a real mess, with some using false-infobox which were actually wikitables, others using UK District, some UK place, some nothing. Southern England seems to be the most diverse. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Its as time-consuming as I suspected. Thanks. Now, the new unitary authorities that will come into play in Cheshire currently use the Template:Infobox England county templates. Is that the recommended Infobox to be used? If so, would there be any need to change Cheshire to use a different Infobox, or keep the same one (it currently uses Template:Infobox England county as well.) I imagine the Infoboxes for the old districts and boroughs may also have to be changed, but I thought it would be good to get them correct now, if only for a little time.

Is anyone planning for similar changes to other districts, etc in the light of changes that are happening shortly?  DDStretch  (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just found Template:Infobox historic subdivision which seems to be the infobox of choice for defunct counties. The question is, would it be appropriate to use it for Cheshire?  DDStretch  (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll probably have to change some of the locator maps used in Template:Infobox UK place come to think of it. Do we have a list of districts that are to be changed? When does the 2009 change come into effect?
I imagine Cheshire can stay the same. It will be in the same position as Berkshire, ie. consisting of unitary districts only. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  13:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I did this for Somerset 2 Unitary authorities and 5 Non-metropolitan districts using Infobox Settlement. I found the hardest thing was the population, ethnic origin etc data which was included before didn't really fit into the infobox. I'm not aware of any changes in this county happening next year - or I'll have to look at them again.— Rod talk 13:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer about the Somerset experience. I see that the county there uses the England county infobox, and all the districts, including the unitary authorities, use the settlement infoboxes. That is interesting, as currently, the (somewhat prematurely written IMHO) articles for the new unitary authorities for Cheshire use the England county infoboxes (Cheshire West and Chester, and Cheshire East.) The situation is a little different in so far as there are still non-unitary authorities within Somerset. If we include the two pre-existing unitary authorities for Cheshire: Halton (borough) and Warrington (borough) we can see that both also use the Settlement infobox. From this, I think it would be best to change the infoboxes as they currently exist on Cheshire West and Chester, and Cheshire East to also use the Settlement Infoboxes. There are 7 county changes being made. See 2009 structural changes to local government in England. The changes will come into effect on 1 April 2009 for all 7, which date always seems prophetic with respect to problems in the switches. It may require some joint work to identify and sort them all out, now I think about it, unless there are active projects that have planned how to go about representing the changes on wikipedia.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
You mean say, we need a "To do" list to identify the upgrades we need to perform? Certainly much of the automated syntax behind Template:Infobox UK place will need revamping, as well as significant amendements to the maps. The pink district maps used in local authority articles will also need updating too. That's not to mention airbrushing out the old districts from prose where they are no longer contemporanous. It's really quite a task ahead of us on reflection. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, you're right. I knew changes had to be made, but putting down my initial question in this section and then thinking about it a bit more made me realise that there is more to it than simply knocking off a short article or two. This perhaps requires some concerted effort, and so a "To do" list may well be the best way of identifying what needs to be done, we need to perhaps gather a group of editors together who are willing to do what changes are needed, and, finally, we need some way of identifying when the changes have been done so that we can keep abreast of the updating that is required. Perhaps a taskforce with a call for membership to all of the relevant county projects, and any others who are willing?  DDStretch  (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Probably best to contact all those local WikiProjects that are affected by the changes outlined at 2009_structural_changes_to_local_government_in_England#Consultation_period, and draw us to a central page (maybe a subpage of UKgeo?). I can start a provisional "To do" list off ina sandbox somewhere in the meantime. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I'll shortly create Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/2009 local government structural changes task force (taking the title from the article), and put in a barebones structure that can be fleshed out a bit before it goes "live".  DDStretch  (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I've also put something together at User:Jza84/Sandbox3 which you may cut, copy, paste and change as you see fit. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  16:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I've roughed out the bare-bones of the taskforce page now, incorporating all of your contributions on your sandbox. If you (or anyone else reading this) would like to cast your eyes over what I've done with a view to improving it, correcting it, expanding it, then we may be closer to going live with it. It is at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/2009 local government structural changes task force I think making a shortcut along the lines of WP:2009ENGLAND might be an idea. If a better ones comes to mind, please suggest it.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Are there any more immediate suggestions of what to add to the To Do List, or of places where the taskforce should be advertised? If not, then I suggest I create a "General Discussion" section somewhere appropriate (any suggestions) and then advertise the taskforce. Also, I can't get a shortcut of WP:2009ENGLAND to work, though I've had problems with that before. Can someone assist?  DDStretch  (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
If someone is tackling the maps could they do existing UAs the examples I'm thinking of are Bath and North East Somerset & North Somerset but I bet there are others.— Rod talk 09:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to try and tackle the (yellow) locator maps asap. I've done Cheshire and Northumberland already. I'll try and take a look at the pink ones, but I was never involved with them, and I'm unsure where the source material might be found.
On another note, I think DDStretch's idea of a shortcut would be good. I'm also thinking of us using something like:
That could be added to the talk page of relevant articles (and even things like navigation templates come to think of it) to raise awareness. How's that sound? --Jza84 |  Talk  19:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography/Archive_7&oldid=1136046781"