Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31→Archive 35

Unitary Authorities: do we write about them accurately?

I've just bean reading the Cumbria (Structural Changes) Order 2022. This establishes Cumberland and Westmorland & Furness as local government districts and their councils as district councils, but also establishes non-metropolitan counties covering the same area:

'A new non-metropolitan county and a new non-metropolitan district, each to be known as [Cumberland/Westmorland & Furness], are constituted. [...] A new district council, to be known as [Cumberland/Westmorland & Furness] Council, is established as the sole principal authority for the non-metropolitan district.'

As I understand this isn't exactly unique; when Blackburn and Blackpool were hived off from Lancashire new counties were created, and doubtless similar has happened elsewhere.

This leads me to wonder whether we should tighten up how we write about unitary authorities. At the moment articles contain a sentence like 'Cumberland is a unitary authority', but would it be more accurate to write 'Cumberland is a non-metropolitan county and a non-metropolitan district administered by a unitary authority'? Is the existence of the county noteworthy, given it has no function whatsoever? Would it help readers understand English local government if we mentioned that unitary authorities are a type of district? I don't know, but I think it's worth a discussion. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the status quo is correct, the term used for such areas that are both non-metropolitan counties and non-metropolitan districts at the same time is unitary authority areas. If we write the precise setup in the articles it would probably just confuse people, linking to the Unitary authorities of England article would probably be sufficient to clarify this. Many of the orders like the Blackburn and Blackpool one state something like "Blackburn and Blackpool shall cease to form part of Lancashire" but in the "Interpretation" section it will state something like "“Lancashire” means the non-metropolitan county of Lancashire" which means it only ceases to be part of the administrative county and then the Lieutenancies Act 1997 specifies that it is still in the ceremonial county. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 13#Medway or Kent for example. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
The issue is, Cumbria still exists. Cumbria is the county, these two are ua's. Not counties of their own. Unless they have a county council covering them. They aren't county level. Like County Durham, Stockton, Hartlepool and Darlington are uas but still part of Durham itself albeit their own councils but still share ceremonial purposes. So W&F and CL are still part of Cumbria, not their own counties. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
@DragonofBatley: Yes Cumbria still exists but only as a ceremonial county. "Cumberland" and "Westmorland and Furness" are non-metropolitan counties but not ceremonial counties. The order states "A new non-metropolitan county and a new non-metropolitan district, each to be known as Cumberland, are constituted comprising (in each case) the area of the Cumberland districts" and "A new non-metropolitan county and a new non-metropolitan district, each to be known as Westmorland and Furness, are constituted comprising (in each case) the area of the Westmorland and Furness districts". Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
On the subject of these sorts of counties, is our interpretation of Berkshire correct? The article implies it's unique in being a non-metropolitan county without a county council, but it seems that this is the case for many unitary authorities. This is why I think tightening up the language might be useful, even if it's wordier. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
As I understand it, outside of Berkshire every unitary authority has both a non-metropolitan county and a non-metropolitan district which legally are two separate entities with the same name and the same boundaries.
  • In some of those, the county has no council and the district council has the powers as if it were a county council.
  • And in all the others, the district has no council and the county council has the powers as if it were a district council.
But those are legal technicalities and in practice it make no difference at all which type of unitary authority it is. I would suggest we can keep things simpler and simply say that a unitary authority area is a single entity that is both a non-metropolitan county and a non-metropolitan district with a single council that is simultaneously a county council and a district council. That's not exactly correct in the pedantic terms of the legislation but it's a good enough approximation and reflects what actually happens in the real world.
The royal county of Berkshire is the exception where Berkshire continues as a non-metropolitan county, without a county council, and the unitary authorities within it are districts only, whose councils have the powers as if they were county councils. (In this respect, Berkshire resembles the metropolitan counties and London.)
It's all rather complicated. The system originally introduced in 1974 was simple and logical, but subsequent changes keep adding more complexity.  Dr Greg  talk  23:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
@Dr Greg Thanks for that clear explanation of a messy situation! PamD 12:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Indeed Berkshire is an exception which means its like metropolitan boroughs and London boroughs but otherwise all have similar functions. Indeed some are mainly districts like Telford and Wrekin meaning the district has county powers while Shropshire is mainly a county council but has district powers. Some unitary authorities are also concurrent with (single) unparished areas namely Blackpool, Bristol, Derby, Kingston upon Hull, Leicester, Luton, Portsmouth, Reading and Southampton meaning they effectively cover all levels as opposed to the likes of West Northamptonshire which is completely parished. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Oh, I see! Berkshire is unique because each district isn't also county, in contrast to other unitay authorities. I agree that we don't need to differentiate between district-council-unitarities and county-council-unitaries, I just wish the government would be consistent for once. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
I think I have only ever seen the phrase "non-metropolitan" in Wikipedia, and then mainly in discussions like this. It is not relevant to most readers. JonH (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Any article involving an English county needs to differentiate between the various types. Britannica calls them 'administrative counties', Parliament and the Local Government Association use 'two tier', and the BBC refers to county and district councils separately. Wikipedia uses 'metropolitan county', which is the name used in legislation. The term won't be relevant to all readers, but it will help those who want to know what type of council governs an area and helps maintain precision. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
A quick search shows the ONS uses non-metropolitan (Counties, non-metropolitan districts and unitary authorities) and so have the LGA (The future of non-metropolitan England), the BBC (The baffling map of England's counties) and the UK government (The English Non-Metropolitan Districts (Names) Order 1973). But yes, it's disturbing when the first hits in a search are all Wikipedia![1] NebY (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Geographical detail in lead

What administrative units should be included in the lead for places in England? My understanding is that in general as would likely be appropriate for other parts of the world is locality, parish/unparished area, district, county, England. For example Draft:Plaish Hall has "Plaish Hall is a country house in Plaish, in the civil parish of Cardington, in the Shropshire district, in the ceremonial county of Shropshire, England". With Stockingford User:G-13114 removed such information with the reason "too much detail, and district is covered in infobox". I don't particularly agree though I understand the point. My understanding of things that don't generally need to be in the lead though may be in the infobox or governance section include things like parliament constituencies, wards, regions, postcode districts and dial codes, see WP:UKNOWGOV.

For unparished areas concurrent with districts (meaning they have little or no changes in 1974 and haven't had any parishes formed) I'd say its not necessary to mention the unparished area and just go straight to the district for example with Clifton, Nottinghamshire we would probably say "Clifton is a village in the Nottingham district, in the ceremonial county of Nottinghamshire, England" instead of "Clifton is a village in the unparished area of Nottingham, in the Nottingham district, in the ceremonial county of Nottinghamshire, England" such districts (ignoring London) are Blackpool, Bristol, Derby, Eastbourne, Epsom and Ewell, Fareham, Gosport, Hastings, Harlow, Havant (unparished area being "Havant and Waterloo"), Ipswich, Kingston upon Hull, Leicester, Lincoln, Liverpool, Luton, Portsmouth, Reading, Southampton, Stoke-on-Trent, Tamworth, Watford, Woking and Worthing.

Similarly for districts concurrent with (ceremonial) counties namely Bristol, Herefordshire, Isle of Wight, Northumberland and Rutland there isn't a need to mention the district like with Ryal, Northumberland we can use "Ryal is a village and former civil parish, now in the parish of Matfen, in the county of Northumberland, England".

When it comes down to larger urban areas should we encourage the ward to be mentioned especially in the likes of Bristol which is both an unparished area, unitary district and ceremonial county and it seems that with Bristol the wards have often been used to merge like Bedminster Down in a similar way to how we merge places in parishes.

There are generally 3 options:

  • Expanded namely "Plaish Hall is a country house in Plaish, in the civil parish of Cardington, in the Shropshire district, in the ceremonial county of Shropshire, England"
  • Compacted namely "Plaish Hall is a country house in Plaish, Cardington, Shropshire, England" where the class of unit isn't mentioned and the 2nd Shropshire is removed due to having the same name. This is normally the format used at Wikidata.
  • Short namely "Plaish Hall is a country in Plaish, Shropshire, England" or "Plaish Hall is a country house in Shropshire, England".

I'd say the 1st option should be used with settlements, parishes and other divisions like wards, the 3rd may be appropriate for other types of places like schools or when stating something in another type of article such as saying Thomas Gainsborough is from Sudbury, Suffolk, England. Thoughts? Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The relevant guideline here is MOS:FIRST which I think is pretty self explanatory; namely, including these details in the lead is fine (and indeed encouraged) but they don't need to all be in the opening sentence. All the first sentence needs to do is say what the subject is (e.g. country house) and roughly where it is, in terms a non-specialist reader would understand.
Now, I know roughly where the county of Shropshire is but, not being from the area, I've no clue which bit of Shropshire the district of the same name is in, nor where Plaish or Cardington is. So telling me Plaish Hall is in Plaish, Cardington or the district of Shropshire don't help me at all, those things don't mean anything to me as a non-specialist reader. So I would argue the opening sentence should simply be "Plaish Hall is a country house in Shopshire", with the other details following later in the lead.
Now, although I don't know Shropshire at all, most readers do understand the concept of a listed building. So actually I think the first sentence in that case should be "Plaish Hall is a grade 1 listed building in Shropshire."
Personally I think Shropshire is well known enough that we don't need to specify it's in England. If people need to find out more, they can click on the wikilink. But, being from England myself, I might think English counties are more well known than they really are. WaggersTALK 11:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Waggers. I'm open minded about how much detail to include in the lead, but the very first sentence should be quite short. But I do think England (or United Kingdom) should be included, as Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopaedia, and I would think many of our readers outside the UK may have never heard of Shropshire. So I think "Plaish Hall is a grade 1 listed building in Shropshire, England" would be good.  Dr Greg  talk  11:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Dr Greg - "Plaish Hall is a grade 1 listed building in Shropshire, England" would be a good first sentence. Lower levels of administration/geographical precision are usually only going to be appropriate for the first sentence when they are directly relevant to the subject's notability (and not always then). Whether ceremonial county or modern administrative area is more appropriate will depend on context, but it is likely to be the former more often. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
I think "Plaish Hall is a grade 1 listed country house in Shropshire, England", might be better: from the name "Plaish Hall" it could be the village hall or something like the Royal Albert Hall. Agree that we don't need layers of locality information in the lead sentence other than for locations (and not always even then). PamD 13:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Good point. "Grade 1 listed building" isn't quite enough, we ought to very briefly describe what sort of building it is, in this case "country house".  Dr Greg  talk  14:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
I would at least still mention the locality namely Plaish. That point is normally going to be relevant even though the hamlet doesn't yet have a separate article. The 2nd sentence mentions its listing so I'm not sure it needs to be mentioned in the 1st but just stating "Grade 1 listed country house" may be better and just remove the 2nd sentence. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Agree with Waggers and various others above. The first sentence should literally define the thing, and reference what makes it notable (if anything). Be it a town, a house, a bridge with a summary location to differentiate it from places that may be similarly named. If we're getting into districts, administrative, ceremonial info within the first 8 or 9 words we're being incredibly confusing. For example the minimum of a location should be "London is a city in England", expanded this may be "London is a city in England and the Capital city of the United Kingdom", more info may be "London is the largest city in England and the Capital city of the United Kingdom" (I know the wording doesn't match our current article and this is intentional).
Proposal 1 is incomprehensibly dense for the first sentence. Koncorde (talk) 10:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
As far as Stockingford is concerned I'm in agreement with G-13114. Inclusion of the local govt. district in the first sentence makes it unwieldy. Information in the Infobox is sufficient and if there's a local government section it should be included there. This would generally apply to any suburb of a larger town, but there could be exceptions. Not sure it's necessary to have hard and fast rules - in fact could be detrimental. Rupples (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Agree with suburbs the district or unparished area may be less relevant but isn't it still relevant enough to be included in the lead as long as other things like postcode districts aren't included? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Here's a slightly different case for consideration - Marsh Farm. Defined as a suburb of Luton. For me, that's sufficient and being "in the Borough of Luton" is better noted in the Marsh Farm#politics section along with the name of the ward(s) the suburb falls within. Rupples (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Is its location the most important thing about Plaish Hall, such that it needs to be given at once in drilled-down detail? I'd hope we have significant reasons for having an article on it; we should prioritise them. Compare Great Pyramid of Giza, Parthenon, Palace of Westminster, Buckingham Palace. NebY (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Unitary county councils: separate articles or not?

Although this is technically outside the scope of the project, as we're very familiar with the counties it seemed a sensible place to raise the issue.

I'd like to discuss how we treat the articles of councils when a two-tier non-metropolitan county becomes a unitary authority. The current practice is mostly to have two articles, one for the the non-metropolitan county council and one for the unitary authority council; the exceptions are County Durham and Northumberland, which treat the unitary authority council as a continuation of the non-metropolitan county council. The question is which approach is correct.

The restructure of local government in each county was made through 'structural changes' orders, which I've linked below. This legislation mostly supports the County Durham/Northumberland approach, primarily because it explicitly abolishes a given county's district councils but not the county council. The orders for North Yorkshire and County Durham also have attached explanatory memorandums which make it clear that their county councils continued to exist and became the councils for the new unitary authorities: 'North Yorkshire County Council will become the sole principal authority for North Yorkshire from 1 April 2023, being known as North Yorkshire Council.' [source]

This wording can be contrasted with the order that restructured Buckinghamshire, which explicitly abolished the county council and where the explanatory memorandum states 'Buckinghamshire County Council and the four district councils [...] are to be wound up and dissolved. They will be replaced by a single unitary council called Buckinghamshire Council.' This suggests that where an order doesn't mention the abolition of a county council it continued to exist.

Other government documents also make it clear that these unitary authority councils are direct continuations of the two-tier councils; the explanatory note issued when Cumbria, North Yorkshire, and Somerset were reorganised characterises both North Yorkshire Council and Somerset Council as 'continuing authorities', defining this as 'the body corporate of the existing county council with a new name and new membership.' Cumbria's new unitary authorities are not described as continuing authorities. This document does also call the bodies in North Yorkshire and Somerset 'new unitary councils', but it seems reasonable to read this as 'council which is newly unitary' rather than 'a brand new council'.

The upshot of all this is that I believe we should treat unitary councils which are continuing authorities (to use the government term) as direct continuations of the two-tier county councils. This means having a single article for each council which explains the change from two-tier to unitary. We're used to this — just look at the many articles on metropolitan boroughs which explain the abolition of their parent metropolitan county councils, or Lancashire's extraordinarily complex administrative history.

List of affected articles (hopefully complete):

A.D.Hope (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

My view is that unitaries should be treated as a continuation of the county council if they cover the same geographical area. While technically they are separate legal institutions, in reality they are usually effectively continuations of the county councils, with some new responsibilities added (basically absorbing the district councils). It's not really of any help for readers to have two separate articles when the history of the organisation(s) can be covered in one. Cheers, Number 57 20:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, that's just my point— technically these specific councils aren't separate institutions, but continuations of the non-metropolitan county councils. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, sorry if I was unclear, I was pretty much agreeing with your point. Number 57 12:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree that if the unitary council covers the same area as the county council then they should be treated as a continuation of the other and two articles isnt necessary. Eopsid (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) 6 more namely Bristol City Council (The Avon (Structural Change) Order 1995) Buckinghamshire County Council and Buckinghamshire Council (The Buckinghamshire (Structural Changes) Order 2019, Dorset County Council and Dorset Council (UK) The Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole (Structural Changes) Order 2018, East Riding County Council and East Riding of Yorkshire Council (The Humberside (Structural Change) Order 1995), Herefordshire County Council and Herefordshire Council (The Hereford and Worcester (Structural, Boundary and Electoral Changes) Order 1996, Rutland County Council (The Leicestershire (City of Leicester and District of Rutland) (Structural Change) Order 1996). Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for this. You've raised a good point, which is that not all similarly-named councils are legally related. If I can go through your list:
  • City of Bristol was newly-created in 1996, not a continuation of Avon County Council or a the old county corporate.
  • Buckinghamshire Council isn't a continuation of Buckinghamshire County Council, which the relevant order explicitly abolishes.
  • Dorset Council isn't a continuation of Dorset County Council, which the relevant order explicitly abolishes.
  • East Riding of Yorkshire Council isn't a continuation of East Riding County Council, it was newly-created in 1996 from parts of Humberside.
  • Herefordshire Council isn't a continuation of Herefordshire County Council, it was newly-created in 1996 from part of Hereford and Worcester.
  • Rutland County Council (1997-) isn't a continuation of Rutland County Council (1889-1972), it was newly-created in 1997 from Leicestershire.
Rutland in particular is an interesting case, as although the two county councils share a name the new one definitely isn't a legal continuation of the old one. Whether they should share an article is debatable. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
@A.D.Hope: The point I was making was similar to that of Harrow and Blackpool in that if a council replaced the same area as a previous ones and had similar functions (2 tier county council v unitary authority) then we should probably have 1 article and note the changes in name and any specified asbolishments and reformations. In other words I am going a step further than you're proposal to only have 1 article if the legislation renamed rather than abolished a "previous" council. I'm also going further to say this should apply even if there was a period of time in which it didn't exist as all as long as the boundaries were the same. Similarly if a new council is formed with exactly the same name but with different boundaries such as Cambridgeshire County Council that existed until 1965 and later it was formed covering a larger area in 1974. As to you're points:
  • Bristol City Council, the area of the county borough was the same as Bristol, the district of Avon as both Bath and Bristol districts survived the 1974 reforms but lost their "unitary status". The other 4 Avon districts were formed through merges. Bristol and Woodspring survived the 1996 reforms and regained/gained unitary status while the other 4 districts were abolished though Bath got a charter trustees. Woodspring was renamed North Somerset. Unitary authorities with city status don't appear to generally drop "City" from their name unlike those with only borough status. The pre-1974 Bristol county borough council, 1974-1996 2 tier NMD council and 1996-present council can all be covered in 1 article namely Bristol City Council.
  • Buckinghamshire Council just like North Yorkshire Council replaces the same area as the "former" county council. Reading both orders I can't see a difference between them, I looked as the points about councillors but I can't make out differences. The only difference seems to be the the Bucks order specifies the county council was abolished while the NY one specifies it was renamed. This can be explained in 1 article. Per WP:NOPAGE and WP:OVERLAP. Even if they aren't exactly the same at the very least their similar.
  • Dorset Council does cover a different area to Dorset County Council namely the loss of Christchurch district which is why I said I'd hesitate about merging it though I'd still be fine with merging.
  • The difference between the pre 1974 East Riding County Council and post 1996 East Riding of Yorkshire Council is the borough and rural district of Goole. I'd be more hesitant about merging than Dorset but probably still fine.
  • As far as I can tell the pre 1974 Herefordshire County council and post 1998 Herefordshire Council cover the same area so should like Buckinghamshire be covered in 1 article.
  • Rutland County Council became a unitary authority in 1997 which was a continuation of the district council (the order doesn't even mention anything being abolished) covering the same area of which the district council from 1974-1997 is a continuation of the pre 1974 county council which again covers the same area. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
What you're proposing is a shift from articles about specific councils to articles about the history of local government in an area. To use Herefordshire as an example, the current structure can't accommodate Herefordshire County Council and Herefordshire Council in a single article as they're separate legal entities. It can accommodate North Yorkshire County Council and North Yorkshire Council in a single article, because legally they're the same corporate body under two names.
I don't think we need to make this shift, because the history of each county's local government should be covered at its main article. East Riding of Yorkshire, for example, explains the area's administrative history and links to Yorkshire, East Riding County Council, Humberside, and East Riding of Yorkshire Council. This seems like a logical way to organise things. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
@A.D.Hope: A single article can cover 2 slightly different councils with the same boundaries like Rutland County Council just like it can cover 2 councils with the same name but covering slightly different areas like Cambridgeshire County Council. I'm not aware of any precedents for the 1st cases but WP:NOPAGE and WP:OVERLAP seems to support this. Yes Dorset and East Yorkshire should probably be left out but I don't see why but Buckinghamshire and Herefordshire Councils couldn't be covered in a single article even if technically different corporate bodies. Splitting hairs about if a council was simply renamed or abolished and reformed doesn't seem helpful here. Consider St Michael Rural/St Michael, Hertfordshire for example the old name may have been an abolishment and reformation with slightly different boundaries and a different name or it may have been a rename at the same time as minor boundary changes. Even though we maybe should have an article on the old parish it may not be different enough to. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it is splitting hairs when two councils are distinct corporate bodies. In the case of Rutland or Herefordshire, for example, 23/24 years elapsed between the abolition of their original county councils and the establishment of their new unitary councils. They have similar names and cover more or less the same areas, but are otherwise as distinct as Lancashire County Council and Norfolk County Council.
If the main county articles didn't already cover the general administrative development of the counties I'd be inclined to agree with you about mergers, but under the current structure I don't see much issue with individual 'sub-articles' about the various councils which have governed a county. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
The Dorset council one did include a boundary change with Christchurch being incorporated into BCP instead of the new Dorset council. Buckinghamshire didnt have a boundary change though (unrelated rant: but I really think it should have been divided into two and this whole re-orgonisation of local government into larger councils weakens democracy). Eopsid (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
... and when, in April 1997, the head of Bucks was cut off to create the Milton Keynes UA, Buckinghamshire County Council retained the name despite a significant reduction in area. Compare with Bedfordshire where honesty prevailed. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)
That's way beyond my competence! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)
Not just UAs. See Reading, Berkshire. Need to reread the rule. Later. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
@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)
@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)

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)


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)

Oh wow. It looks like poor (but much respected) @DragonofBatley is up against it. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
Given the contention - use TALK - before making changes - lol. Exnihilox (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
@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)
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)
Oops - found the little tab - but thanks! Exnihilox (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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[2]
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)
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)


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)

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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
WP:ENGPLACE may be of use? Rcsprinter123 (confer) 09:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography/Archive_29&oldid=1167652431"