Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 11

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

FAR

I have nominated Mendip Hills for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Pages nos in Ekwall's 1928 book English River Names

Does anyone have a copy of Ekwall, Eilert (1928). English River Names. Oxford Clarendon Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) and would be willing to look up a page number for the derivation of the name of the River Parrett from Pedair from pedr meaning four and Rit meaning flow, which in this case would relate to the four flows or streams: the Tone, Yeo, Isle and Parrett. This is the last item needed (I think) in getting the article on the River Parrett ready for another FA nomination (last time it was closed with no opposes , but also no supports). Any help appreciated.— Rod talk 11:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thius page number has now been found & I'm close to nominating at FAC - any further comments would be appreciated.— Rod talk 08:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move of New town to Planned city

There is a RM discussion going at Talk:New town#Requested move, comments are welcome. Jeni (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject Oxfordshire

One of the few county projects left uncreated, I'd be an active contributor (almost solely focusing on oxfordshire) if it were to be created and I'm sure we could get a few to participate. How are wikiprojects formed?Dharmaquila (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject & Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide & then if you want to make a start Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. It's worth trying to get support by putting a message on key pages others with similar interests are likely to watchlist eg Talk:Oxfordshire. Good luck.— Rod talk 21:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Better than that, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Oxfordshire. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Exit lists on UK roads

First of all, apologies, I usually let UKGEO know about discussions related to UK roads (as the roads Wikiproject is inactive), I did contact a small number of editors in the area directly, just completely forgot about UKGEO!

Anyway... There is currently a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (exit lists)#United Kingdom regarding junction lists used in UK road articles. Your input in the discussion would be welcome. And apologies for forgetting to post here :) Jeni (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Conurbations and urban agglomerations

For your information - another editor has made a proposal in relation to the definition and use of terms such as "conurbation", here - User:Mcorazao/sandbox3 - and is seeking views at Talk:Conurbation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ghmyrtle. For clarity I was specifically seeking feedback here. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
FYI: This essay now lives at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Conurbation guidelines. I'm hoping to see this evolve into an accepted guideline. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Guideline for UK postcode districts

A discussion about a guideline for UK postcode districts has been moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Guide. Please contribute there. MRSC (talk) 11:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ordnance Survey changes

Do the changes to the licencing of Ordnance Survey data, which came into force today, provide opportunities for improving our coverage of UK articles with their maps? See Guardian story but the OS website sections on open space & news seem to be too busy at present to find out more.— Rod talk 10:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. To me, the Guardian page makes it pretty clear that we could use them all, here ay Wikipedia. I wonder what the exact licence is though (wonder if it's Creative Commons or something). The copyright police may be able to help out. Good find though. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I haven't managed to get in to register yet - v busy. Further info is available. The new OS OpenSpace® Developer Agreement includes a requirement that "You must ensure that a copy of the EULA is made accessible to End Users through a hypertext link at the bottom of each page of Your Web application". I've put comments/requests at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Maps#Use_of_UK_Ordnance_Survey_new_API & Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Use_of_UK_Ordnance_Survey_new_API for expert help.— Rod talk 12:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
We need more details on the OS article itself: Ordnance Survey#Open data releases -- Harry Wood (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
We can already use OpenStreetMap maps which are fully open source. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Guideline for non-English place names in UK

Two years ago (!), there was a concerted effort to pool resources and come to a consensus on how to deal with non-English place names in the United Kingdom on articles here on the English Wikipedia about places.

It is found in the test page User:Jza84/Sandbox.

I don't think the issue has caused grief since to be fair, but wondered what to do with this sandbox (I plan to clear it). Does this need moving into project space here? --Jza84 |  Talk  12:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Windsor Castle enclave

Ordnance Survey guidance implies that Windsor Castle is an enclave, excluded from the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead and so perhaps uniquely not part of any local government area. Please discuss at Talk:Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead#Windsor Castle enclave. — Richardguk (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Place name disambiguation, England

Could somebody point me to the discussion that led to the MOS rule WP:UKPLACE? I am particularly interested in the statement that reads

In England, disambiguated place names should go under [[placename, ceremonial county]]. Where this is inappropriate [[placename, Town/City]] should be used.

Where is 'inappropriate' defined? I'm thinking of places like Heavitree in Exeter and Furzton in Milton Keynes. I am excluding places like Botley, Oxfordshire and Olney, Buckinghamshire which are in the UA but not in the city/town. It seems to me that under 'use the common name' rule, we should use the town/city to disambiguate in the former case, but this is not clear and some editors are applying part 1 of the rule, whatever the context, in all circumstances. It seems to me that the rule needs to be clarified to avoid this error. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, UKPLACE has been altered since I last saw it. The original secondary option was: [[placename, local government district]] (in shortform). (e.g. Moorside, Oldham and Moorside, Salford). There has been no discussion to alter it.
The use of ceremonial county was (from memory) inline with other publications, such as the OS, the AA etc. It also avoids conflict arrising from editors debating if one place is part of another. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
But WP:Use common name certainly supports the view that disticts of a town or city, clearly within the boundary of that town/city, should be given as district,town/city. To decline this on the basis that some people argue about it is not a reasonable argument: all of wikipedia has such arguments and they are easily solved by WP:CITE. )Pretending that there are two Heavitrees for a moment, [[Heavitree, Exeter]] is immediately recognisable but [[Heavitree, Devonshire]] is certainly not. Also pretending that metroppolitan districts don't exist, Croxteth, Liverpool is familiar, but Croxteth, Lancashire is not. [I've used these examples because they are easily recognised, not because they are real, in the interest of clarity]. There are real examples where certain editors have attached the county qualifier where they are quite misleading. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there is anything "misleading" about using a county - it would be misleading to use the wrong county, yes, but I don't think that's what you mean. I think your view hinges on precision and familliarity, and vernacular geography. But what is the "common name" of a place? How do we treat suburbs beyond the political jurisdiciton of a council/district? What about rural villages? Where is the evidence that cities (and is it just cities, or is it towns, boroughs, civil parishes and districts, or only major cities?) are more recognisable than counties? Does Greenfield, Greater Manchester become disambiguated to Saddleworth, Oldham, Manchester, Huddersfield, or Uppermill?
Croxteth would be "Croxteth, Merseyside" too rather than "Croxteth, Lancashire" JFYI. :S But both would be recognisable and familliar anyway AFAICT, hense why the guide was set up. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The county name can be confusing (I accept 'misleading' was the wrong word) when the place is a central district of a town/city, and to use the county name could lead an unfamiliar user to suspect that he had the wrong place. To add context, my particular concern is with districts of Milton Keynes [town, not UA] being tagged with , Buckinghamshire, which has the association that the topic is a village in the Chilterns.
Responding to your specific points: (a) suburbs beyond the political jurisdiction [are there any? do you mean outside the city/town boundary?] have to have the county name because to give them the town name is strictly inaccurate. I believe that Caversham, Berkshire is a very relevant case - it is well inside the Reading Urban Area but it is not in Reading. (b) I can't see that rural villages, even if in a UA, are a problem - there is no risk of confusion. (c) I think it is anywhere that is visible as a named district on Google Maps, for instance. There aren't many of these: Exeter has a few, Milton Keynes has many, Oxford doesn't seem to have any - that is a randomish sample. (c.1) Places in Greater Manchester are a special case and would need a new discussion. (d) Regarding Croxteth, it was an artificial example of a place that I chose exactly because it is well known. Of course in practice the problem doesn't arise here but that is incidental. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think a county should be used in almost all cases. As a test I use http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/getamap/ to determine if a place is 'merely' a city district as it tends not to be listed. Jewellery Quarter is the sort of article (if it needed disambiguation) I would expect to be suffixed ", Birmingham" rather than ", West Midlands". MRSC (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Try Loughton. OS gives Essex, Shropshire and Milton Keynes. The MK one very close to the centre of MK, well inside the boundaries of MK. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
The second part of the rule is to cover the case where there are more than one place of the same name in the ceremonial county, in which case you have to use another qualifier to disambiguate the articles. For example Osgodby, North Yorkshire would be ambiguous so we use disrtict names Osgodby, Selby & Osgodby, Scarborough do distinguish between them. Keith D (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there are certainly editors who assert that this is so, but it is not what the text of the MOS says. Yes, it is certainly an example of where it is inappropriate, but it is not the only one. It is for this very reason that I want to clarify the terms of 'inappropriate'. I am content that that villages outside a town/city be disambiguated to the county and to the UA as a fall-back position, but to do so to districts that are clearly part of the town/city seems to me to be taking the rule beyond what is sensible and reasonable, blindly ignoring the context. This to me is an obvious example of 'inappropriate'. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I have found where this discussion happened before and the conclusion that was reached. See Talk:Shirley, Southampton#Move districts of Southampton --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The formal decision is at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2009/April#Disambiguation for English city suburbs. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

OS OpenData

Shouldn't the material released last month under the OS OpenData banner be mentioned under the "Maps" subheading of the "Online resources" section of the project page? Given that the licence allows derivative works to be distributed under cc-by-3.0, such maps (and material based on them) can be used on Wikipedia without problems. For example, I've put up a map on the Bewdley page (apologies for my utter lack of skill in preparing such things!); even something as simple as that can add a lot to an article, I'd have thought. Loganberry (Talk) 15:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I started a discussion on this last month (see Ordnance Survey changes above) and places linked from that debate - the consensus seemed to be that the OS licencing was still too restrictive for wikipedia.— Rod talk 16:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion. The licensing concerns were expressed only in relation to the developer tools (OS OpenSpace API), not the datasets (OS OpenData). Note the section headings: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps#Use of UK Ordnance Survey new API and Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2010/April#Use of UK Ordnance Survey new API. Given that the image description page includes the required attribution statement and a link to the full licence, I think this is compliant. — Richardguk (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
That is my understanding as well: that OpenData stuff can be used, but OpenSpace API stuff cannot. The OpenData licence specifically says (right at the bottom) that "you may mix the information with Creative Commons licensed content to create a derivative work that can be distributed under any Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Licence". Since cc-by-3.0 is acceptable both here and on Wikimedia Commons, I can't see any problem. I would assume that eventually a specific licence tag will be created for OpenData content, along the lines of the Geograph one, but in the meantime I think what I have done is sufficient. Loganberry (Talk) 19:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Councils vs Places

UK Local Authorities are inherently notable. Yet many council names are currently redirects to articles about places; which are not the same thing at all. I feel we should do the same for all authorities which don't at the moment have their own articles. For example, I recently split Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council out from Metropolitan Borough of Walsall. I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom#Councils vs Places; what are your thoughts? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

River Parrett at FAC

Just to let you know River Parrett has been nominated for Featured Article status and discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/River Parrett/archive2. It would be great if anyone had any comments.— Rod talk 19:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Twin towns

I'd appreciate some input on this please - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_settlements#Town_twinning --Simple Bob (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Strange circular feature

Hi

Does anyone know what this is ?

Its a 10 to 12 ft diameter circular thing that somewhat resembles an...im not going to say it lol...lets just say that crop circles and alien conspiracy theorists will love this one

51°22'58.12"N

0°38'21.73"E thanks

Chaosdruid (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on maps used to show the counties of Ireland

A discussion is taking place on the maps used to show the counties of Ireland. The main thrust is about how to show, or whether to show, the opposite jurisdiction in Ireland for the counties in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Or how to balance the all-island context and the ROI/NI context in graphic form.

The discussion is taking place here and wide input is welcome. Many thanks, --RA (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Alternative Location Map for districts/boroughs/cities

Please see an alternative location map here (it's a derivative of the files we use throughout England, Wales and Northern Ireland for an Infobox location map for placename articles, but adjusted to indicate the position of the city/borough/district as a whole). What do people think about it replacing the existing location map in the Infobox or being rolled out across the country? Skinsmoke (talk) 03:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we should use light red (a tint of red) for the administrative area, and dark red (a shade of red) for the urban area, for better consistency with the location maps used by Template:Infobox UK place; but, for the same reasons, I like the general style.
The caption ("City of Sheffield shown within South Yorkshire") is insufficient to explain which are the administrative and urban boundaries, though different shading might be enough to intuitively indicate that the dark coloured area is equivalent to the grey areas outside the boundary.
Is this concept extendable to places whose urban area extends beyond the administrative area?
Showing the district within the county is problematic because readers are either:
  • unfamiliar with the local area, in which case a map of South Yorkshire is unlikely to mean much more than a map of the City of Sheffield as a contextual reference point; or
  • familiar with South Yorkshire, in which case they probably already have a reasonable idea of the Sheffield boundary and are unlikely to be very interested in the boundaries of the other districts within the county (they would go to the South Yorkshire article if that was what they were looking for).
So perhaps a smaller scale map is more appropriate.
Might be worth looking at the OS OpenData maps being created for all the main statutory areas of Great Britain at commons:User:Nilfanion/Maps by User:Nilfanion, as discussed at Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board#Locator maps from OS opendata (with earlier discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps#OS OpenData maps).
Not sure where this discussion best belongs, but would be worth notifying Template talk:Infobox UK place before taking anything further. Best to move discussion out of Talk:Sheffield#Alternative Location Map as this is a general matter, there are no grounds for one article having a different style from others of the same kind.
— Richardguk (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Not very helpful for those counties that do not have districts where the existing map is more useful. Keith D (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The maps I've been plotting so far are primarily as bases for highlighted area maps as opposed to location maps; for that purpose its probably beneficial to keep them fairly minimal. The Sheffield map show why, as the multiple colours are starting to get non-obvious. Bear in mind I have also produced (just not uploaded) ward and CP maps, which will be useful in Unitary Authorities.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Location map calibration

Could a skilled geographer please take a look at {{Location map England and Wales 1961}} and check if the calibration is correct. Thanks. MRSC (talk) 10:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't help with calibration, but I'm a little concerned about the accuracy of the coastline on that map. Just compare the coastline of Lancashire with MRSC's own 1851 map (or any other map) and the 1961 coast is almost unrecognisable. Is it using county boundaries that extend out into the sea? -- Dr Greg  talk  17:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
It is the data from the 1961 census. MRSC (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to worry, I've used an alternative. MRSC (talk) 06:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:UKPLACE for England

Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#England to generate more input. MRSC (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Combined UK county map (Tyne & Wear, Northumberland and Cumbria)

I'd like to complement the Wikipedia article on Hadrian's Wall with a route graphic. Would anyone be able to do something like the county location maps but combining Tyne & Wear, Northumberland and Cumbria? It's a little (a lot, if I'm truthful) beyond my skills, I'm afraid, but would be a useful addition to the article. Sammy_r (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Or wouild anyone have advice on how I could do it? Sammy_r (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Might be worth asking at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop or, less formally, at commons:User:Nilfanion/Maps. — Richardguk (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Gravity Anomalies of Britain and Ireland

Hi I've kicked off a debate about the notability of Gravity Anomalies of Britain and Ireland. This article came to the attention of the rather arcane group of editors at WP:BISE (me amongst them) who debate at length the worthiness of various usages of the term British Isles. My personal view is that the article as it stands is not notable as it is not part of a geographic series of articles, nor is the subject matter of any particular note. I thought it might be useful to ask this projects opinion, before taking to WP:AFD.

NW Europe Gravity Anomaly plot (2)by the International Gravitametric Bureau

This image seems to show that the Britain and Ireland anomalies are related to their position at the edge of the Continental Shelf.

I think this article actually provides a template for what the article should be. It is primarily a list, so it should really take the naming style List of xxx.... No one has yet produced any evidence that gravity anomalies in Ireland or the UK are in any way notable, other than that the regional geological societies publish regional geological maps. If the geographical location of gravity anomolies is notable in wikipedian terms (and I'm not yet convinced that they are) then the starting point should be a global list of them with regional headings/subheadings. If the list gets too long it can be split off into regional articles, and we might - just might - come back to having a Gravity anomalies of BI article at some distant point in the future. But for now we only need one article for the entire globe, if at all.

We'd appreciate any input you might have here.

Thanks Fmph (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I've taken it to AFD. Contribute there if you wish. Fmph (talk) 10:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone for a trip to the Kent seaside?

My wiki to-do list is spiralling out of control faster than a footballer's libido, so apologies for not doing this myself, but it really needs attention from someone who's more familiar than me with the style for big settlement articles. Broadstairs is at that stage where it's got a lot of stuff in it, but it just needs a really good copyedit to get it under control. And then a whole lot of referencing, but I know how much work that would be, just a copyedit to get it to UKgeo house style would make a big difference. Got some fun history with all the Dickens and other celebrity connections, plus the maritime history.
On an unrelated note, User:Nortonius has been doing valiant work on Reculver and it's at the stage where it could do with someone looking at it before it goes to WP:GAN. There's nothing much to the modern hamlet - not helped by half of it having fallen into the sea - but it's got a rich history. Le Deluge (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Images used in UK geography articles to be deleted

A huge list of map images created by (now absent) User:Morwen that illustrate our articles are currently being deleted because of licensing issues. It is a big task to go through these and review it. Can an administrator undelete those images already deleted (see User talk:Morwen). For those images not yet deleted, source information needs to be filled in where it is missing. MRSC (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

English local government districts

There are a remaining 131 (out of a total of 326) English local government district articles that do not have {{Infobox settlement}}. List can be found here. The majority are two-tier non-metropolitan districts. MRSC (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

More image deletions

Going through these infoboxes I find a lot of the coats of arms have been deleted because of a lack of non-free use rationale. It appears that the only notification of this was a deletion bot talking to an upload bot! What a sorry state of affairs. If someone could restore the images in User:HeraldicBot/Gallery, I'll work through the correct licensing. MRSC (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

British Isles Meitheal

Hi all —

A while back the British Isles article underwent a peer review. Most of the suggestions coming out of it have been implemented and IMO the article is approaching GA standard. This is an article that had been dogged by POV issues and in-fighting amongst its editors so the achievement of getting it to the standard it is in admirable for all involved. However, one major sticking point is referencing, which are appallingly sparse. There is no way the article could achieve GA as it stands on account of the state of referencing.

The task of fixing it up isn't impossible. There are about 30 paragraphs that need referencing. With enough editors, we would only need to take two or thee paragraphs each to get the job done. To that end, I've set up a "meitheal" page. The idea is for anyone who is willing to help out to take a paragraph at a time and to references just that paragraph. If you can do more than one then great. Just come back and take another one.

The meitheal page is here: Talk:British Isles/Meitheal. If you're willing to help out, just dig in.

Thanks, --RA (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured article review of Dorset

I have nominated Dorset for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. kind regards Tom B (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

UK geography articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the UK geography articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Milburn, Cumbria

I've just made a major update to the Milburn, Cumbria article. I'm new to Wikipedia and the editor who's been helping has been out of contact for a while so I'd appreciate comments Crossview (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

List of city nicknames in the United Kingdom

I've started a List of city nicknames in the United Kingdom, for no good reason other than that I came across a number of US versions of the same. But four cities in and I've run out of steam for the night. Contributions solicited; thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't have time to work on it myself right now, but I've put a copy of the deleted "List of city nicknames" in my userspace that people might find useful: User:The wub/city nicknames the wub "?!" 09:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Personally I don't think a list is very useful unless it provides some context. Nicknames invented by the media in order to sell papers need to be clearly differentiated from those which are actually in widespread use, and those which are used offensively (or self-deprecatingly) need to be differentiated from those which have more positive or neutral connotations - to inform readers who might otherwise not know the difference. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, and that's one of the reasons the original list was deleted. See Nicknames of Houston though for an example of a great article on this subject. the wub "?!" 09:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Wub - your list's very useful; thanks. Ghmyrtle - agreed. We'll try to provide context and explanation and make it a worthwhile page. I'll play with it some more next week. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Paddlesworth - spoof newspaper etc - help needed

Today an internet spoof has been launched based on Paddlesworth a small village in Kent (see Guardian report & fake newspaper. It is likely that this will lead to disruptive edits to the village article & I would welcome the help of others in keeping an eye on it. I think wikipedia should probably have an article on the spoof (once there is enough coverage) but we need to inform readers what is real & what is spoof - I'm not sure of the best way to do this & I would appreciate any help.— Rod talk 10:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern England

Just for information. Keith D (talk) 10:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

What's best in a Culture section?

I'm currently trying to improve Northamptonshire's article (as part of WP Northamptonshire) which is coming along nicely. But, there is a culture section and looking at some other county articles, they include things from sport and music to history and people, but I would like to know what you think is best to be included in these sections. Also I you have time, could you review the Northamptonshire article please, best Likelife (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:UKCOUNTIES may give some ideas. I note the article has significant media & sport sections, which could be considered part of culture. You could also include significant legends if any, listed buildings or other historical sites, museums etc. You might want to look at Somerset#Culture.— Rod talk 17:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Maps of British local authority changes

A request has been made at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop#British local authority changes for maps to be created, similar to those already in existence for the English metropolitan counties, for each county (and subsequently revised county) in the United Kingdom. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Alphabetical order

The subpages of List of civil parishes in England (and I suppose the page at List of communities in Wales) are at present ordered on the basis that St (as an abbreviation for Saint) comes between South Petherwin and Stithians. During work on upgrading Cornwall at User talk:Skinsmoke/Sandbox/Civil parishes/Kernow, an editor has suggested that the order should be changed, so that St appears between Ruanlanihorne and Saltash. The discussion can be found here.

Wikipedia's Manual of Style has no preference, stating that either style (and at least one other) are acceptable. Current practice on United Kingdom Wikipedia articles/categories is mixed, both versions being used.

Outside Wikipedia, the editor states that both the Ordnance Survey and the Reader's Digest sort St at Saint in their atlases, as does the Times Atlas of the World, the Oxford Dictionary of the World, and A. D. Mills' Popular Dictionary of English Place-Names. On the other hand, the Ordnance Survey website places St between Spalding and Stirling; the Office for National Statistics places St between South Hill and Torpoint; the Local Government Boundary Commission for England places St between South Norfolk and Stockton-on-Tees; and Cornwall Council places St between South Petherwin and Stithians.

Please express your preferences at User talk:Skinsmoke/Sandbox/Civil parishes/Kernow#Alphabetical order. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of British Isles on United Kingdom

It has been suggested that the use of the phrase British Isles on the article United Kingdom should be deleted. The use of this term in that article is being discussed at WT:BISE#United Kingdom. If you would like to contribute to the debate please do so. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Changes to OS data

OK, I suppose this was to be expected seeing as the government keeps fiddling with the precise boundaries (I can empathise with the Association of British Counties on this). Ordnance Survey has updated the Boundary Line product, I've been working from the March 2010 release - there are changes in October 2010.

As an example of this, there has been a transfer of land between Tameside/Derbyshire and Coventry/Warwickshire. Question is should I update the maps, ignore, or upload new versions? I'm having a look now to see how noticeable this boundary change is - I'll upload a map of the area in a bit.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The User guide (page 25) shows this as a change without statutory authority, presumably corrections to longstanding errors and therefore likely to be of very minor significance. I suggest you hold off until revised ward boundaries are published next May. — Richardguk (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Studied it now, its not correction to longstanding errors. Rather its adjustments resulting from changes in a water course. The Tameside/Derbys change is partly along Ogden Brook (SK0199) and looks to be a matter of a ~10m change; others are probably similar. The broader question is valid of course, should I upload new versions every time there is significant change? If so how exactly...--Nilfanion (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed rename of Plymouth and Cambridge

There is a current proposal at Talk:Plymouth and Talk:Cambridge to rename the articles (which are about the UK cities) and replace the pages with a disambiguation page. Raising for attention here to give appropriate balance. Comments either way are welcome. Jeni (talk) 10:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

This is the same User who has proposed to move Sydenham too.Likelife (talk) 11:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
And Cornwall! Jolly Ω Janner 11:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Plus Dover!Likelife (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
and Peterborough --Traveler100 (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
there is also discussion on York but no formal proposal as yet. Keith D (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
maybe should just add the contents of List of locations in the United States with an English name and its sister pages to your watch pages :-) --Traveler100 (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

For further discussion, at the village pump, about UK place names not having a dab see here. Keith D (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

National Park location maps

I've just "spammed" the National Park talk pages to notify of a new series of location maps I've created for them. Some may need tweaking, but they should be useful both on those articles and on those related to them.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Just commented on the Yorkshire Dales one that you cannot really tell the county boundaries and there is no district boundaries. Keith D (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review

Does the UK geography WikiProject have a formal review process for GAs being re-assessed up to A-class? Jolly Ω Janner 21:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably not as there is only 1 article rated A and that was promoted by an individual. My guess is that A-class is ignored and GA is followed by an FA nomination. Keith D (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Right, may be best that some GAs go through a peer review before going to FA. I guess as a side-question to the peer reivew, one could add "does this meet A-Class?" with hopefully that being a yes as a result of the peer review. Jolly Ω Janner 00:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Help with Commons cats

OK, my wiki-grammar just isn't up to this task, so thought I'd ask for 2nd opinions here. I've uploaded over 500 maps to Commons now, but the categorisation is poor. "Category:Blank maps of counties of England" is an ok name for the blanks but needs sub-cats: The maps showing districts/parishes/wards/electoral divisions within counties should be given separate cats. "Blank maps of counties of England showing civil parishes" is an accurate description of what I want but is just too awkward. Any ideas?--Nilfanion (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Why US Dollars on United Kingdom based articles?

Why is the GDPs in the info boxs of England, Scotland, Wales and the Ise of Man in US Dollars? We don't use US Dollars so why should the majority of people (I'm guessing from the UK who look at these articles) read something that they don't use? I propose changing all UK related articles, whether that's people or countries to Pound Sterling or have both currencies shown.Likelife (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason why we can't have both if data is available. Jolly Ω Janner 20:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Interesting that Northern Ireland has Pound Sterling. I would agree that we should go with that rather than US Dollars. Problem with this would be the exchange rate, may be they can only be sourced in US Dollars. Keith D (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Having the GDP in dollars allows comparison with other countries. Having it in sterling would only allow historical comparison. Eckerslike (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Indeed--the US Dollar is commonly used as a standard for GDP figures, in order to allow international comparisons. --RFBailey (talk) 06:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there a primary Stroud?

Two ongoing move discussions (Talk:Stroud, Gloucestershire#Requested move and Talk:Stroud (disambiguation)#Requested move) hinge on the question of whether Stroud, Gloucestershire is the primary topic for "Stroud". Comments welcome (I'm trying to combine the discussion at the first of those two venues).--Kotniski (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Area maps

Cornwall in England

I'm at a natural pause in the work converting Opendata into maps. The location maps have now been changed to use these (probably most significant use). The next usage that would benefit from this change would be highlighted area maps: in particular ones like File:NorfolkGreatYarmouth.png at Great Yarmouth (borough) and File:EnglandNorfolk.png at Norfolk.

The biggest flaw with the existing maps is the lack of context: For example, England is not an island and its really not helpful to not show the other areas at all (Noticed a complaint about this at Birmingham's talk). With the district-in-county maps the addition of an inset showing location-in-country would also be a plus. Stylistically I'd also personally prefer these to be consistent with the location maps; as I think red-on-pink (or blue-on-pale blue etc) is not as good - especially once the context such as the sea is included. The use in stub templates is an exception to both points.

I'm not 100% sure what colour to set the area to - I think the ones at Category:Locator maps of wards in Bristol are too pale, whilst those at Category:Locator maps of districts of East Sussex are too intense. Somewhere intermediate is logical, but I'd like second opinions first - reason being that I will be requesting bot assistance to do the bulk upload of the thousands of maps (all the parishes and wards will get maps too not just the districts).--Nilfanion (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that something in the middle would probably be better for the shading of the area. The Bristol set have darker lines for the boundaries and are much better than the East Sussex set where the boundaries can hardly be seen. Keith D (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, uploaded a test map showing the ceremonial county of Cornwall within England - this could possibly replace the infobox map in Cornwall. Highlight colour is somewhat arbitrary (eo2020 which is somewhere "intermediate"). This needs a bit of fine tuning before I upload anyway to optimise file size and so on, but as proof of concept its ok.
Also the blank ceremonial map includes the City of London - may be better to exclude?--Nilfanion (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, exlude it and for the article on City of London make a cropped out cross section for the map, similar to this? Jolly Ω Janner 21:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I prefer the paler (Bristol) colour, because bright red might be mistaken for party political representation. — Richardguk (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Uploaded "final" version of the Oxfordshire map, only real tweak is that file size is significantly reduced. I've also put it into the Oxfordshire infobox [1]. This suggests a possible issue - white background etc, but that can be sorted out in the template.

The colour is probably ok as in context it shouldn't get mixed up with Labour. Maps highlighting multiple areas probably should use a different colour.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"Settlements"

Is a name on a map sufficiently notable to have an article on Wikipedia? I ask because of edits I have noticed by this user who used to be this user who for some reason he has two pages, a prolific starter of new pages about "settlements". I noticed his edits in Yorkshire including some "hamlets" like Jaw Hill which is a hill I used to drive up and down some years ago. Amongst his myriad new non notable articles, one, and various redirects, for every placename on the map, he created Round Maple a start class article. It is referenced to the A-Z or getamap, his favourite sources. I edited it, because I had never seen an article with so many links, headings, etc. [2] and I keep looking at it. He has also created at least 3 redirects to it. I should take my own advice AGF and ignore it but ... Oh and now he appears to have created a Suffolk and Essex Project. I would appreciate your opinions even if it's take your own advice. Thanks--J3Mrs (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Today Wikipedia:Wikiproject English Hamlets has been started.--J3Mrs (talk) 13:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
IMO, a placename appearing on an OS map meets notability guidelines. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 08:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest appearing on an OS map is evidence that a place exists, not that it meets notability requirements, which say ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Unless there are specific historical or other features which mean there are several reliable sources for information about the hamlet, my practice, and that of many others, is to redirect a hamlet to the civil parish within which it falls and include the information about that hamlet in the parish article.— Rod talk 09:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that sums up what I thought, Rodw. Unfortunately the user, who I think may be quite young seems very determined and I am no use at all with how wikipedia works, I can just about edit.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
IMO an OS map is an example of significant coverage. Most places named on an OS map will also be covered in other significant secondary sources. Obviously these things need to be considered on a case by case basis, but I suspect it will be very rare for a place named on an OS map not to meet notability guidelines. Incidentally, J3Mrs, ad hominem comments are out of place in a discussion such as this. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 08:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I would not necessarily consider mere inclusion on the Landranger or Explorer-series maps to imply significance for two reasons. Firstly, it certainly isn't a "significant coverage" as defined at Wikipedia:N#General notability guideline (which requires that the mention includes info useful for sourcing the article). However the second point and IMO the big problem with the "OS test" is the question: "What is a hamlet?". The line between a hamlet, a farmstead and a farm can be fuzzy at times, and the OS maps provide no guidance on that whatsoever.
For example, Bodrean describes a farmstead (well actually 2 but the other one is a different place entirely(!)). An inspection of the maps clearly shows the label "Bodrean" is not used at all at high scales (the label is "Bodrean Manor Fm") and "Frogmore" is attached to two houses. "Bodrean" however does appear on Google Maps, where it corresponds to a grouping of farms (not a single "settlement") a little to the west of the Manor farm.
The point of this is, some farm(stead)s are labelled "Farm" on OS maps, some farms are not labelled "Farm" and just use the plain name. Hamlets in general are notable, farms very rarely are - can you tell if "Little Polwhele" at SW842474 is a farm or a hamlet, merely from the label on the map? As you need more info to determine that distinction, mere appearance of the name on the map cannot be sufficient by itself to establish notability.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

www.imagesofengland.org.uk

This English Heritage-operated website has been used on many articles relating to listed buildings. Not sure when, but it seems to have been revamped, and URLs in the form (e.g.) http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/Details/Default.aspx?id=302261&mode=quick no longer work. I can't find what the new, correct version of such links should be. I recommend Heritage Gateway as a suitable replacement; this is also operated by English Heritage, and is updated with new and changed listed buildings (unlike IoE, which is static as of 2001). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

PS. Links would need to change as folllows (using the above as an example):


Also cross-posted to WT:ARCH.

Thanks for this -I've just discovered it as well & I think it has some major implications. A quick Google search for http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk within the domain http://en.wikipedia.org/ finds 7,610 articles (some of which eg lists may link to more than one Images of England page)!. When Images of England changed the string within the URL previously we were able to get a bot using AWB to replace them as the id number stayed the same. From your example above it looks as if the id number is the same within heritage gateway but the addition of the resourceID bit on the end means that it is unlikely a bot will be able to do this (although it may be worth investigating). I would suggest also cross posting to WP:HSITES.— Rod talk 20:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be problems with the new site when attempting to search as it does not find records correctly that were there for Images of England items. It is OK if you already know the id of the page you are looking for. Keith D (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Thinking of changing it should not be too much of a problem if people have used the {{IoE}} template that was created to avoid problems like this. Keith D (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
OK after a quick play I reckon this can be automated. The ID number within the existing reference (either a full ref or the {{IoE}} which doesn't include accessed date, publisher etc required for GA, FA, FL etc) can be identified. If you go to Heritage Gateway advanced search and put the ID number into the Reference Number Search box at the bottom of the page a link is given to the same entry & they all seem to add & resourceID=5 to the URL so a bot could probably manage it - can others do some quick tests & see if different resourceID= numbers are given. If not we could start a bot request?— Rod talk 21:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, all HG links append &resourceID=5 to the end, after the ID number. This should help automation. I have cross-posted to WT:HSITES as suggested. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - I've started a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 39#reformatting 7,610 reference URLs.— Rod talk 08:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
The existing links work for me - the changes are probably unnecessary, particularly if some records are missing from the suggested replacement site. Peter E. James (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think they have now been restored (see for example here). Panic over, possibly! Cheers, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 08:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Looks like they have reverted to the original site again. Keith D (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion please

I reverted a change by an anonymous IP on the Ticehurst article, the same IP came along later and undid my revert. I am now hesitant about engaging in a edit-war as I am not too sure of my facts.

Ticehurst is on the Kent/Sussex border. The anon-IP changed the article from saying Ticehurst is in Sussex to Ticehurst is in Kent. The parish of Ticehurst comes under East Sussex and Rother Council, but assuming good faith by the anon-IP, there could be an area considered to be part of Ticehurst that falls inside the Kent boundary. I just do not know.

Please could someone have a look and give an opinion on whether the edits are vandalism, or a good faith poorly cited edit or if I am just plain wrong myself! *-* Putney Bridge (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

(From inspection of OS maps and info at http://visionofbritain.org.uk) Ticehurst is a Sussex parish. The village of Ticehurst has always been a Sussex village. However, the village of Flimwell is on the border and its built-up area does actually go into Kent. Its possible there has been a slight adjustment of the county border so some of the modern parish was in Kent, but the village itself was always a Sussex village.
As for the edit it may be good-faith, but is factually incorrect. Its possible, with sourcing, that a lesser statement (that part of Ticehurst parish is in Kent) could be included.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Exactly what Nilfanion said. I'll check my collection of Sussex books etc. when I get a chance. Ticehurst is a huge parish, and it wouldn't surprise me if there was some Kent territory covered in the Flimwell area, or east of Cousley Wood. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 08:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
(More) There was a similar issue a few months ago on Burgess Hill, which is even more local to me; about five residential roads in the northeast of the town are in Lewes district in East Sussex, while the rest is within Mid Sussex in West Sussex. I eventually dug up a couple of online council reports referring to the situation, which (together with a reference to a map) seemed to quell the brief edit war. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 08:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Current counties should be used - if part of the parish was in Kent, the boundary changes could be mentioned in the article. The situation in Burgess Hill is slightly different as the settlement has expanded into an area beyond the parish and county boundary - do any parishes straddle boundaries in this way? Peter E. James (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Whitchurch is a village in north Somerset and an adjoining suburb of south eastern Bristol, thereby covering both a part of an unparished city and a parish with a Unitary Authority. An attempt is made to explain this & the historical development in the article - but I'm not sure how successful this is.— Rod talk 17:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup listing

I've added the template for the cleanup listing to the project page. The cleanup listing for UKGEO is updated weekly. Currently it contains 5830 articles or 32.5 % of the 17912 articles in this project. Any help reducing this would be great.— Rod talk 08:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with this list. Barstable (hundred) appears as needing citations since December last year, but I can see nothing on the article itself. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 09:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I've noted this as a possible bug at User talk:Svick/WikiProject cleanup listing#WP:UKGEO.— Rod talk 11:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
There was an "unreferenced stub" template, which wasn't visible because it had an "auto=yes" parameter (see Template:Unreferenced stub#Usage). Peter E. James (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Settlement/Urban Area/Locality/Urban Subdivision etc articles

There's a confusing mess of articles around urban areas, settlements, towns, cities and urban sub-divisions. They probably need to be cleared up together, to make sense relative to each other as well as individually, so I've brought the subject up here.

In the interests of clarity and consistency would it make more sense for

That said, "localities" are quite an obscure and little-used measure in general - are they really worth two separate articles at England and UK level, whatever they're called?

Thoughts?

JimmyGuano (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts:
  • It's a mess.
  • List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population and List of urban areas in England by population are essentially OR as they define places as settlements or urban areas, when in most cases there are multiple definitions. I'm not sure why 'settlement' is used in one list but 'urban area' is used in the other. As you say, they are mainly the ONS 'urban sub-division' figures but with London added in.
  • It is incredibly difficult to get a list that says anything meaningful about the reality of a place due to the local administrations post-1974, particular how some places have 'tight' boundaries (e.g. Nottingham, Manchester) and others have 'wide' boundaries (e.g. Leeds, Sheffield).
  • To add into the mix we also have List of Primary Urban Areas in England by population.
I certainly agree that it needs a shake up. My main concern is that it is made crystal clear what each list is using for its base data. I think changing to using 'localities' and then explaining what that means at the start of the article would be reasonable. I don't mind the conurbation one as is because it is clearly explained what the definition being used is.
I would also propose an overarching article which combines the various definitions used into one list. Quantpole (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
That's the key I think - there isn't a single definitive measure of the extent of a place. Even at a conceptual level you can define them politically, physically, economically or culturally, and that's before you get down to the detail of precise technical definitions, criteria and methodologies. With articles like these we need therefore need to be very precise with terminology to make it clear what an article is or isn't saying.
List of Primary Urban Areas in England by population isn't too bad IMO - it uses the precise term correctly, it's explicit about the measurement used and it makes it clear that this is just one measurement defined for a specific purpose. List of conurbations in the United Kingdom is also pretty good as you say. My only reservation about that one is the title - what constitutes a city and what constitutes a conurbation is a controversial issue in itself, but all of the entities covered are uncontroversially "urban areas". That's the term used in the source so it's the one we should use in the article IMO.
I can see the attraction of having one big summary article but I'm not sure how practical it would be. Would the the administrative city of Birmingham be listed as "West Midlands" or would the West Midlands Urban Area be listed under "Birmingham"? Neither would really be NPOV and both would have huge potential to be misleading. What about places like Rochdale, which exist by some measures but have no distinct identity under others? There's a danger of trying to over-simplify something that's just fundamentally complicated to the point of just creating additional confusion. Separate list articles with precise titles, clearly defined measures from reliable sources and scrupulously like-for-like data is the way to go IMO.
JimmyGuano (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
List of urban areas in England by population is certainly not WP:OR - it uses the figures produced and published by ONS based on clearly stated criteria (contiguous built-up areas, not local government boundaries). List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population combines that list with similar lists for Scotland, Wales and NI - if there are any variations in criteria between the four countries they need to be made clear, but, again, not OR. But, having said that, I'm not sure about some of the other lists, and it would be useful to have a clear explanation of the different articles in one place. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Using localities/urban-subdivisions data from the ONS isn't WP:OR, but departing from the like-for-like source data on an editor's whim, as both of those articles do for London, Cambridge and Milton Keynes, is clearly OR, and titling the results as "settlements" or "urban areas" is simply wrong. Having lists of localities is fair enough, but the data should be consistent and articles should be correctly titled. JimmyGuano (talk) 11:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The lists themselves are not OR in that they are based on the ONS data as you say. However, the titles are incorrect, which I believe is what JimmyGuano was saying. Perhaps it would be better to avoid talk of whether it is 'original research' or not.
If you compare List of urban areas in England by population with the ONS one you will see it is very different, with the ONS list actually corresponding to List of conurbations in the United Kingdom. The wikipedia list of urban areas is actually a list of 'urban sub-divisions'. The ONS about that saying :
" Major urban agglomerations, such as Greater London and the metropolitan counties, are sub-divided in order to provide a more useful set of statistics and to enable some comparisons to be made with previously published census data. Some smaller urban agglomerations are also subdivided where appropriate, and, where possible, previously separate urban centres, where urban land has since merged, are also subdivided."
Note that there isn't any claim as to what these sub-divisions now are, only that they are useful for comparison purposes with previous census data. That is alluding to the pre-1974 administrative boundaries. List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population is just as bad because there certainly is no claim by the ONS that the data they are using for a 'sub-division' corresponds to a particular settlement. The figures for Scotland are similarly misleading because they define 'settlements' in the same way as 'urban areas' are defined in England and Wales with 'localities' being similar to 'urban sub-divisions' (see [3], pages 14 and 15).
As the ONS themselves say, defining settlements is a very difficult thing to do. The approach they have taken for Urban Area is a purely statistical one with no consideration of what functions as a distinct settlement. Quantpole (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Further to the above, it seems that england and wales are now also using the term 'settlement' to refer to what was previously called an 'urban area'. See [4]. Quantpole (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
There's also this template Template:25 largest settlements in the UK by urban core population that suffers from all of the flaws of the article List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population. Even if this was changed to consistently refer to localities/urban sub-divisions, and retitled accordingly, would it still be worth having on all of the pages mentioned, or would it be better deleted as too trivial a subject for such ubiquity? I'm not sure that Birmingham's status as the UK's largest locality is particularly noteworthy, for example - although clearly reliably-sourced, these figures are obscure and little-used. JimmyGuano (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Civil parish

Civil parish is currently a redirect to Parish (administrative division). There is an RfD discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_7#Civil parish. --Mhockey (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment on Bexhill-on-Sea

Amongst the list of notable people in the Bexhill-on-Sea article is a Hayley Okines. She has been removed twice from the list this week and I have put her back twice. My rationale for reverting is that the talk page contains a single three year old comment justifying her inclusion and that no arguments have been made against inclusion. It would be useful to have a few additional current comments before I do a third revert. Thanks Putney Bridge (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I am very much against listing Hayley Okines as a notable resident of Bexhill-on-Sea; these "Notable people" sections are a trivia magnet, and if I ruled the world I'd ban them. That Hayley lives in Bexhill hardly seems notable; what has she contributed to Bexhill, or in what way has she shaped or intersected with Bexhill's history? Malleus Fatuorum 02:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Recall WP:UKTOWNS#Notable_people Do not use a list format in this section. Please write this as prose, reference each person, and do not use the word "famous". It's a pretty good test that if you can't write (referenced!) prose about the person's relationship with a town, then it's probably not a notable relationship, even if the person is notable themselves. Beware WP:LISTCRUFT and all that. You've got to play it by ear a bit - a village may only have one or two famous residents, and relative to the village they may loom quite large, but you need a bit more to stand out in a town of 40,000. Particularly one that people tend to retire to, so they may exist there without it forming a big part of the time when they're doing whatever it is that has made them notable. Spike Milligan's relationship with Bexhill clearly is notable and of lasting significance; Okines relationship is a)not referenced, b)doesn't intersect much with Bexhill's history and c)whilst she crawls over the notability line, it's pretty tenuous, I think she fails the "will my grandchildren have heard of her?" test which might be acceptable for a small village but not a town with lots more enduring names to write about. Le Deluge (talk) 11:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography/Archive_11&oldid=1136046848"