Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 10mmsocket (talk | contribs) at 15:31, 10 July 2023 (→‎Suffolk.: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
What's new

Did you know

Redirects for discussion

(201 more...)

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

Requests for comments

  • 04 May 2024 – Liverpool (talk · edit · hist) RfC by Liverpolitan1980 (t · c) was closed; see discussion

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Did you know? articles

Newlyn Tidal Observatory (2023-11-20) • Godalming (2023-09-20) • Reigate (2023-09-10) • Woking (2023-03-18) • Jarn Mound (2022-12-09)

Reached maximum of 5 out of 299

Featured pictures
  • A591 road, Lake District - June 2009 Edit 1
    A591 road, Lake District - June 2009 Edit 1
  • Aerial View of Edinburgh, by Alfred Buckham, from about 1920
    Aerial View of Edinburgh, by Alfred Buckham, from about 1920
  • Canary Wharf from Limehouse London June 2016 HDR
    Canary Wharf from Limehouse London June 2016 HDR
  • City of London skyline from London City Hall - Oct 2008
    City of London skyline from London City Hall - Oct 2008
  • Lancashire 1610 Speed Hondius - Restoration
    Lancashire 1610 Speed Hondius - Restoration
In the News articles

Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City (2021-07-22) • 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods (2009-11-21) • February 2009 British Isles snowfall (2009-02-06)

Main page featured articles

Coventry ring road (2023-07-23) • Combe Hill, East Sussex (2023-01-11) • Brownhills (2022-03-03) • Abberton Reservoir (2021-09-05) • Shaw and Crompton (2021-08-15)

Reached maximum of 5 out of 71

Main page featured lists

List of scheduled monuments in South Somerset (2023-12-22) • List of castles in Greater Manchester (2023-04-07) • List of Shetland islands (2022-05-20) • List of freshwater islands in Scotland (2020-04-24) • Scheduled monuments in Taunton Deane (2018-10-26)

Reached maximum of 5 out of 7

Watch

Archives

Disagreement on Christchurch article re:settlement definition

There is a dispute at the article for Christchurch, Dorset over whether, how, and in how much detail, the article should cover Bournemouth Airport -- a major employer which was in the now defunct borough of Christchurch, but some distance outside the built-up area in a neighbouring parish. This is essentially a difference of opinion on how to handle the ambiguity around defining settlements. If you think you can help resolve this, join the discussion at Talk:Christchurch,_Dorset#Bournemouth_airport. Thanks, Joe D (t)

Redruth

Would someone who is good at these things please take a look at Redruth and fix the infobox? It's currently using {{Infobox settlement}} instead of {{Infobox UK place}}. I had a go but failed miserably. It's the only Cornish town using this that I can see. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It actually turns out there a 14 places in Cornwall using the wrong infobox including Redruth - but that's a town so high profile, the rest are villages. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a new infobox for Redruth, based on the Penzance example. I've left the settlement box in but commented out for the time being in case of disagreements. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It would be neat if there was an infobox converter to copy over / rename equivalent parameters. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's way beyond my competence! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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))[reply]
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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Cambridge

I notice that User:Stortford has (sensibly) removed info about Mayor etc from the infobox at Cambridge, because it belongs at Cambridge City Council. The problem would have been avoided if the [Cambridge] article used {{infobox UK place}} rather than {{infobox settlement}}. Does anybody feel bold enough to change it? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

still working my way through the Cornish ones! If no-one ese has done it, I'll have a go in a couple of weeks or so. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not just Cambridge. Worth noting that 54 UK city articles use {{Infobox settlement}}, which is funny because we don't have 54 cities! See the search results] 10mmsocket (talk) 08:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, the "rule" is that if the extent of a UA and the city it contains are substantially the same, then the settlement infobox can be used. Personally I'd rather see the government aspect split out as in Cambridge: the article is much the better for it. IMO. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not just UAs. See Reading, Berkshire. Need to reread the rule. Later. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So what happens when the settlement (city) is accompanied by a UA article - as seems to be the case, accounting for the 54 articles. Do we have {{infobox uk place}} for the city article and {{infobox settlement}} for the UA article? Seems to make sense to me. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Horns Bridge (Railway Bridge? or Area? Discussion)

I was browsing away on the Lancashire, Derbyshire and East Coast Railway just now as I recently created another article for Skellingthorpe on the its former GNR station and moved the other station article to its new name. I know PamD moved them both a few times no issues. Anyway, while browsing the diagram. I saw Horns Bridge and know it is a well documented viaduct on this former line but what also kind of confused me was its preceding article. It is not about the bridge but also an area. The way its written is to me heavily off topic, it details the railway as it should but then goes onto talk about roads, railways, rivers and congested crossroads. A "small area of Chesterfield", Hasland Bypass and random pictures of industrial units. I am bringing this to the attention of others because I have tagged the article with off topic tags and not on one topic. Is it a railway bridge? or an area? because I have never come across any article on Wiki anywhere else that covers two topics in one article. I know most will likely argue os maps show Horns Bridge and the railway too but is best instead to either split the article for one about the railway and another like a suburb article similar to Old Whittington? or to just cover the main railway bridge and list the area under an areas list for Chesterfield? @Crouch, Swale, @Rupples, @KeithD, @Eopsid, @Redrose64 any thoughts? DragonofBatley (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot @DragonofBatley. The article seems to be about the area rather than the viaduct but I'm getting a feeling of WP:SYNTH. Although the article is well referenced it requires at least a couple of the sources to cover the topic as a whole. My understanding of SYNTH in this case would be using individual sources, (e.g. one source has narrative on the roads, another on the rivers and a separate one for the railways) and 'fusing them together' to create the article. This is just my initial thought and without looking at the referencing in detail (much of which may be offline) it's not possible to draw a firm conclusion. Rupples (talk) 02:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes a railway feature gives its name to the surrounding area, instead of vice versa. I can think of Clapham Junction, Micheldever Station, Stoke-on-Trent and Verney Junction, all of which were named after railway stations that were built in the middle of nowhere. I expect that some bridges had the same effect upon the area. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto many places called Abcde-ford, Abcde-bridge (road bridge), Abcde-cross (cross-roads, often marked by a Christian Cross), Abcde-Gibbet and so on. In most cases, it is now the settlement that is notable; the structure that initiated it is unlikely to be to anyone but rail fans. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stoke-on-Trent has been a centre of population since Roman times. The first church was built in 670 by missionaries from The Holy Island of Lindisfarne. Before the railways came the pottery industry arose (Doulton, Dudson, Spode, Wedgewood, Minton) and coal mining. All of the foregoing lead to the Trent and Mersey canal being specifically routed through Stoke which at the time was one of the countries major transport links. Hardly the "middle of nowhere". When the "-on-Trent" was added I can't find however, do you have any citations for your claim? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Middle of nowhere" might be harsh - everywhere is somewhere - but if my memory or Wikipedia are to be believed, the parish was "Stoke-upon-Trent" but the station was named "Stoke-on-Trent" and the six-towns borough took its name from that. NebY (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, other H* Bridge settlements include Haydon Bridge, Hebden Bridge, Heap Bridge and Helwith Bridge, and London's Victoria and West Hampstead are more examples of areas named after their stations. NebY (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've no objection to the subject of that article but the content is terrible, it needs a complete rewrite. It seems to be more of a literature review - and a biased one at at that - than an encyclopaedic description of the place. WaggersTALK 12:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for Isle of Portland

User:Buidhe has nominated Isle of Portland 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rochdale

Rochdale could benefit from the help of some careful and experienced editors, as it's a bit of a battleground at present. As an example, my attempt to change a section heading from "Name etymology" to "Etymology" was reverted with a shouty edit summary. I'm staying away. PamD 09:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Edited to add diff of revert: 09:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow. It looks like poor (but much respected) @DragonofBatley is up against it. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think @Exnihilox is a new editor. I agree that that edit summary is shouty, but overall they're acting in good faith and generally finding their feet. We will have to correct a few mistakes, but Exnihilox seems willing to get stuck in and so we should be encouraging and point them in the right direction. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In honesty - I only intended to update the 2021 census data - this became far more contentious than it should have been - many apologies if my remarks were acerbic - as a very new editor I do have much to learn. But reviewing the remarks targeted at me - I think a rational person might understand my reactions - I clearly has requested support and collaboration -- especially as the 2011 data kept reappearing and the focus on minor word definition in the name origins of the town. I now have added Wikipedia aligned citations - this has helped the article I hope. Exnihilox (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do think some of the remarks directed at you (on the article and your talk page) were a terse, and that's encouraged you to respond in kind. It happens, we're all behind screens so it's easier to be more argumentative than we'd be face-to-face. I've had a quick look and the citations you've added to the article do seem to be an improvement, so thank you for that.
I don't want to speak for @PamD, but my experience is that she's a considerate editor who wouldn't deliberately offend anyone; edit summaries are often short and can therefore seem brusque, but that's rarely the intent. I'm inserting myself into the discussion, I know, but from the outside it does just look like a case of crossed wires. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many apologies - but you have stated that you intend to stay away before Pam. With respect - the article is far better than it was 3 days ago. I added numerous robust citations. I do think focusing on the difference between NAME ORIGINS of the place - is likely misplaced energy. It has been painful, and I think if you look at some of your comments - they are not very polite and you really did not understand the word ETYMOLOGY. Exnihilox (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Exnihilox I was invited to the article by an editor with whom I have a ... let's say, "complicated" ... history of interaction, and who recently promised at ANI that all their editing would be quadruple-checked. I will continue to fix conspicuous problems here and there, but haven't the energy to get deeply involved in a major revamp. If in doubt over a matter of style it's always useful to look at the documentation, such as WP:UKTOWNS, or failing that, or to complement it, find an appropriate featured article as an example, hence my finding Bristol. There is a lot to learn about editing Wikipedia: at present there are many editors who know the editing rules, guidelines and conventions better than you do, understandably. Of course I understand "Etymology", and I also know that it's a standard heading used in Wikipedia articles, although for an article on a place "Toponymy" is given as an alternative option and is clearly better. PamD 15:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood - I guess! This did not need to be contentious - but at the heart of the matter is the 2011/2021 issue - and you are not going to persuade any reader that maintaining data from 2011 made any sense. Indeed I have much to learn about Wikipedia conventions - but oddly THIS ARTICLE DID ACTUALLY GET AN UPDATE though it was painful. You could redeem yourself by checking the DEMOGRAPHY section - citations and if happy remove the template - these are largely ONS reference, so a little hard to take issue with. Many thanks Pam. Exnihilox (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I note your mods to the section called Demography - it is not a word I actually use - not sure of the origins in the article - I would have used DEMOGRAPHICS. If you are going to add more reference - be comprehensive - it is actually an important section, and you seem to be making comments for no real academic reasons - it makes more sense for the mission to complete the task - rather than just offer unsupported opinions - and they are just your opinions. You keep stating you are not contributing - everyday I see you back in this article - lol. Exnihilox (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the contention - use TALK - before making changes - lol. Exnihilox (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Exnihilox "Demographics" is the standard Wikipedia heading for a section like this. See WP:UKTOWNS. Links in Wikipedia should go to the article the reader expects, so piping of links should only be used to simplify wording or improve flow, not to link to a different topic as from "Pakistanis" to British Pakistanis, etc. It's better to provide a reference which takes the reader right to the page they need to see the source data than to the higher-level index page. I didn't remove your references, just added more exact ones - you might like to change that. Yes it's an important section, but all the more important to be accurate in reflecting sourced facts and not including what might be POV remarks (no, I haven't looked into the history to see who has said what in the past, just trying to clear things up now). And, as I've said, none of this content is about the town, it's all about the Borough, so it should be in the article on the Borough (mostly it is). PamD 16:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - the TOWN versus BOROUGH - I think that matter is clear. As to added citations - I have no issues - are yours better than central UK stats - a matter of opinion - but keep both. DUMB QUESTION - I AM STUCK IN THE NOT THE WYSIWYG edit mode - could you provide directives - I did research it but looking to be in VISUAL EDIT MODE - I guess. CAN YOU KINDLY OFFER DIRECTION? Exnihilox (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops - found the little tab - but thanks! Exnihilox (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to this edit, in which inter alia PamD changed "Asian immigrants and their descendants are currently the predominant migratory group in Rochdale" to "British Asians are currently the predominant non-white ethnic group in Rochdale," and "Population by race" to "Population by ethnicity", those changes were entirely appropriate. NebY (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is my original content edit oddly enough. Pam perhaps refined it - it is accurate and appropriate that is why it was added - see revs. Thanks. Exnihilox (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added most of the immigration data - it might have been refined numerous times - look at the edit changes. 20 percent etc. I did use UK Government data - this was challenged for some unknown reason - it is cited. Exnihilox (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would add - looking at the older elements in the TALK section - there were some really odd offensive comments - this is why I took the effort to discuss immigration in Rochdale. I am aware to some it is a topic of sensitivity and it needs serious and objective discussion - which it now has. Exnihilox (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can safely put this topic to bed now. Exnihilox has been blocked for sockpuppetry on the article (he started editing using and IP address when it was clear he was up against editors who didn't agree). Nothing more to see here now. Move along to the next discussion. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of merger discussion: Somerset Council and Somerset County Council

There is a merge discussion taking place at Talk:Somerset Council about whether to merge Somerset Council into Somerset County Council, which participants here may be interested in. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Religion at ward level

This has arisen at Talk:Elstree but it's relevant for a number of other articles for Hertsmere wards such as Potters Bar.

  1. Is there a good way to cite 2021 census data for religion at ward level? It's obtainable from https://www.ons.gov.uk/datasets/TS031/editions/2021/versions/4 but only by changing settings, downloading a ~24 MB csv file and filtering.
  2. Should such data be displayed only as percentages calculated by an editor to 0.01%, without the ONS counts as absolute values, but with comparison to England and Wales percentages?
  3. Is editorialising such as As of the 2021 census, Potters Bar still had a Christian majority, making it more Christian than both England and Wales as a whole and the rest of Hertsmere. Potters Bar has a significant Jewish community and an Orthodox synagogue, but as a percentage of the overall population, the Jewish community, which numbers over 600, pales in comparison to every other settlement in Hertsmere, the most Jewish borough in the country acceptable to some extent?

NebY (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the best person to comment on 1. or 2., but I can comment on 3., and I don't think that language is neutral enough for the enyclopedia. I'd change it to something like:
The 2021 census showed [x%] of Potters Bar identify as Christian, which is higher than the average in Hertsmere ([x%]) and England and Wales as a whole ([x%]). The census also showed that [exact number] residents identify as Jewish, [x%] of the population. This is higher than the England and Wales average of [x%] but the lowest percentage of any town in Hertsmere, which has the highest percentage of Jewish residents in the United Kingdom ([x%]).
That conveys more or less the same information without using loaded phrases such as 'pales in comparison'. Using the percentages is also more accurate than words like 'majority', if it's possible to access the data. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is this even remotely encyclopedic? It reads to me as WP: advocacy. In the example cited, it is potentially antisemitic; in others, as feeding the Great Replacement conspiracy. This US obsession with "race" and religion should not be allowed to infect UK geography articles. And yes, your last para is certainly synth. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, both. I've added to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:EternalTempest in the hope that some of it can be dealt with there rather than article-by-article. NebY (talk) 10:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Data is data, but if the source doesn't show it, why are we putting that information in the article? Govvy (talk) 08:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just so that editors can see why I am concerned, may I draw attention to this map (published 1901) of "Jewish East London" and the anti-semitic legislation that followed?
"Jewish East London" (1899)

"A salutary reminder to approach maps with caution: those that claim a statistical basis are not necessarily neutral. This map illustrates the density of the Jewish population in London's East End in 1899, but by focusing on a narrow area of the capital and using heavily nuanced colour-coding, it contrives to be alarmist without actually distorting the underlying data." Bryars & Harper 2014, 22.
...
The growth in Jewish immigration had "attracted public attention chiefly from the social and economic side," the concern that English wages would be undercut and poverty would be increased. Although legislation had been proposed to restrict English immigration for the first time, the Preface confirms that the conclusions of the two authors "certainly seem to dissuade any attempt to check by law the entry into England of these aliens." Ibid. xii. The gentile author noted that while restricting immigration would be "for the public advantage" by reducing rents and overcrowding, even he concluded that "the charges against the immigrants merely as industrial competitors are . . . not sufficiently well established to call for legislation; and it appears that some more satisfactory remedy might be discovered for the evil of overcrowding." He also proposed that immigration might be reduced "without recourse to a measure so repugnant to English traditions" as restrictive legislation. Ibid. 87-88 n. In fact, the first such “repugnant” measure was enacted in 1905. See Bryars & Harper 25.

— Cornell University Library, Digital Collections[1]
Analysis of wards by Jewish population is probably unlikely to lead to an outbreak of overt anti-semitism but I doubt you could say the same about the same analysis by Muslim population. We really should not start out on adding this level of detail to settlement articles without giving serious consideration to its misuse. Yes, wp:Wikipedia is not censored but the reverse is also true: we are selective about what is WP:DUE and we don't include every trivial detail or allow WP:POVPUSHING. IMO, inclusion of this data in Wikipedia is WP:UNDUE, leave it at NOMIS where it belongs: otherwise we have to include it in every UK settlement article. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see the issue with settlement articles containing demographic information and neutrally mentioning notable information, e.g. Liverpool's brief history of the city's Black, Chinese, Irish, and Welsh populations. As I understand it the map above is problematic because it displays the information it contains in a biased manner, not because maps of religious demographics are inherently bad, and that's the lesson we should be applying to our articles.
As this applies to the original example, while that wording has offensive overtones and is unencyclopedic, comparing the demographics of Potters Bar to the national average or giving a brief history of its Jewish community should be acceptable if worded well. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Off-topic Q&A about the East London map
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@John Maynard Friedman: That's a really interesting map and a little unnerving, do you know if I can buy a replica of that at all? Govvy (talk) 09:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it reproduced a number of times (in books) but you can certainly download it from https://digital.library.cornell.edu/catalog/ss:19343551 (which is where I found it). Your friendly local printshop can no doubt do a hard copy in a suitable size. It is out of copyright under US law but I don't know its status in UK law but, unless Arkell survived another 45 years after publication, it is ok here too. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's available as a print in various sizes from the Museum of London (I have no financial interest or other COI). Their other map prints include Booth's poverty maps, so handsome until you know what they're mapping. NebY (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Display on project home page

The table of "UK geography articles by quality and importance" isn't displaying the FA line: it's there, flashes into sight and then disappears. Using a desktop Windows machine and Firefox. Any thoughts? PamD 20:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only to say Vector 2010 on Firefox and Windows 10 and Vector 2022 on Firefox and Windows 11 are both showing it normally here, and there's nothing obviously relevant in the table User:WP_1.0_bot/Tables/Project/UK_geography. How strange. Time to reboot the wikis? NebY (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wards v settlements

When a ward has the same name as a settlement should the ward have a separate "X (ward)" article or should the ward just be covered in the settlement's article like what we do with parishes? There has been some discussion about if wards are notable enough for articles here and the general agreement seems to be yes but I'm wandering if they need separate articles if they have the same name as a settlement. I personally think it makes little sense to have separate articles if the ward shares its name with a suburb (unless perhaps if it was formerly a parish) as there will generally be little information on boundaries etc for the suburb and as has been said for most wards only the electoral information, population data and when formed/abolished is generally available which is normally better covered in the suburb's article, see Talk:Castle Hill, Ipswich, Suffolk#Ward or suburb which has since been split to Castle Hill Ward, Ipswich. If the ward is named after a settlement like Boxford, Suffolk which also has a parish of the same name with different boundaries to the ward a stronger case could perhaps be made to have separate articles but even then covering in the settlement would probably work. WP:UKCITIES says "A single name may be in use for a civil parish, an ecclesiastical parish, a council ward and an informal colloquial area, each with slightly different boundaries. On the other hand, one area may have two or three different names—those of a ward, church parish and local names with no official use, for instance. In both these cases, all of the variants should be merged into a single article unless one of the alternatives is sufficiently notable to have an article of its own."

For Boxford the settlement had a 2011 population of 996, the parish had 1,221 and the (now abolished ward) had 2,170.

The arguments for having separate articles are that ward boundaries change frequently which may make unsitable for use ward stats to describe the settlements. @Onel5969: who has commented on wards recently. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, but I really do not know enough about this subject to comment, other than to say your approach seems very commensensical. Onel5969 TT me 00:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The information in the Boxford article is poor as it gives no detail of when it was formed, what it is a ward of, boundaries (are they same as settlement or different), etc. I would think that we should have separate articles as the ward history would be vastly different to the settlement. It would also cover cases where the name may be same but only covers part of settlement. Maps of each boundary change could then be included. Political details/election results can also be covered unless in separate election articles, but then they can be transluded so only stored in one place. Keith D (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Keith D: For Boxford indeed having 2 articles probably makes sense but do you think in many cases wards that share the same name as suburbs can just be covered in the suburb's article unless there is a significant amount of prose etc for the suburb. I know in Sheffield wards have normally been separated but in Bristol they have been combined. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale: I would suggest we always have separate articles for the ward and settlement as very little overlap apart from the name. Keith D (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think we should be having seperate articles for wards. My understanding is that wards are just constituencies but for local councils. Much like consistuencies the wards need to have a smiliarish level of population so one ward may contain a few seperate villages and will just be named after the largest village. I can't see what having a seperate article for the ward would achieve. If we were to have seperate articles for wards that would be potentially hundreds of extra articles. Eopsid (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Naming when district abolished

With the abolition of some districts and creation of some counties as unitary authorities, disambiguation by the former district needs to be considered. Several of the North Yorkshire ones have been moved to have a compass point, such as Dalton, west North Yorkshire. What do others think of this? Keith D (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the North Yorkshire ones I think we should just use the previous districts. Those compass point names are both ugly and confusing. Eopsid (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We also have Dalton, east North Yorkshire and Dalton, South Yorkshire, Dalton, West Yorkshire (a redirect), South Dalton and North Dalton in the East Riding of Yorkshire, and Dalton, New York too. If you're ever in Yorkshire, do not ask for directions to Dalton. NebY (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ENGPLACE may be of use? Rcsprinter123 (confer) 09:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When two places with the same name are also in the same ceremonial county and district disambiguation by compass point, county, or ward is recommended by the WP:ENGPLACE guidance. Both Daltons in North Yorks appear to be in parishes of the same name, but they could be disambiguated by ward; 'west' Dalton is in North Richmondshire and 'east' Dalton is in Sowerby and Topcliffe.
Given wards aren't widely known my preference would be to use compass points, but either is fine in this case. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think we should be using ENGPLACE for this, there is already a North, South, West and East Yorkshire adding another compass point on top when disambiguating is confusing. Eopsid (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this sort of situation exactly what ENGPLACE is for? The use of two compass points doesn't bother me as the capitalisation makes things reasonably clear, but using the wards is an option. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Personally I'd probably use something like "X (near larger settlement)" like with Talk:Burton (near Neston)#Requested move 3 October 2020 since indeed having double compass names is not good, the wards indeed may be possible but as has previously been discussed wards change a lot and at least rural ones aren't very well known. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the reason 'Settlement, LargeTown' hasn't been adopted is because it can be subjective, but I do agree that it's a natural way to disambiguate in many cases, including this one. It does go against the guideline, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree, in most cases the district or parish has been used because "near" would indeed be subjective but the trouble is the compass names are also subjective as people can have differing views on if a place is say in the north or central point while the district and parish are more objective but nether are available due to both being parishes and both being in the North Yorkshire district. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I don't think we can reasonably argue that 'Dalton, North Richmondshire' and Dalton, Sowerby and Topcliffe' are more natural disambiguations than 'Dalton, Richmond' and 'Dalton, Thirsk' A.D.Hope (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ceremonial county infoboxes

I'd raise this at Template:Infobox English county, but it doesn't have a very active talk section so the response here will likely be better.

Recently (as some of you will have noticed) I've been editing the ceremonial county leads, and I've come to think that the infobox contains more fields than necessary, including some which muddly the already pretty grimy waters between ceremonial counties and the other types. While I'm not an expert in how templates are constructed, I hope I know enough to make some suggestions. First, I'd like to propose removing the following:

  • Time zone: United Kingdom is the most appropriate place to give the country's time zone, surely?
  • Nickname and alt, which official_name and other_name seem to cover.
  • Flag_image: Ceremonial counties, strictly speaking, don't have flags. The flags registered with the flag institute represent the historic counties, and any heraldic flags belong to the council in question rather than the county-at-large. Where a ceremonial county significantly overlaps with an historic one the historic county flag is better placed in the article body.
  • Arms_image and motto: Similar to flags, coats of arms belong to the councils which govern a county rather than the county-at-large, and are best placed in the articles for those councils.
  • Mayor_office and mayor_name. To my knowledge the ceremonial counties don't have mayors. I did check Bristol, but it currently uses the settlement infobox instead.
  • Established by, preceded by, and origin. established_date seems to do the job.
  • All parameters related to local government except county_council and unitary_council1(2, 3...). Councils should have their own main articles with infoboxes, so all the ceremonial county infobox needs is a link to that article. To that end, county_council should be renamed 'non-metropolitan county' and be made a regular parameter rather than automatically creating fields such as 'executive' and 'area'
  • Either largest_town or largest_city, renaming the survivor 'largest_settlement'
  • population_council and density_council, which in visual editor mode don't appear to do anything.

Some other points:

  • should ethnicity stay when other demographic statistics aren't in the infobox? I'd argue no, but if it does stay then the parameters for ethnic groups need renaming to their full names rather than letters.
  • We have MP, MPs, and Police, but not 'Fire_and_Rescue' or similar. I think adding at least the latter parameter would be worthwhile.
  • Would adding an 'historic_counties' parameter help or hinder people's understanding of the counties and local government? My instinct is that it would be helpful, but I'm not sure.
  • Would a 'demonym' parameter be used? Some counties don't have well-defined ones, so probably not.
  • I must admit that I'm not quite sure what areas iso_code, ons_code, gss_code, and nuts_code apply to, although I don't think they all apply to ceremonial counties. We might want to sort that out.

I've flung a lot out there for discussion, so good luck wading through it and I look forward to your suggestions and comments! A.D.Hope (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the flag / coat of arms in the infobox. I don't agree with what you have done at Somerset, for example, where the flag is associated with the county, not the council(s). 10mmsocket (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The flag isn't associated with the ceremonial county of Somerset, but with the historic county. They're different things and I'm keen to keep the distinction clear. Ceremonial counties don't have coats of arms, and the arms sometimes seen in their infoboxes are usually the arms of one of the councils contained within the county. It's misleading to use them to represent the ceremonial county. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The flag of Somerset is a modern creation. It was only created in 2015 and was independent of the then county council. I don't think that makes it historic. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you're coming from, but the UK county flags registered with the Flag Institute represent the historic counties, not the ceremonial ones — that's why the list includes Middlesex but excludes all the metropolitan counties and Cumbria. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TBH I think that's nit picking. There is one article on Wikipedia about the county of Somerset. Whether its primary topic is the historic or ceremonial county is a distinction that will be of interest to very few people. It is an article about Somerset. The flag, which the people of Somerset voted for (encouraged by the Lord Lieutenant of Somerset) in 2015, is the only flag of Somerset. People when they voted didn't ask "Which version of Somerset am I voting for a flag?" The flag of Somerset belongs in the infobox of the article about Somerset. It's that simple. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is obscured by the fact this discussion is centred on Somerset, where the ceremonial and historic boundaries closely align. This isn't the case in a large number of counties, so we shouldn't adopt an approach of conflating the two types of county when it comes to flags in infoboxes. Consider Cumbria, which was historically part of Cumberland, Westmorland, Lancashire, and Yorkshire, three of which have historic county articles. Which of the four flags should go in the ceremonial county infobox?
In the Somerset article I didn't remove the flag, but moved it to the 'History' section with a caption explaining that it's the flag of the historic county. I think that's a good solution — in ceremonial county articles where the historic and ceremonial counties align the flag can be placed in the body, and in articles where they don't no flag(s) need to be used. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I see no reason why the Somerset flag should not be in the Somerset infobox. Ditto Lancashire - there isn't another Lancashire article. Yorkshire has the flag. To be honest I think you are creating issues that only you see as an issue. I simply don't agree with you. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is indeed an issue. The flag represents the historic county and is registered as so. You have another example where the Berkshire page infobox says ceremonial county at the top, includes a map of the ceremonial county, then misleadingly has a flag of the historic county. This is simply inaccurate. The same applies to any other county which uses the historic county flag on the infobox but primarily describes anything other than the historic county. You cannot simply cherry pick which parts of historic counties (such as flags) exist, if the county page describes a different sort of county. I think the historic county flags should be removed if the pages do not clearly state the flag represents the respective historic county. Acapital (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Somerset flag should not be in the Somerset infobox because the infobox is about the ceremonial county and the flag represents the historic county. The two shouldn't be conflated, as although the they align in Somerset's case doing the same in other counties causes problems, and we need consistency across the county articles. The ceremonial county of Lancashire, for example, has significantly different boundaries to the historic county represented by the flag. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:INFOBOXFLAG says no flags in infoboxes. Problem solved. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to nitpick, but that section is about flag icons (the type you see in battle infoboxes) rather than flags per se. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One of my favourites! (And yes it's mostly about flag icons). Funnily enough I've just reverted a whole rash of them added by 24may1819 (talk · contribs) 10mmsocket (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @A.D.Hope and @10mmsocket - I was not aware of this. Makes complete sense.. 24may1819 (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In general what you are doing is a good thing so please keep it up! Thanks for your contributions. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with 10mmsocket. Placing the flag in the "History" section is misleading as it's not historical – it's clearly current and the fact that the paperwork says it's been retrospectively pinned on the historical county is minor and can be easily explained in a footnote. XAM2175 (T) 18:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on the 'History' section, but placing the flag in the infobox is also misleading as it represents the ceremonial county and the flags represent the historic counties. Some county articles have 'Symbols' sections, so perhaps that would be an appropriate place for their flags. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but as already noted by 10mmsocket, that difference is very very minor for counties with matching boundaries, so just footnote it in the infobox. For counties where the boundaries do significantly differ, only then distribute the flags to body sections or other articles as relevant. XAM2175 (T) 18:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would still visually conflate ceremonial and historic counties, which we shouldn't be doing. I'd prefer a consistent approach of putting the flags in the body, which also gives greater scope to contextualise them. I suspect an inconsistent approach could also be unstable — only today I noticed that another editor had removed the flag from Berkshire's infobox.
Incidentally, by my count only 13 of the 48 ceremonial counties are close enough to their historic boundaries that putting the flag in the infobox could be uncontroversial: Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Wiltshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, Rutland, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Shropshire, Herefordshire, and Gloucestershire. All the rest have quite differences.
I'm well aware this seems pedantic, but as part of a wider approach to make the differences between the counties clear I do think it's important. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your approach to the matter is adding more confusion. Either the historic county flag should be retained, or removed, from all the infoboxes for any county pages other than those specifically written for historic counties. There should be none of this “if the boundaries closely match” nonsense. This simply adds subjectivity to the matter, and will lead to some users adding/removing county flags depending on which way they see fit. The whole flag discussion here is centred on the issue that flags are registered to represent historic counties, yet most county pages are not written for historic counties. Hence, please apply this consistently. As you have already kindly removed the Oxfordshire flag from the ceremonial county of Oxfordshire infobox, I have done the same for the Berkshire flag. This is to keep consistency to a policy that you have made. Now if you have the time, I would recommend you should apply your suggested policy to all the other ceremonial county pages for the rest of the English counties and continue removing incorrectly placed historic county flags. Acapital (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slightly confused, as you've said my approach is causing confusion but we agree that the flags shouldn't be in the infoboxes. I had removed some flags from infoboxes, but stopped as this discussion got going to avoid making what could be perceived as biased edits. I'm waiting on the outcome to learn how to proceed. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, to avoid causing more confusion, can you please wait until you have your outcome to learn how to proceed, and then apply this to every single ceremonial county page. The ceremonial county infoboxes should either include, or exclude, the historic county flag. No grey area. Acapital (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to help? There are 48 ceremonial counties, after all. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do agree with you that the historic county flag should not be in an infobox that describes anything other than the historic county (in this case, the ceremonial counties). But the same policy needs to be applied consistently to every single county and not just some. Acapital (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Coming back to the original questions:
First, I wouldn't start from infobox settlement as it has too much irrelevant detail. Can you start again from infobox UK place?
  • Time zone: a good example of totally irrelevant detail. Nowhere in the UK has a timezone other than UTC+00:00 (Gibraltar and the sovereign bases are not in the UK). Lose completely
  • Nickname and alt: are these are US terms (or do we allow "God's own county" for Yorkshire?
  • Flag_image: Ceremonial counties, strictly speaking, don't have flags. So what allows you to invent same? Discard.
  • Arms_image and motto: see flags
  • Mayor_office and mayor_name. ... ceremonial counties don't have mayors. But they do have Lords Lieutenant and High Sheriffs, which should be shown.
  • Established by, preceded by, and origin. established_date seems to do the job. Yes, grave danger of OR/SYNTH to do any more.
  • All parameters related to local government : I agree with your proposal
  • Either largest_town or largest_city, renaming the survivor 'largest_settlement'. Agree
  • population_council and density_council irrelevant.
  • * should ethnicity stay when other demographic statistics aren't in the infobox? No, discard it. A US obsession.
  • * MP, Police, Fire: how well do these align with CC boundaries? Btw, I suggest "Parliamentary constituencies" rather than named MPs. WP:CFORK and maintenance concern.
  • *Historic county: a total minefield. There are so many ifs and buts that make it impossible to state succinctly – which is an essential characteristic of infobox cintent
I hope that helps. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for weighing in, I appreciate it's a lot to go through. Would you mind clarifying your position on flags and coats of arms — I'm guessing from your earlier comment you'd get rid of those fields, but I'm not quite sure.
On historic counties, my thinking is that it would allow counties such as Tyne and Wear to list Northumberland and Durham in their infobox and therefore make the ceremonial/historic distinction clearer. There always seems to be potential for wrangling with the historic counties, though. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On flags and CoAs, the CCs simply don't have them.
  • Take Bedfordshire for example: it has three UAs, none (fortunately) called Bedfordshire. What do you use? The former county council? Why? (without violating SYNTH and OR?)
  • Buckinghamshire has two UAs. One (with about 80% of the area and 60% of population at a wild guess) has appropriated the CoA and flag of the old county council. So what do you use?
  • Tyne and Wear: no CoA or flag for the CC, only the local authority.
  • Etc. Etc. So it becomes an exercise in making something up because the template demands it, not because it is accurate or even true.
  • Historic counties: which version of the HC? We have pages of archive down that rabbit hole already.
So no. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But there are clear examples where flags are directly associated with the county (whether it be historic or ceremonial), e.g the previously mentioned Somerset where the flag which was created in 2015 was advocated by the Lord Lieutenant. Surely then the flag is directly associated with the same version of county as the Lord Lieutentant is, thus if he/she is in the infobox, so is the flag. I do agree though that if there is no clear flag then don't force something in there. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a tricky one. The Somerset County Gazette, which organised the flag competiton, describes it as the flag for 'the area represented by the ancient county of Somerset', but the original competition rules state that anyone born in 'the areas administered by Somerset County Council, Bath & North East Somerset and North Somerset', i.e. the ceremonial county, could enter. The Flag Institute considers it to be the historic county flag.
For the record I do like flags in ceremonial county infoboxes, they brighten the place up, and in a logical world England would have nice, neat counties with a well-designed flag for each. I just don't think we'll find the sources to back up the claim that the current flags represent the ceremonial counties as well as the historic ones, so they should be in the article body instead. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Somerset article is about ceremonial county not historic county (even though the borders for both are virtually the same) No reason as I see it that the flag shouldn't be there. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither, just in the body rather than the infobox. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:IMAGES says (in summary) images in articles are to illustrate, not to decorate (or "brighten the place up"). So that would be another policy vio. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I do think the flags also serve an illustrative purpose as distinctive symbols of an area. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any evidence that that Somerset flag is widely adopted or in use? Flag of Somerset describes the campaigning involvement of Association of British Counties which promotes historic counties; our use of it would further their aims. There was a local newspaper competition which won its sponsors the Marketing and Promotion prize in the Sedgemoor Business Excellence Awards [2]; I can see the winner reported[3] but not how many voted for it, or at all, and neither "no flag" nor "meh" seem to have been on the ballot.[4] Does it really have sufficient standing to be in the infobox? NebY (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did notice this when I was looking for information on the flag earlier:
"A FLAG-MAKER from Somerset says the launch of the county’s new yellow and red design earlier this year is the most successful he has ever been involved with. Robin Ashburner, of Specialist Flag Services, has so far produced about 400 flags for individuals and businesses to fly across the county. Mr Ashburner said: “It has been successful – this is down to most of the flags being made and distributed locally."
A.D.Hope (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Somerset Gazette did get a lot of mileage out of their competition! Robin Ashburner was also chair of the competition's judging panel and a past president and honorary vice-president of the Flag Institute. NebY (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can't believe Big Vexillology was behind this all along A.D.Hope (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Twelve-part podcast coming soon. :) NebY (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is somewhat moot since our own policy says that we treat counties as single entities which have changed over time, i.e. wkilipedia makes no distinction between "historic" and ceremonial etc counties. G-13114 (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We do make a distinction between historic and ceremonial counties, but the official project position is that the historic counties no longer exist. That's not a particularly helpful when our source is a body which does consider them to exist, as with these flags. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consistency with the application of this policy, though. For instance, the Yorkshire page states that Yorkshire is a historic county which exists, and currently shows a map of the historic county boundaries, and correctly shows the historic county flag. Acapital (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a bad policy because it takes an absolute position on something about which editors are divided. What I can say with confidence is that a ceremonial county is not an historic county, so a flag representing an historic county shouldn't be in a ceremonial county's infobox. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Historic counties do not exist. There is only one Somerset, a county that has changed boundaries and roles over time. The term 'historic county' refers to Somerset as it was in the middle of the 19th century. That means it is perfectly acceptable to have only one article about Somerset. Somerset is no different from a country, say Germany for example. Germany has changed borders numerous times. It even existed in bits before 1871 with various princes in charge of the bits, but it was still Germany. Consider the flag of Germany in 1900 - would it be appropriate to have that flag in the infobox of Germany? Of course not. Same with counties - these various flags mean nothing because they are a contemporary creation to represent something in the past which is anachronistic. That is based on wikipedia guidelines on counties, so we should follow it. There is a lot of text in county articles that treats counties as more than one thing which is wrong and causes confusion. About the flag, some counties do have flags that were used in the past, such as the white horse of Kent, making them more suitable for inclusion to represent the county today. (This post is not intended to be mischief making - I think it is correct based on WP guidelines. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This recent edit which removed the flag from the infobox from County Durham added to my belief that the county flags will be a recurring issue if they remain in the infoboxes, so I've gone through each article and moved the flags into the body where necessary. I've already explained the other reasons why I think this is the correct decision, so I won't do so again. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The ceremonial county of Somerset, which is the subject of the article, was the county (through support of the Lord Lieutenant of Somerset that commissioned the flag. It is a recent flag that has absolutely nothing to do with the historic county and everything to do with the ceremonial county. Whatever the status of other flags might be Somerset flag deserves to be in the infobox. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The flag was commissioned to represent the 'ancient county' and is registered with the Flag Institute, which only registers flags for the historic counties. Like all the other flags, Somerset's therefore represents the historic county and should not be in the infobox, which is about the ceremonial county. To be honest I don't see why the flag being in the body is such a bad thing. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your source to show that the flag was commissioned to represent the historic county, when it was an official of the ceremonial county, the Lord Lieutenant, who pushed for it? The ceremonial county is what is currently is in existence and it is the ceremonial county that commissioned the flag. There is no historic county in existence - it's just that, historic. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The flag was created through a competition run by the Somerset Gazette, which described it as representing the 'ancient county'. I'm not surprised the Lord Lieutenant supported the competition, as that's the sort of thing Lords-Lieutenant do, but that's quite a filmsy argument for the flag representing the ceremonial county.
If we're being strict then yes, this project does not recognise the historic counties as continuing to exist and so arguably shouldn't use their flags in the ceremonial county articles. Putting the flags in an appropriate part of the body seems like a reasonable compromise, though. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the historic county doesn't exist any more. The ceremonial county does exist and it has a Lord Lieutenant and High Sheriff. The former promoted the creation of a flag for the county. It clearly wouldn't have been for the historic county, it was the for extant ceremonial county. The flag very definitely belongs in the ceremonial county infobox. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ceremonial county infobox images

West Yorkshire
OPTION A
Metropolitan and Ceremonial county
Leeds, the main economic centre and largest settlement of West Yorkshire
Leeds, the main economic centre and largest settlement of West Yorkshire
Sovereign stateUnited Kingdom
Constituent countryEngland
Time zoneUTC+0 (GMT)
 • Summer (DST)UTC+1 (BST)
Ceremonial county
Area[convert: needs a number]
 • Ranked of 48
Population (2022)2,320,214
 • Ranked4th of 48
Density1,143/km2 (2,960/sq mi)
Metropolitan county
West Yorkshire
OPTION B
Metropolitan and Ceremonial county
Bradford
Huddersfield
Leeds
Wakefield
Halifax
Sovereign stateUnited Kingdom
Constituent countryEngland
Time zoneUTC+0 (GMT)
 • Summer (DST)UTC+1 (BST)
Ceremonial county
Area[convert: needs a number]
 • Ranked of 48
Population (2022)2,320,214
 • Ranked4th of 48
Density1,143/km2 (2,960/sq mi)
Metropolitan county

Hello!

Poor West Yorkshire has had its infobox images changed quite a lot recently, with several styles used. This presents a good opportunity to discuss ceremonial county infobox images with a view to consistency, specifically where the ceremonial county is also a metropolitan county. The main options are:

  • OPTION A: a single image.
  • OPTION B: a collage of the largest settlements
  • OPTION C: a 'thematic' collage
  • OPTION D: a collage of all the boroughs
  • OPTION E: other (please elaborate)

The infoboxes to the right are all taken from the West Yorkshire article, just shortened. If you'd like to give your thoughts on them below, that would be great. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chocolateediter you're big on collages, it'd be nice to have your thoughts A.D.Hope (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
West Yorkshire
OPTION C
Metropolitan and Ceremonial county
Sovereign stateUnited Kingdom
Constituent countryEngland
Time zoneUTC+0 (GMT)
 • Summer (DST)UTC+1 (BST)
Ceremonial county
Area[convert: needs a number]
 • Ranked of 48
Population (2022)2,320,214
 • Ranked4th of 48
Density1,143/km2 (2,960/sq mi)
Metropolitan county
West Yorkshire
OPTION D
Metropolitan and Ceremonial county
Sovereign stateUnited Kingdom
Constituent countryEngland
Time zoneUTC+0 (GMT)
 • Summer (DST)UTC+1 (BST)
Ceremonial county
Area[convert: needs a number]
 • Ranked of 48
Population (2022)2,320,214
 • Ranked4th of 48
Density1,143/km2 (2,960/sq mi)
Metropolitan county

A.D.Hope (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like option B, but don't forget the West Yorkshire flag as well. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd make all five images flags A.D.Hope (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like the collages but think it should be restricted to three images, probably Leeds, the Canal at Bingley and one other settlement. Thryduulf (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer the set up of Option B, although if a county has multiple sub-divisions effort should be made to represent them with at least one image IMO, even if it contains none of the largest settlements, for fair representation, unless like Greater London which has more than 6. Could be applied to all ceremonial counties in England (only), but we shouldn't be strictly consistent if a county like Rutland (quite small), Greater London (too big) or Isle of Wight (an island, better keep that image first IMO) needs an exception. But in the end, each collage will be somewhat subjective, so best discussed at each article talk. If we are to restrict the number of images to less than the sub-divisions I would prefer just one image to be less subjective, ofc unless there was a discussion at their talk. No opinion on the flag debate, as long as the flag itself is verified. DankJae 10:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although the selection of images for Option B for West Yorkshire are quite repetitive, just any image of the place is fine IMO than necessarily a cityscape. DankJae 21:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


To give my own opinion, I prefer OPTION C, although I did create it so I'm hardly impartial.
While it is inherently more subjective than the other collages, I believe it gives greater scope to reflect the nature of a county rather than simply being a display of its boroughs or largest settlements; the ceremonial counties aren't directly linked to local government, so there is room to take this approach.
In this case I chose Leeds, as the largest city and an example of urban West Yorkshire; the Yorkshire Sculpture Park, to give an example of the county's culture; the Leeds and Liverpool Canal, as an example of its industrial heritage; and Hebden Bridge, to represent the smaller mill towns in the county's valleys. This approach also allowed me to select good-quality images, whereas the settlement/borough approach can sometimes lead to poor images being used if they're the only ones available.
While I created the collage from scratch (as none existed when I arrived), I would generally expect some talk page discussion about what to include. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Answer depends on what the infobox images are seeking to achieve. Is it a rote depiction of the major settlements, and/or more of a flavour of the county/area, and/or to draw readers interest in the article?
Either a single picture or a collage could be effective; both have merit and what suits one area may not be appropriate for another. Depends on the specific county. Not in favour of placing restrictions on layout; either prescribing a particular one or proscribing others. Preferable to use editorial judgement based on consensus.
Commenting on the images in the examples given: -
A. a poor representation of the county. Beware of letting such a weak portrayal influence the validity of having a single image, which as I said above, may be appropriate in some cases.
B. sound rationale using the main settlements but again image selection is poor. Wouldn't generally recommend aerial shots in a collage of small images, as there's insufficient detail to distinguish the various places. Also, some of the images used are bland and boring and do little to encourage reading the article.
C. a valid rationale to include cultural elements. Subjective, yes, but it strives to give the flavour of the county and that may encourage readership.
D. jumbly. Perhaps an over use of images. Rupples (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer something like C: a range of images covering different aspects of a county, though I'd prefer a bit of wide open spaces such as this of Stoodley Pike, perhaps instead of the less instanly comprehensible YSP image. Our counties are more than their main cities. Five tiny urban skylines tells us what: that the county has five cities. Better to show the diversity of the county.
How we add the captions is a second issue - I've seen some confusing versions of "clockwise" etc, but interposed captions as in B seem a bit cumbersome: C & D do better.
Another consideration is that for users in mobile view the initial view of an article shows the first image of a collage as the main banner photo, so we need to take that into account and ensure that the first image is suitable for this role, given that an increasing number of our readers will presumably be using mobiles.
I'm not a great fan of collages at all, and favour the A format for cities, but can see rather more justification for using them for counties than for cities, as there is so much diversity to illustrate. PamD 23:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of showing different aspects rather than all city views, but think three images might be enough for the infobox as it is already quite long and there is enough space to include more images throughout the rest of the article. I think that when using multiple images these should have strong colours and simple shapes to make up for the reduced size - the Leeds skyline (in option B) works well for this whereas I find the view of Halifax hard to see. Other good images to include could be the one of Saltaire (currently used later in the article) and/or the Stoodley Pike image. EdwardUK (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think three very different images is enough for a collage. I'd suggest the Cow and Calf rocks on Ilkley Moor or Stoodley Pike, Saltaire or the Piece Hall and the Leeds image from option A. There's much more to the county than cities and please, no flags. Esemgee (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option C. I agree very much with PamD in that counties are more than their main cities, and using thematic collages is – to the best of my knowledge – a well-established practice not just on Wikipedia but also in print encyclopaedias and gazetteers, and, as Rupples notes, they serve admirably as a "hook" for readers. Additionally, they help avoid needing to decide on a single definitive image.
The question of what to actually include will always be subjective and require a bit of editorial discretion – for myself, looking at West Yorkshire in particular, I'd be tempted to include a photo of Emley Moor transmitting station as it's not only a prominent landmark but also the tallest freestanding structure in the UK – but I don't see that as detracting from the value of the approach. XAM2175 (T) 11:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the thematic (option C) selection of images is the best way to try and summarise the character of the place, but I prefer the inline captions in option B. As a viewer, I see an interesting picture and ask "where's that?" - and trying to wade through a list of captions that's often in an odd order is much harder than just seeing the relevant caption close to the image I'm interested in. WaggersTALK 13:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Confession: I usually move on without wanting to read the caption, and images with inline captions are often so small, indistinct and undistinguished that I've even less interest. NebY (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My preference is this order:
  • Hebden Bridge - Flickr 2019.jpg
  • Dewsbury Market Place.jpg
  • Bradford city centre from the Hilton Hotel - geograph.org.uk - 2686726.jpg
  • Millennium Square 24 June 2018 3.jpg
  • Ilkley Moor (28853850504).jpg
The latter can be a single picture but can be a good single bottom picture if it’s decided to have one, feel free to find another wide but not too long picture. The flag died with the county council. Chocolateediter (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding copied text from another relevent discussion at A.D.Hope concerning the County of Suffolk below:- Edmund Patrick – confer 15:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suffolk.

put Suffolk into wiki search engine and this article comes up. The flag is both historical and current for the county and as such needs to be there. How do you separate ceremonial and historical? Edmund Patrick – confer 14:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Edmund Patrick I suggest you continue this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#c-A.D.Hope-20230709170900-10mmsocket-20230709170400, where I for example fully agree with what you are saying (although it's Somerset in my case). 10mmsocket (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you watching my talk page, 10mmsocket? From my end it looks a bit odd that you haven't replied to my last comment at UK Geography but responded to this topic within seven minutes. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As 10mmsocket says, if you wouldn't mind raising this at the UK Geography discussion that would be easier. It keeps the discussion in one place, that's all. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both, will do. Edmund Patrick – confer 15:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Text copy ENDS. Edmund Patrick – confer 15:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am with you 100%. The current ceremonial counties have flags. Whether those were also associate with the one-time historic counties is irrelevant. Wikipedia articles about ceremonial counties which have flags should have the flags in the infobox. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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!)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

WikiProject Worcestershire newsletter

The WORCESTERSHIRE Project Newsletter - July 2023

The WikiProject WORCESTERSHIRE Newsletter
Issue 3 - July 2023
(Archived here.)
Evesham Abbey bell tower
Evesham GA project

Quite a bit of work has been done on the Evesham article to hopefully get it up to Good article standard since the previous Newsletter. It looks a bit better now, it just needs some citations and it should be up to scratch. I hope to have submitted it for the GA review by the next Newsletter (September). Any other editors are free to help!

Imprint
Written by Ollieisanerd and T. E. A. Mackie • All comments to WT:WORCS
Based on an original concept by WP:YORKS

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the Newsletter mailing list.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 [5] to [6]. 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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography&oldid=1164700363"