Talk:Wakefield/Archives/2018

Green belt

I am moving this section to the City of Wakefield where it might be more useful. It is very general, not about the urban area described and makes more references to places outside the remit of this article. Please don't put it back here without a clear rationale. J3Mrs (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

As editor of said piece, I appreciate the move to the district article. I will add that Wakefield has no definitive area of the settlement except for possibly wards, and feel the article certainly shouldn't be about the urbanised area alone, as the green field areas within and on the fringes make an important contribution to what Wakefield is. My second edit was more focused on these.

To simply dismiss that green belt does not exist within or anywhere near Wakefield is damaging as it stops further sprawl and inversely, determines where development then takes place in the urban area. I admittedly don't live there, but if you know what constitutes 'Wakefield' and feel there is a more targeted definition of the green belt within, then couldn't the piece be instead improved by yourself to reflect this.

The Equalizer (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The article is about Wakefield which is mostly within three urbanised wards. Nobody is dismissing the greenbelt but it is not appropriate here. It is not really geography but is a construct of the planning system. As it is so general it is better suited to an article about the district. I am interested in keeping articles focussed. I don't see how I could improve it. J3Mrs (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I would say it's human geography, the way in which we humans [are allowed to] interact with the land. Regards The Equalizer (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)