![]() |
---|
Redirects for discussion
Good article nominees
Featured article reviews Articles to be merged
Articles to be split
|
Did you know? articlesSiddington, Gloucestershire (2022-03-28) • Marsden Rock (2022-02-04) • Looe Bridge (2022-01-18) Reached maximum of 3 out of 290 Featured picturesIn the News articlesLiverpool Maritime Mercantile City (2021-07-22) • 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods (2009-11-21) • February 2009 Great Britain and Ireland snowfall (2009-02-06) Main page featured articlesBrownhills (2022-03-03) • Abberton Reservoir (2021-09-05) • Shaw and Crompton (2021-08-15) Reached maximum of 3 out of 69 Main page featured listsList of freshwater islands in Scotland (2020-04-24) • Scheduled monuments in Taunton Deane (2018-10-26) • List of civil parishes in Somerset (2017-02-20) Reached maximum of 3 out of 4 Picture of the day pictures |
Archives
- /Archive 1 – 2005
- /UK or home nations in introductions – August 2006
- /Archive 2 – 2006 – Feb 2007
- /Archive 3 – Feb 2007 – Oct 2007
- /Archive 4 – Oct 2007 – Feb 2008
- /Archive 5 – Feb 2008 – March 2008
- /Archive 6 – March 2008 – June 2008
- /Archive 7 – June 2008 – Dec 2008
- /Archive 8 – Jan 2009 – May 2009
- /Archive 9 – June 2009 – July 2009
- /Archive 10 – August 2009 – February 2010
- /Archive 11 – March 2010 – January 2011
- /Archive 12 – January 2011 – March 2012
- /Archive 13 – April 2012 – April 2013
- /Archive 14 – May 2013 – August 2013
- /Archive 15 – August 2013 – April 2014
- /Archive 16 – April 2014 – August 2015
- /Archive 17 – August 2015 - September 2017
- /Archive 18 – December 2017 - October 2019
- /Archive 19 – October 2019 - April 2021
- /Archive 20 – April 2021 - May 2021
- /Archive 21 – May 2021 - August 2021
- /Archive 22 – August 2021 - October 2021
- /Archive 23 – August 2021 - October 2021 (Historic counties discussion)
- /Archive 24 – October 2021 - Present
- From old WikiProject UK subdivisions
Sussex and Yorkshire disambiguators
There was discussion at Talk:Houghton Hall, Yorkshire#Requested move 21 January 2022 about using "Yorkshire" and "Sussex" instead of "East Riding of Yorkshire", "North Yorkshire", "South Yorkshire", "West Yorkshire", "East Sussex" and "West Sussex" for places unique in the Yorkshire and Sussex counties. Editors pointed out that this may cause more problems (such as places never within Yorkshire but now in one of the Yorkshire counties) and goes against the longstanding consensus of not using historic counties, however editors pointed out that if unique in the Yorkshire counties or Sussex counties the shorter historic county is more concise and is sufficient if unique.
Should WP:UKPLACE be modified to allow places that require disambiguation in East Riding of Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire that are unique in all of these counties use just "Yorkshire" and those unique in East Sussex and West Sussex use just "Sussex"?
Should places in Scotland unique in East Ayrshire, North Ayrshire and South Ayrshire use just "Ayrshire", those unique in East Dunbartonshire and West Dunbartonshire use just "Dunbartonshire", those unique in East Lothian, Midlothian and West Lothian use just "Lothian", those unique in East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire use just "Renfrewshire" and those qunque in North Lanarkshire and South Lanarkshire use just "Lanarkshire"?
For example move Morley, West Yorkshire to Morley, Yorkshire etc
- A, do this for all types of places (settlements, landforms, buildings etc)
- B, do this for only certain types of places such as only landforms or only settlements (please specify)
- C, only do this for places that are in more than one of the named counties and otherwise unique in the named counties such as Barnsdale being in both South and West Yorkshire but there doesn't appear to be any other places called "Barnsdale" in any of the Yorkshire counties.
- Oppose (or D) keep things as is (though C may already be acceptable)
Note that in Scotland many landforms use "Scotland" already so as long as that's correct this wouldn't change anything there. This is not a discussion about if we use brackets or commas (such as Houghton Hall, East Riding of Yorkshire/Houghton Hall (East Riding of Yorkshire) but only what the text is in the disambiguation tag. Pinging users @Amakuru, Asukite, Eopsid, Extraordinary Writ, Facts707, JimmyGuano, Keith D, Martin of Sheffield, Mcmatter, Necrothesp, and Paine Ellsworth:. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 2,700 bytes, the statement above (from the
{{rfc}}
tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)- @Crouch, Swale: How about "
Should UK disambiguation for divided counties use "(Sussex)" or ("East Sussex"), etc?
" Or if "divided counties" is considered in some way controversial, just plain "Should UK disambiguation use "(Sussex)" or ("East Sussex"), etc?
". That title will make sense to people with enough understanding to make a useful contribution to the discussion. The "UK" limits the scope; the "etc" shows that this is an example of the broader question under discussion. PamD 08:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: How about "
Should UK disambiguation for divided counties use "(Sussex)" or ("East Sussex"), etc? For example should we use Litlington, Sussex or Litlington, East Sussex? Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Answers
- Oppose while I'm generally in favour of using more concise qualifiers if needed I think the confusion and complication this may cause isn't worth the marginal benefit of using the shorter name given the controversy of county changes in England. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I would seriously consider redrafting the question. By confining it to places unique in The County (and of course in the same way Sussex, Ayrshire, Dunbartonshire, Lothian, Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire) a point is being missed. There are some places that are not unique in The County, and therefore need to be disambiguated by East Riding of Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire as appropriate. This really is the key point, that these places need the longer term. The question then is "Should places which are unique to The County be treated differently to those which are not unique". I would suggest that this comes down to a WP:RF issue, indeed almost an Occam's razor that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". Saying that Tunstall, North Yorkshire lies within Richmond (Yorks) (UK Parliament constituency) is simply confusing to readers unaware of the history of 20C British local government reorganisations. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose This is only one issue resulting from a deeper problem of how we best handle UK counties because the current system does not work as well as it should. To make the suggested changes in the RFC will only add further confusion and not really solve anything. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Completely. There is absolutely no need to use a longer disambiguator when the shorter one will do perfectly well. The only time the longer disambiguator needs to be used is if there is more than one place with the same name within the historic county. Otherwise, Yorkshire, Sussex, Ayrshire, etc, are perfectly understandable. After all, this isn't America. We only add a county name if it's necessary for disambuation, not as a matter of course. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Invited by the bot. Good luck. I think that only about 1% of potential responders will have the specialized knowledge to even understand the question. And I'm not in the 1% :-) North8000 (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Just the point I was making about WP:RF. Readers not versed in UK geography will be confused by the multiple designations. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Echoing above, the RFC is unclear in what this hopes to resolve, what ultimate language or logic would be used. Is this RFC to ask for interest in making such a change, or proposing an actual solution to something because it seems unclear. Koncorde (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. Introduces more complexity and uncertainty than it solves. Disambiguating according to the current legal polity is straightforward and uncontroversial; yes, it's at the expense of an extra word but I don't believe anyone is going to be confused by "West Yorkshire" or "East Sussex". Also, these so-called unique placenames often aren't unique, so if we adopted the proposal, it's possible that when an article is written about the second place in Sussex or Yorkshire the title would become ambigious (though admittedly this is still a risk if there are two places with the same name in West Yorkshire, for example). Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Mild oppose - More specificity seems to be helpful when there are multiple places with the same name, and Martin of Sheffield's argument is fairly compelling as well. I don't have a particularly strong argument to add as my knowledge of UK geography as an American is limited, if slowly expanding. (For a laugh, check out Springfield, Wisconsin, I agree we could use some help with naming over here.) ASUKITE 14:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose because of the precedent any change would set in favour of historic county loyalists and potential edit wars that could bring. Yorkshire and Sussex don't currently exist as "official" entities using them in disambiguators implies they do. Eopsid (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- C - For now, do this only for things overlapping two counties. Also "East Riding of Yorkshire" really needs to be just "East Yorkshire" for these types of entries. Facts707 (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- But Facts707, East Yorkshire isn't the name of that county, and we shouldn't be inventing a new one for our convenience. Rcsprinter123 (prattle) 14:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- East Sussex Can't make heads nor tails of the oppose or support above, but the disambiguation should disambiguate to the current geography, as many readers will be unfamiliar with the history. Length is not an issue here, but clarity is. SportingFlyer T·C 00:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Disagreement on Christchurch article re:settlement definition
There is a dispute at the article for Christchurch, Dorset over whether, how, and in how much detail, the article should cover Bournemouth Airport -- a major employer which was in the now defunct borough of Christchurch, but some distance outside the built-up area in a neighbouring parish. This is essentially a difference of opinion on how to handle the ambiguity around defining settlements. If you think you can help resolve this, join the discussion at Talk:Christchurch,_Dorset#Bournemouth_airport. Thanks, Joe D (t)
Requested move at Talk:Craigie, Perth and Kinross#Requested move 23 March 2022
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Craigie, Perth and Kinross#Requested move 23 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 07:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Histon and Impington
I'm currently in the process of splitting this article to Impington after this is done the article should be moved back to Histon. The BUASD which covers both settlements is called "Histon" so that article would cover the BUASD as well as "Histon" parish. Input on what should remain in the "Histon" article after splitting would be helpful. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Disclaimer: I have no special knowledge of Histon and Impington, except what I have just read in the article, on the parish council website, and on Google Maps. But this seems to be a similar situation to that of Leighton Buzzard and Linslade. It seems that there is now just one settlement, with a joint parish council. They describe it as "a cohesive, single community" and they say that the parishes "are regarded as a single settlement for planning purposes".[1]. If the ONS call it "Histon" you seem to have a good plan. I would limit the "Impington" article to history from the time when people knew which village they were in (such as the church) and to things that indicate they are part of Impington (such as the village college). Everything else I would put in "Histon". I would ignore postal addresses showing places that are technically in Impington (such as those for Histon F.C., Histon police station, and the International Whaling Commission). JonH (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I support a split. I dont think you need to use the BUASD at all. BUASDs should only be used if there is no alternative measure for a settlement. Histon and Impington are seperate parishes and data for the individual villages is easy to come by. Links to the NOMIS pages on the parishes: https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/localarea?compare=E04001806 https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/localarea?compare=E04010465. I see reading the article that there is a parish council website for a combined parish. But I cant find any info on when it was merged or if its two parishes with one council. Eopsid (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've added a split notice to the article which links to this discussion Eopsid (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've started a draft at Impington. The Impington article should deal with things just for "Impington" while "Histon" can deal with that "individual" settlement as well as "Histon" BUASD. As the user who proposed merging them noted they are joined together. While merging them was inappropriate we can still use general facts for both places for the "Histon" article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
FAR for Stretford
I have nominated Stretford 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. (t · c) buidhe 11:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Splitting the York, East Riding of Yorkshire, Slough and Newcastle upon Tyne articles
I think each of these articles have plenty of grounds to split as the city of York covers a larger area including the town of Haxby and larger villages, the east riding of Yorkshire should have a district article to cover the unitary authority and maybe merge the council into it so we have two...one for the unitary and one for the ceremonial county as the district doesn't include Hull but the ceremonial county does.
The Slough article could have its own borough as it has a notable built up area and includes larger villages and the town of Langley. Also the Newcastle upon Tyne article has many notable areas such as Jesmond, Gosforth and other areas...like we have the city of Sunderland, we could have one for Newcastle upon Tyne...
I would say the best ones for article splits are East Riding of Yorkshire and Slough but the cities could as York has some notable settlements too and Newcastle upon Tyne... Thoughts?
DragonofBatley (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think of the three, York is the most worthy of a split. Then Newcastle then Slough. The Slough borough is almost entirely urban, and Slough's built up area extends beyond the borough boundaries. The only thing I can find in favour for splitting is that Slough borough contains three parishes: Britwell, Wexham Court and Colnbrook with Poyle. I would support a split in York's case, for Newcastle I would be neutral, and for Slough I would oppose a split. I also agree with your split on the East Riding of Yorkshire, I think every unitary authority area which shares a name with a ceremonial county but doesnt occupy the same area deserves its own article. Eopsid (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'd agree with Eopsid in that York and the East Riding of Yorkshire should be split. I'm less sure (but weakly support) Newcastle upon Tyne and Slough. Newcastle fails all of my tests at User:Crouch, Swale/District split other than being unquestionably larger than the settlement, the problem with this is that it can get confusing if we say the settlement is in the district yet the settlement may be considered to includes places like Gateshead, that said I still weakly support splitting. Slough is even more difficult but at least it has 1 (or 3) parishes and has recent boundaries? Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- I would disagree with splitting of the articles as it just creates significant duplication and people putting wrong information into the incorrect article. With the East Riding of Yorkshire it was created as a single article to cover all manifestations or you would end up with several articles covering different periods of time with loads of overlap. There would be another one when they get the devolution thing sorted out. Keith D (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'd agree with Eopsid in that York and the East Riding of Yorkshire should be split. I'm less sure (but weakly support) Newcastle upon Tyne and Slough. Newcastle fails all of my tests at User:Crouch, Swale/District split other than being unquestionably larger than the settlement, the problem with this is that it can get confusing if we say the settlement is in the district yet the settlement may be considered to includes places like Gateshead, that said I still weakly support splitting. Slough is even more difficult but at least it has 1 (or 3) parishes and has recent boundaries? Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
How to write about districts
Should the 3rd criteria on Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about districts be removed because it links to an article that was deleted, then created as a redirect to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom. Or changed to: The built-up area population is roughly the same, or larger than the district. Then it would better match what its linking to. Eopsid (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think we should consider both BUASD and BUA. If the BUA is larger than the district this points to not splitting even if the BUASD is smaller, for example Chesterfield district is 103,788, Chesterfield BUASD is 88,483 but Chesterfield BUA is 113,057. There are 3 points, (1) if the BUASD of the same name as the district is roughly the same or larger this indicator suggests not splitting, (2) if the BUA of the same name is larger than the district (even if the BUASD is smaller) this also points towards not splitting or (3) the BUA of a different name to the district is commonly seen as being the settlement area this may suggest not splitting, an example (like the Newcastle example in the section above) is Manchester since the Greater Manchester Built-up Area is commonly used as for defining the settlement of Manchester. I'd consider rewording it to say BUASD or BUA but keep the link as it may be useful to those unfamiliar. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Leeds and Bradford infoboxes
For some reason Leeds and Bradford still use the infobox for districts even though the districts have separate articles, all such as Wakefield other than Sheffield (that was recently split) use the standard Infobox UK place rather than one for districts, I made this edit to Bradford but it was reverted by User:DragonofBatley. I suggest using the BUASD population figures. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
@Crouch, Swale:, the reason I reverted wasn't because you made the changes to the buas it's because you changed my new recent montage of Bradford lead photo to the older and more crammed one...if you made those changes then why did you touch the main lead photo? It was Bradfords older photo and I made a new one which had a better photo of the town hall and cathedral etc then that last crammed one...by all means rechange it back to your edit but please may I ask you leave the new photo added alone? Thanks DragonofBatley (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- @DragonofBatley: I've made the change to Bradford again but kept the 2021 montage, I have also done this with Leeds. Both infoboxes could benefit from more information added but with Leeds I didn't keep it as the information was apparently for the district. If someone makes an edit but there is a small problem with the edit (in this case using an older image when a newer one exists) you generally should just make the fix to the problem rather than reverting the entire edit. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
- John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)
and turns it into something like
- John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Foul End - Merger into Hurley?
I think this article which uses a lot of already existing sources for Hurley should be merged into that article as there is no real village centre for Foul End and it be better placed alongside Hurley for mention which is in the Kingsbury Parish of North Warwickshire. It also uses a lot of none-reliable articles using school websites, Ofsted reports and a ward profile which it has no mention under.
I propose a merger of this into Hurley article which has more stead then this one.
DragonofBatley (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- I suggest following this guide Wikipedia:Merging and adding a merge proposal to those pages. Youre more likely to find people interested in the subject there than on the overall UK geography discussion. I would probably support a merger for the reasons you have already listed. Eopsid (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Infobox UK District
Should they be a district infobox made from parts of the UK place and the county infoboxes. This will enable UK place to be shorter (no police etc) and able to have room to add other fields. 80.6.150.53 (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- It was merged with {{Infobox settlement}} in 2010, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 April 1#Template:Infobox UK district. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think it should be revisited after 11y&1m. Police and fire services are tied to the district rather than just the places, the auto fill would be better on the district/borough/city articles. Statistics also tend to be for the district on the bigger places’ articles which are also be better on just the district articles because they is statistics for the specific places available by NOMIS.
- By the way the first message was me. Chocolateediter (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- That would probably standardise UK infoboxes on one format and is a good idea to revisit. Keith D (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Keith D and Chocolateediter: Perhaps similar to the discussion about the parish infobox at User talk:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes#Infobox we should revisit the 2010/2011 discussions at Wikipedia:Deletion review. I have no strong opinion either way but if you 2 think we should have them again I'd be happy either way. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale and Chocolateediter: I was going to modify {{infobox UK place}} for that but did not get round to it. Should probably do both for consistency. Keith D (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)