Talk:Bristol

Flag icons for twin towns

Cards on the table - I loathe flag icons on Wikipedia and think they are messy and intrusive, especially when used to turn perfectly good town-twinning prose into a bulleted lists complete with flags. For that reason I just reverted these edits by Attilios‎ (talk · contribs). Whenever I come across these loathsome little graphics I remove them and have never had my edits reverted, but on a major article like Bristol I think it would be better to get consensus. So are contributors OK with twin towns listed as prose, or do you prefer bulleted lists with flag icons? --Simple Bob (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting. The prose form is what was asked for in the GA review and I think it is best to stay that way. Following the peer review, I am slowly working on the article with the aim of submission for FA status, so I think it should remain as prose. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It's too bad that you feel that way, but it's obvious that the bulleted format is also wanted. I think it should remain at a bulleted format with flag icons. By the way, I would think that you should reword some of your explanations for reverting edits. — comment added by L Kensington (talk • contribs) 15:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Prose is preferred over bulleted lists at GA and FA reviews. The flags should not be included whether text or list - Wikipedia:MOSFLAG#Flags highlights areas of inappropriate use which I feel applies to twin towns, particularly "Flags are visually striking, and placing a national flag next to something can make its nationality or location seem to be of greater significance than other things." Therefore I would argue for their removal.— Rod ^talk 16:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting, the format of that section was hammered out in the thorough GA review and as pointed out flag icons suggest an unwarranted significance. As Rod points out bullet lists are also not a feature of GAs or FAs. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have reverted to the 1 September version as various apparently good faith edits have introduced unreliable references and have tended to remove many of the features that were present when this passed GA. Please discuss any substantial chnages here before making them. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image

It looks like we need a new infobox image as File:City of Bristol.jpg seems to have been deleted. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have found a new image for the infobox. Please discuss possible alternate images. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with SimpleBob's removal of the 'skyline' image, however the existing 'view from the Suspension Bridge' is almost as bad. Until someone comes up with something better, can we pick one of these as a replacement? RedSquirrel (talk) 09:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 

Well personally, i don't think any of those is a particularly good image. Will have a look through Commons, when I get a minute. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the edit SimpleBob. We live and learn. Rather surprised by your reaction JezHotwells; is it the subjects you object to or the quality of the images?RedSquirrel (talk) 10:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of using something that involves the Clifton Suspension Bridge as to me that is the one iconic image of Bristol. The one here I like because it has good colour, less cloud over the bridge, and although the bridge is there it isn't the main focus of the picture. These two aerial shots aren't bad though - especially the first which covers a huge amount of the floating dock from Bristol Bridge almost as far as the SS Great Britain and shows a large part of the centre as well as College Green and Park Street. I'm less keen on the second but some might like it. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 10:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 

My objection to these is that the quality of the images is poor.

• the collection of conmtainers used by construction engineeers at the rioght of the bridge image is unedifying
• the Great Britain image has truncated masta and bowsprit and name banner
• the prominent feature of the Llandogger Trow image is a sign advertising tapas
• the Bristol Parks image does really say much about the city
• likes for the tethered nballoon picture
• I think the Suspension Bridge is probably best prospect for a picture, but needs a better picture. I will see what can be done in the next week or two. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair points, JezHotwells. Essentially I was looking for an interim improvement, something 'tempry' to use the Bristolian word. I like the first two images SimpleBob put up, but I don't think they stand up in the limited size available in the infobox. Maybe something more like this would do it:

• 

We now have this montage as a suggestion from BadboyIain (it would get my support)

• Bristol Profile Pic.jpg

In classic WP fashion, it has already been reverted from the article and tagged for speedy deletion. Way to go guys! Andy Dingley (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I made this montage of Bristol with images from Commons. Let me now what you think --Bleff (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• 

Coat of Arms alt text

The Coat of Arms image in the infobox (Bristol city coa.png) currently has alt text "Official logo of Bristol" (hover the cursor over it to see) - Bristol does have a logo, but it isn't the Coat of Arms (see www.bristol.gov.uk for the logo). Anyone know how to change the alt text? RedSquirrel (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I presume you are talking about this logo with the white ship & castle on a red background with the words Bristol City Council around it? If so this is a modern logo rather than the heraldic crest. Are you suggesting using this image rather than the crest? The alt text appears to be auto generated by the Template:Infobox settlement & any discussion or code change would probably need to take place there & may affect many other articles. However it has made me wonder this article should use Template:Infobox UK place instead?— Rod ^talk 19:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that one. I wasn't actually suggesting using the logo in place of the coat of arms, though arguably there is a case for that given that BCC don't seem to use the coat of arms any more. Perhaps the coat of arms should be relegated to the 'history' section, or even bumped off onto the History of Bristol page? Either way, my point is that the alt text is wrong to call the coat of arms a logo. Seems to me that the alt text ought to be associated with the image and should be capable of being corrected there, but I'm by no means an expert in wikipedia arcana. Talking of which, what are your reasons for preferring Template:Infobox UK place ? Incidentally, according to this article the thing that used to be on the sides of the buses is neither a coat of arms nor a crest - it's an 'achievement'. Either way it isn't a logo. RedSquirrel (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

My preference for Template:Infobox UK place is only for consistency with other towns & cities in the UK, however checking WP:UKCITIES I see Bristol is specifically listed as an exception.— Rod ^talk 08:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well that would seem like a good enough reason to leave the infobox as it is. As to the issue of the logo vs the crest/coat of arms/achievement, I am firming up in my view that the modern logo should be used in favour of the historic crest. I see Edinburgh has both; that just looks messy to me. Any opinions? RedSquirrel (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The logo is for the city council and would therefore be appropriate to a separate article about Bristol City Council. The coat of arms is for the city and is therefore appropriate for the article, which is primarily about the city, not its council. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 11:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

"Bristol City Council" currently redirects to Politics of Bristol perhaps it should go there?— Rod ^talk 11:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 11:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you're right, Simple Bob - I think the logo is just the modern version of the coat of arms, both being owned by the City Council. This article would seem to support this RedSquirrel (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I see that the featured article on Bristol's second nicest suburb has that city's coat of arms as the illustration to the 'Governance' section, rather than having it in the infobox. That makes sense given that the coat of arms is granted to the local governing body, not 'the city' or 'the people' in some vague sense. Given that the coat of arms appears to have been replaced by the logo in Bristol, surely we should use this rather than the coat of arms which is now of historical interest only? While in the infobox, wouldn't it be better to have a view of the Suspension Bridge, rather than from it? Seems to me it's a bit like Uluru - the view of it is stupendous, the view from it is a bit dull.RedSquirrel (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

See thread above with regards to infobox illustration. It would be good to get some for of consensus as ther are many potential candidates for such an illustratiobn. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and apologies if I'm getting a bit cross-threaded. For my two penn'orth, the infobox photo has to be unique and obviously recognisable - Suspension Bridge (of rather than from!), SS Great Britain, view up Park St to University Tower for example.RedSquirrel (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Population Correction

The current suggestion that the population of Bristol is over one million is grossly over exaggerated.

• http://www.bristol.gov.uk/ccm/content/Council-Democracy/Statistics-Census-Information/the-population-of-bristol.en;jsessionid=84B7D90A7B01A4E1905D037651E30AB3.tcwwwaplaws3 As the council website shows, along with the report (2009) at the bottom, clearly shows that the population barely over 500,000 -- Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.117.10 (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the intro properly? Population is stated a 433,000. The figure of 1 million is for the larger urban zone, which is a much larger area than the city itself and is properly cited. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 11:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Map change

I have reverted that change of map by User:Dr. Blofeld. I think that this should be discussed here. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

If that's problematic no probs. Anything wrong with it? Its an Svg.. File:Bristol UK locator map 2010.svg♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

In an ideal world, it would be good to try and get some consistency on this point across the UK (or, at least, England) city articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think Dr Blofeld's map has a nicer and less dated look to it than the previous one. It's not a strong preference though. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Nilfanion has made/is making svgs for the British cities to match the maps currently used in the town and village articles by county..♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Comparing the old style to the new style there are a number of improvements, which become much more noticeable for other districts than they do here: Other areas are shown, as is the sea. The boundaries are significantly more accurate. The files are SVGs, making them easier to edit. And the colour scheme is compatible with the broader Wikipedia standards, so the maps of the UK are more consistent with maps of elsewhere, as well as the location maps used by Template:Infobox UK place. Compare File:South Hams UK locator map.svg to File:DevonSouthHams.png - the old map doesn't show Plymouth or Torbay, or which bits are coastal, making it much less informative. With regards to this article - the inclusion of Wales is a plus :)

The specific problem for Bristol is its status as a ceremonial county and as a city. The Bristol map is consistent with the maps for the other ceremonial counties such as Somerset or West Yorkshire. The districts also have a single consistent style, whether they are unitary authorities or not, the maps for Birmingham and Plymouth have an identical format to Horsham and West Somerset. This same format can also be extended to civil parishes eg Anlaby with Anlaby Common.

Bristol is treated as a ceremonial county here, on the grounds that ceremonial county status is more significant than unitary authority status. If the map style used for Birmingham is preferred, then Avon could be used to give a similar layout. As there are about 400 districts it will take time to get the full set uploaded, but a fair chunk of Southern England is already done.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, it looks like consensus here so I have reverted myself. I feel that it would have been best to have asked before changing and I also note that Avon ceased to exist in 1996, after a mere 22 years of existence so has no relevance here. The boundaries of the city, unitary authority and ceremonial county are identical. This also applies to Newcastle, I believe. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that Nilfanion's statement that "ceremonial county status is more significant than unitary authority status" is highly debatable and dubious - and I say that as someone who has frequently taken the line of supporting the mention of ceremonial counties in articles. Has this approach been discussed centrally anywhere? The boundaries shown on the map bear little relation to current local authority boundaries, and - if there has been a consensus to use them, which would surprise me - surely at least require some explanation in a caption. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I did miss out the important half of the statement really: The maps for the districts show the district-in-county, so Plymouth in Devon, Southampton in Hampshire etc. As Bristol is a ceremonial county, there isn't a county that contains it (apart from the defunct Avon). That has the effect that the methodolgy breaks down in this one case. The articles about the counties are about the ceremonial counties - including any UAs - so the ceremonial boundaries are the suitable for maps in those articles. For consistency with those, that is what the Bristol map uses.

Given Bristol's situation a different map may be preferable as a base: File:English metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties 2010.svg or File:English administrative divisions 2010.svg for example.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, as the boundaries of city, county and UA are the same, I see little difference between those and the map added by Dr. Blofeld. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the purpose of the map is to show Bristol's location, but surely the map used should be chosen on the basis of "least surprise", and on that basis I would expect most readers to be most comfortable with one of the local authority maps (though, as a side issue, the depiction of some rivers on those maps is very odd). Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll adapt the base to whatever is preferred, I'd imagine the first I mentioned as that's the one closest to the prior map? :) My big concern with the map (which is why I didn't add it months ago) is that the highlighted area is small at the size used in the infobox (~25 pixels of 75,000!), it has to be more prominent. The base image covering a smaller area, or overlaying a pushpin could work - any other suggestions appreciated. (With regards to rivers - the map shows the coastline as defined by OS, it would be OR if I cut out the tidal portion of the Arun because it "looks funny". Including the non-tidal Severn, Thames etc would mitigate but could end up overwhelming the point of the maps).--Nilfanion (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Population figures & LUZ

In the lead, we state that the LUZ for Bristol has a population of 1,000,000+ but the source given for this only gives this figure for an a area it called "the West of England" (which appears to be the old 'Avon' area). Do we know that the LUZ and Avon are coterminous? In the absence of a source which says that I've { { cn } } tagged the LUZ part of this sentence. If we can tie these two up, great - if not, then this part of the article needs rewording. SP-KP (talk) 10:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The LUZ is defined here as Bristol, BANES, North Somerset & South Gloucestershire. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 11:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't see the definition on that page - is it on one of the sub-pages? SP-KP (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is on any of the spreadsheets that can be downloaded from that page. Furthermore the population of the Bristol LUZ (1,071,000)can be seen on the EU Urban Audit dataset - just look at the second table. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 12:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The edits you made fix the immediate problem. Thanks. I feel that some readers will still come away with the impression that there is contiguous urban area of 1 million people centred on Bristol, though, which isn't true: places like Bath, Weston-super-mare and so on, are included in the LUZ, but are separated from Bristol by large swathes of countryside. We've got a similar issue at the Cardiff article at the moment, where one editor is trying to claim a "Cardiff urban area" of 1.4 million people, which includes Swansea and Newport! SP-KP (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, Newport, but not Swansea, I think. There is also the ONS "Bristol urban area" figure of 551,000 here, based on the continuously built-up urban area, so that it includes, for instance, Kingswood and Bradley Stoke but not Yate or Clevedon. So long as the different definitions are made explicit, I don't see why different figures for differently defined areas can't be included in the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Twinning

hi there - not sure where the info came from but Bristol is definitely not twinned with Lecce and there are no plans to twin as far as the twinnings association office is aware. Perhaps someone could change this as we are receiving requests for info about it. thanks. Alix Hughes, BITA co-ordinator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.11.203.58 (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Richard Gregory

As noted in the to do list Richard Gregory died in 2010. He is mentioned only once:

"The city was birth place of Colin Pillinger,[223] planetary scientist behind the Beagle 2 Mars-lander project, and is home to the psychologist Richard Gregory."

Perhaps some consensus could be reached as to changing the tense of the statement or removing it? Mike 05:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Cheers! Mike 19:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)