Talk:City of Carlisle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Fair use rationale for Image:Arms-carlisle.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Arms-carlisle.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


I belive the correct form of introduction is simply "City of Carlisle" and not "The City of Carlisle". We don't say "The South Lakeland District" when referring to that local government area, so we shouldn't do so here. Any thoughts on this? I've set the article to omit the "The" for the moment. Blacklans (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've undone it. It makes no sense and does not follow standard English - a requirement of editorial writing. It is THE city of carlise, like THE city of Manchester or THE United States of America or THE United Kingdom. Respectfully, this is pretty basic stuff. WP:BRD also stands. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. We are talking about a local government area and not a place as such. As I noted, other local government areas aren't prefixed with "The", so why should this one be. Blacklans (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
What evidence is this based on? So its now, City of London and City of Manchester, no the? Come on, please. A local government area is a place - they are human constructs like settlements, states, countries, cities. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
P.S. The local authority verify this simple issue, see here. Going forwards, we need to satisfy real world practice here. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the definite article is warranted; people always call it "the City of Carlisle" (or "Carlisle") instead of just "City of Carlisle". Sceptre (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
How about renaming the article to Carlisle City Council? That's how their website likes to call the entity. Blacklans (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
No because that's about the council which administers the area, not the geographic location. Nev1 (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Can we make efforts to restore the "The" please? Carlisle City Council is the local authority, not the non-metropolitan district - the two are distinct, and every district, borough, city (rightfully) has an article about itself.
I'm not insensitive to the confusion and even grievances against the arrangements for places with city status, but it is the reality of the situation. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Blacklans. I think we need some clarification here. There is a difference between the official title "City of Carlisle", which indeed does not have "the" at the front. However in a normal english sentence, City of Carlisle needs to be preceeded with a "the". The confusion lies with the fact that if a sentence starts with the said placename, the "the" that preceeds it starts with a capital T, as in The City of Carlisle. This doesnt mean the "The" is part of the official name, and proof of this is that this very article is titled "City of Carlisle" not "the City of Carlisle", but in sentences, to adhere to the english language you do need a "the" infornt. Hope that helps with the confusion. With regards to a case for Carlisle meaning a city, I think you would have a hard case here, as there isnt sufficient substantial evidence to assert that "carlisle" most commonly means the city. That said, you would have an easy case for Bradford, given that it is impossible to find a single source that backs the current lead "Bradford lies at the heart of City of Bradford", let alone a reiable source from ONS,, or, whilst conversley, all sites assert that "Bradford is a city" Razorlax (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
--"Bradford is a city" is asserted, but we have a trade-off here at Wikipedia. Bradford is a place, but the wider district has city status. Bradford does lie in the City of Braford, as verfied by any map. The two entities are distinct, just like Carlisle. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
You are incorrect there. It is "the ONS Bradford urban-subdivision" that lies at the heart of City of Bradford. The word "Bradford" *is* "city of bradford" according to ONS, the government, other encyclopedia, 99% of google hits, newspapers, media, other internet sources, and ONS affiliated international statistic organisations such as Eurostat. It is only Wikipedia that currently asserts otherwise, without a source to back it up. I do agree however that there is 2 different entities here. The issue of contention is that they have been named wrongly. The two entities (that incidently are verifiable unlike the current set up) are (1) Bradford(City of Bradford), and (2) ONS defined "Bradford urban-subdivision"/Bradford(settlement). And i do apologise for getting involved in this muddle again but it is hard to sit back and see minority POV ("tradeoffs") take precedence over core policies as imo it blackens the integrity of wikipedia (and isnt actually allowed either) :-( Razorlax (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
You mean long-standing arrangements agreed upon before you or I joined the site? I'd like you to retract your accusation of minority POV. That's not helpful. Whilst look at an Ordnance Survey map - you'll see no settlement called "Bradford ONS urban area" or any such nonsense - that's a statistical unit, not a settlement (jeez). --Jza84 |  Talk  10:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Razorlax. I'm not sure that "the" is required in sentences such as the one commencing this article. It reads perfectly well without it. Consider South Lakeland and most other local government area articles where it is not used as a means of introduction. Having it here strongly implies "The City", when that is not what's meant. I found this in Wikipedia Article (grammar)#Geographic use which may give us further guidance. Blacklans (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem is the oddities of the English language. It would be The City of Carlisle or The District of South Lakeland (with the definite article), but simply Carlisle City or South Lakeland District (without the definite article). There is, therefore, no conflict between the ways Carlisle and South Lakeland are dealt with. Having said that, there may be differences in English useage depending on where in the United Kingdom you are from. For example, in the south it is not uncommon to refer to The Oxford Road, whereas in the north, where the language is more influenced by Scandinavian languages, it would always be simply Oxford Road. Skinsmoke (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that, in line with consensus achieved at Leeds, the article currently here at City of Carlisle be renamed Local government in Carlisle, with City of Carlisle re-directing to Carlisle proper, which can then begin "Carlisle is a city and non-metropolitan district..." There is no evidence whatsoever that there remains today a settlement called Carlisle, with borders identical to those of the city and municipal borough abolished 35 years ago, as distinct from the present enlarged local government district of that name. Chrisieboy (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Not keen on that at all. This disrupts the whole system in the United Kingdom. There is a settlement called Carlisle and there is a district called the City of Carlilse, any map verifies this (which I'll source) (!). But of course, the gripe isn't about that.... [1], it's just the same old backwards nonsense that people feel aggrieved at the modern arrangement for local government. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary, as was discussed ad nauseum at Leeds, where a city's boundaries have been enlarged, post LGA72, the settlement article should discuss the whole area; from my perspective, you seem to want to arbitrarily preserve the boundaries as they existed immediately prior to 1974 in aspic, something of a minority view and one not dissimilar to that of the crackpots over at the Association of British Counties.
Moving forward, can you please provide a reliable source to indicate that Carlisle means something other than the City of Carlisle? Chrisieboy (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
As a non-metropolitan district, with city status, I believe the arguments for "merging" the articles are particularly strong here. The city was not restricted to the area of the former county borough by the appointment of charter trustees, as, for example, was (initially) the case in Rochester; rather the (shadow) district council petitioned for borough status becoming the City of Carlisle on 1 April 1974. Prior to then, of course, the area discussed in the article at Carlisle comprised the City of Carlisle. Unless you can provide a reliable source to the contrary, I propose to effect the changes I have outlined above. Chrisieboy (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Having had no response for over a fortnight, I have now implemented the changes described above. Chrisieboy (talk) 10:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Reverted per WP:BRD. I was on WikiBreak. I oppose your proposal entirely; no consensus = no change. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but if you choose not to participate in the discussion (wikibreak or not) that is your problem. I also note that you were, in fact, editing for much of this time. If you are not prepared to engage properly, citing WP:BRD to justify your actions is a misuse of policy. I shouldn't have to remind you that reliable sources are necessary to substantiate material; can you actually provide any, per my above request? Chrisieboy (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Council composition[edit]

The BBC site gives 21/21 in 2008; with the total adding to 50 councillors. There were two by-elections in 2009, returning the incumbent party. On that page; it says

Following the By-Elections:
The City Council has 52 Councillors, comprising 23 Labour Councillors, 21 Conservative Councillors, 7 Liberal Democrat Councillors and one Independent Councillor. Each council member serves one of 22 wards of the city.

I've leave you to work it out! Kbthompson (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
<scratches head>Hmm. My instinct is to go with the source as it's more up to date and maybe something changed since the 2008 local elections other than the by-elections. I'm not certain though. In this case I'd like to put the question to the local wikiproject but as there isn't one I'm not sure whether to take it to WP:GM or to hassle WP:UKGEO. Nev1 (talk) 00:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
<scratches b*lls><f*rts><types while finishing breakfast> My inclination is to trust that CoC know how many councillors they have. The information in the article should be updated from there; and referenced. The ultimate criteria on WP is verifiability - even if that information were to be incorrect! Kbthompson (talk) 08:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Aha, this source explains that two seats were left vacant at the 2008 elections, so both sources are correct and the by-elections must have filled the seats. Nev1 (talk) 23:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Can I say that is truly bizarre ... <f*rts> once more (sorry). The referenced by-elections indicate 'no change' - as written, so there must have been another. Uncontested seats? Maybe I should move there ... Kbthompson (talk) 01:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Geography and images[edit]

Does anybody have a source about the geography of the modern City of Carlisle? I have a couple for the ancient city, but I want to be able to source the fact that most of the district is composed of a rural landscape. Once it's filled out, I'm thinking of adding some images of this rural element of the city (say something like this). So, can anybody help? --Jza84 |  Talk  12:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Civil parishes[edit]

The list of civil parishes is incorrect, as it assumes that a parish council equates to a single civil parish. There are, in reality, 36 civil parishes in the city, but only 34 parish councils or parish meetings. The discrepancy is caused by a number of civil parishes sharing common/joint/grouped parish councils. In addition, a couple of civil parishes are officially named other than on the list. These are as follows :-

Details can be found at :-

Skinsmoke (talk) 05:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Religion table[edit]

Why are the figures for "Muslim" presented above the actual second largest minority: "no religion"? Why are other religions aside from Islam (which have similar representation in Carlisle) not included in the table? Frankly, presenting this data in this particular way makes it look like someone is pushing an agenda... Please include the figures for all religious categories or only the two major groups mentioned above. Famousdog (talk) 13:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Go away and read WP:AGF. In a nut shell, it means assume the best of people without being credulous, and you'd do well to practise that.
Now you've hopefully read that, I'll explain why I've reverted your edit. In the City of Carlisle, Islam is the second largest religion, admittedly not by much though. The table here follows the same format as other well developed articles on districts, with a row for the largest two religions and one for those who don't have a religion. It is arbitrary and might not always work, as you seem to think is the case here, but it's so that the table doesn't get ridiculously long. The group who declined to state their religion should not be in the table because it doesn't tell the reader anything about the religion of the population; it's just a statement by those filling in the census that they think the state should mind their own business about religion. Those with no religion are at the bottom because the table is about the religious make up of the district and while the group is significant by its size and obviously needs to be mentioned, it's not a religion.
I am happy to discuss this, although in my experience those insinuating that others have agendas are often trying to disguise their own. I am the one who wrote the religion section, and the demography section, and most of the governance section. Exactly what agenda do you think I'm pushing? Nev1 (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining what you see as the conventional way of listing these things. I don't agree with the convention, since I think that population groups should be listed in order of size, but... fair enough. Regarding the "agenda", I got the distinct impression from reading the demographics sections in Carlisle, City of Carlisle and Cumbria that there was an undue emphasis on the absence of Muslims (as opposed to the absence of any other equally absent religious group in Cumbria). Now, assuming good faith, this bias is almost certainly unintentional, but casually reading these sections its the message I got loud and clear (and I ain't even a Muslim!). Perhaps you could have a look at it? Famousdog (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the problem inherent with the table is that for it to be a manageable size (ie: not to create masses of white space) it needs to exclude someone; in this instance, that gives the appearance of bias as the proportion of Muslims is a similar size to about three other religions in the city. What might be a better approach would be to explain in prose (the table is there for ease of comparison and could be dispensed with completely if prose is preferred). That way, it could be explained that the proportion of Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, and Sikhs in the City of Carlisle is similar to that for the county of Cumbria, but all below the national average.
This is the only Cumbria article I'm really involved in, but the Carlisle, Cumbria, and Cumbria articles have utterly inadequate demography sections (which religion is bracketed under), but doesn't appear biased. I assume you're referring to the demography of Cumbria article, which I agree reads less than neutral. Nev1 (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on City of Carlisle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 26 external links on City of Carlisle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)