Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Infobox uniformity

What do we think about these tiers of Infobox settlement in English districts?

I'm open minded, but would like to get uniformity. Most local government districts don't use them, whilst this also means they look more like the settlement articles that use UKPLACE. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Me personally, I prefer them. Articles such as Birmingham, Nottingham etc use them. For me, the advantages are (1) it sets them apart from the UKPLACE articles, which is particularly helpful for settlements that have both a ukplace article and a district article. (2) They look prettier :-) (3) they add clarfication, because they give the official name, and metropolitan status - again, clearly pointing out the article is about a met district, not a settlement. Razorlax (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is good on Leeds. I think there should be a mention of unitary authorities. Plymouth is such an example as it is called "City of Plymouth", however the article discusses the unitary as a whole. I know next to nothing about official names... are cities supposed to have "City of x" as their official name or "Unitary authority of x"? Jolly Ω Janner 01:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Manchester, City of Salford, Liverpool, and most local government districts do not use these.

I'm also concerned about an uprising in confusion about settlements and districts - we have had a long standing trade-off with regards to places with the same name as their districts and we need to put that to rest too. I.e. Carlisle and City of Carlise. Carlisle is a place, which no longer has city status, and lies within the City of Carlisle.

If the introduction of these tiers of infobox formatting can help combat the confusion here, so we stop calling Bradford a city (which it isn't), then I would be willing to support the change. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have long thought that the "City of X" way of naming certain articles is confusing and misleading, resulting in periodic spasms of drama, as some of us know too well. To my mind a solution of the form "X (unitary authority)", "X (metropolitan district)", or just "X" would be preferable. In the case of "City of X" there are a number of civil parishes whose parish-level councils are city councils, and yet they are not named "City of X", but some may have redirects that do use the "City of X" form, and to use the "City of X" form confuse them with the unitary authority or district authority level councils which do. Given the haphazard way in which different kinds of bodies are awarded the city status by the Chancellor's office, it would seem better to try to avoid the problems this brings about by clarifying who or what is the status-bearer for the city in the text when city status is first mentioned. List of cities in the United Kingdom, particularly using the last column of the table, would need careful consideration.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that IF there really is that much ill feeling about this issue, we could try a different approach. That is to say, have the following:

• Salford becomes a disabiguation page.
• Salford moves to Salford, Greater Manchester
• City of Salford stays the same.

This way, primacy for which is "the city" is nullified. For example, people searching for the two Bradfords would be met by a dab page which clarifies which is which (so Bradford would move to Bradford, West Yorkshire).

Not perfect, but could go some way to removing this idea of which is "the one" readers are looking for. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What about Bradford (an article about the city and metropolitan borough), and Bradford (settlement). It is important to remember that when ONS are not specifically referring to urban areas, and not specifically referring to local authority districts, ONS (like every one else except wiki) refer to the word "Bradford" as a city (and met borough), *not* "the urban core of the wider City of Bradford", (an unsourced concept that only exists as wiki synthesis and OR). If there is an insistance on seperating such places into two seperate articles, one about the settlement, and one the district, that is fine, but the article names need to reflect the content. Addressing this would instantly put an end to the consistent and relentless reverting of these dual-page articles by all and sundry. Any thoughts on this? Razorlax (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a simillar kind of suggestion to what I had in mind, which has a simillar output, but I think the disamibiguation is ugly, and it's out of sync with WP:SETTLEMENTS guideline. I can't say I agree with your interpretation on Bradford and WP:OR (for example, Rochdale is a town in district called Rochdale - same applies to Bradford, whose local authority even disabiguate the two), but let's put that to one side (!).

I want to find a solution that is workable for the whole of England, not just the one or two awkward cities in northern England. So, this system of dabbing to county would also apply to places in districts and boroughs were primacy was disputed. City of Lancaster and Lancaster, Lancashire is one (admittedly awkward) example of this. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My suggestion would help solve the problem: by separating out the administrative areas from the settlements more cleanly, and naming the specific articles using the administraive area as a disambiguator where required. So, in the case of Bradford, we would have articles named Bradford (Metropolitan borough) and Bradford (settlement) with Bradford used as a disambiguator as a baseline set of naming conventions. I don't like the use of "(settlement)" as a disambiguator, but wonder what else could be used specifically for it. Discussions would lead to a set of decisions about what goes in what article. In particular, I think any use of "City of..." in the title should always be avoided, as it leads to drama, is not necessary, and avoids mixing up and confusing the different tiers of local government authorities and charter trustees who are the bearers of the letters patent for the city status.

Similar, though not identical, issues can arise at solely the civil parish level where one has a civil parish with a name which is the same as the name of just one of the settlements it contains, and it is the entanglement of the administrative areas and its hierarchy with the notion of settlements that brings such issues into existence. The piecemeal development of different articles in a somwhat uncontrolled way as happens on wikipedia, means that consistency of approach can be harder to achieve as a further result.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

To touch upon what you have both said, I too think disambiguation is ugly. My suggestion was actually to not have one. The word "Bradford" on its own is verifiable to only mean the city of bradford (remember, even ONS say the word "Bradford" means the city of bradford, not a subdvision). Therefore, when a user types in "Bradford", it would would lead straight to the article Bradford (the City and metropolitan borough). Underneath this would be an other uses statement like that found on manchester. It would state:

• This article is about the City of Bradford district in England. For the settlement that lies at the heart of the district, see Bradford (settlement)

With regards to Rochdale, I agree with you, and the same verifiable rule would follow. "Rochdale" is widely interpreted and accepted as meaning the town, not the borough, and so naturally Rochdale would lead directly to the town, with the following at the start of the article:

• This article is about the town of Rochdale in Greater Manchester. For Rochdale Borough, the larger local government district, see [[Rochdale Metropolitan Borough)] --Razorlax (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

We need to be careful here that we don't end up with a policy for England that conflicts with the international policy or, indeed, the policy for other parts of the United Kingdom. If that conflict occurs we solve nothing, as many users will not be aware of a UK policy and will continue to edit according to the international policy guidelines.

I see difficulties with Razorlax's suggestion. I am not sure that the statement "Rochdale" is widely interpreted and accepted as meaning the town, not the borough is true. Many of those who consult Wikipedia won't initially know that there is a difference and probably don't even care. But the main problem is that if some primary links lead to the district and other primary links lead to the settlement you have a recipe for confusion and endless wrangling among editors.

On balance I think Jza84's suggestion is probably the best, where the disambigulation page would look something like :-

Salford can mean :-

Salford, Greater Manchester, a town in the City of Salford, in Greater Manchester, England.

City of Salford, a local government district in Greater Manchester, England.

Skinsmoke (talk) 09:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I could accept Jza84's solution, but would prefer the City of Salford and all other similar entities to be named something like Salford Metropolitan Borough or Salford (metropolitan borough) for reasons I have given above, as it would remove further confusion and not lead to inconsistencies with the various civil parishes that are also have the status of cities.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Skinsmoke. Razorlax is right on one hand about how some agencies use names in shorthand, and even how some readers would/do interpret a "placename" to be coterminate with a district. However, at their primary source (so charters, London Gazette, trustees etc), these districts use their full, official title (i.e. City of London), and settlements would never have a ceremonial prefix. Moving on though, two examples of where this could/would apply:

• Carlisle, Cumbria
• Westminster, London

Oh, and must apologise, when I said WP:SETTLEMENTS, I meant WP:PLACE - things there have been moved around since I last visited. This system of disambiguation might not be needed for all places (where there is consensus and comfort with the existing arrangement), but might help improve our project in those cases were disagreement exists.

With regards to Salford Metropolitan Borough, it's awkward because the district is a city, and has the official title of City of Salford. One of the articles needs to be about the city, and I can confirm the arrangement in Salford/City of Salford is recognised with some affection. If we were to go down that route we might be doing ourselfs an injustice by creeping into WP:OR and confusing our readers even more. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

--P.S. Sefton, and Lancaster also use this system (so we have Sefton, Merseyside and the Metropolitan Borough of Sefton. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

On the matter of Original Research, I don't think it would be: after all, some of the terms I would prefer exist as redirects at the moment, and if it were original research, they should be deleted as such. But the terms can be sourced. Take a look at Youngs book, for example. In there all the districts currently named "City of X" are there as "X Metropolitan District" or similar with no mention of "City of X" that I could find at all. So, although I appreciate that there may be arguments why my suggestions should not be adopted, I don't think the "sin" of Original Research can be pinned on it so easily.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, on reflection. I didn't mean blantent OR, just "creeping into WP:OR". I think this method though would be analogous with other terms that can be 'verified' but still clash with official standing (so we could verifiy "Borough of Rochdale", "District of Rochdale", "Rochdale local government district", "Metropoltian District of Rochdale", but all not using the most accurate title). As stated in the inaugeral paper for 1 April 1974, "The Queen has ordained that the Borough of Salford shall have the status of a City, and henseforth be styled the City of Salford". This would be true of all districts with city status I imagine - certainly Bradford, which has the same entry. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've just quickly flicked through my copy of Youngs and can confirm that it appears that for all the ones I checked that still exist relatively unchanged, no local government authority area with the status of city is referred to as "City of X", but, rather, by the form "X District" or "X Metropolitan District", and so I would have to say that the OR claim seems unfounded, and, more to the point, one of the authoritative sources for local government areas (up to 1974) would be in agreement with my preference. I agree that we ought to try for a consistent solution, and I merely state that what I have suggested is (a) sourced, and (b) can be applied uniformly, even in cases where the status-bearers for city status are not the middle tier of local government authorities. I just think that there would be more confusion removed by sticking to the reliably sourced non-contentious naming scheme, with the city status made available (i) in the text explaining exactly on what basis it is held and by what body, and (i)) by the presence of redirects if one wishes to take into account other reliable sources that use the "City of X" form. (added later: I know what the chancellor's office states, and it isn't uniform for all cases, and I think we could do better than to perpetuate the inconsistency in approach adopted by the chancellor's office here which would lead to confusion amongst the readers. Lozleader knows more about these different wordings and so on used that lead to perculiarities, as he's written about them before.)  DDStretch  (talk) 10:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I still wouldn't be comfortable with Salford Metropolitan District. I've never come across this name, ever, and I don't think it would have much if any local value. Indeed, I think this would actually go further to upset people about the city status it holds. Users/readers already feel aggreieved at Bradford being in the City of Bradford, if we have a title that kills off city status also, I think we're setting ourselves up for a backlash.

We need a system that can be applied with some uniformity. With the decision to merge Leeds and City of Leeds made by two/three users and a small army of sock puppets against the wishes of many users, we're now seeing ideas to merge Carlisle and Bradford the same way. Next it'll be boroughs and the system (with many great articles - like the Good and good City of Salford and Salford) will collapse. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Additionally, I know a lot of other terms can be sourced as well, as in the case of Rochdale, but we don't use them all, as we discuss the matter and come up with a term that one hopes is the best reliable source, based on its reliability. In the case of equally reliable sources, one may bring into play other arguments. All I am saying is that I consider the terms as used in Youngs (certainly a very authoritative source) to be of at least equal reliability to the other sources that use "City of X", and that I believe that there are good other reasons for preferring "X District" or "X Metropolitan District" in favour of "City of X". However, I can see that I am onto a loser here. Well, you win some, you lose some, but please don't dismiss the suggestions as easily as they seem to have been done in the past when I tried to raise them, as I do think they have real merit.

For instance, if my suggestion is not going to be adopted, should we be renaming Hereford to City of Hereford, on the basis that the article is about the civil parish and the settlement, and the civil parish council is the status bearer for its city status? How about Chichester, Ely, Lichfield, Ripon, Salisbury, Truro, and Wells? None of them occupy the article name "City of X", yet presumably, they were reconfirmed by the various chancellor's offices when local government reorganisation required them to confirm their status, and they get by quite well by mentioning their city status in the opening sentences. There may be good reasons why they should not, but what are they? And if they should be renamed, would it lead to more or less confusion? We need to discuss these matters before we can see what solution would be best. The breasons why City of Leeds and Leeds were merged is actually because people are confused by the terms, and were forceful in their arguments which they pursued in a way that wore everyone else down ("argumentuum ad attrition", as I called it, parodying ssome standard terms for logical fallacies), and a simple solution to it is not to use the terms in the article title, in a way which can be certainly reliably sourced, thus leading to the major argument such individuals and sockpuppets advanced being cut away from under their feet!  DDStretch  (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that  DDStretch  (talk)'s comment about Youngs is all that relevant. As I understand it, though I don't have a copy of Youngs, city status is ignored throughout as it is distinguishing between the different types of local authority (London Borough, Metropolitan Borough, Borough, District and Civil Parish), not whether they have been accorded city status (quite why it bothers to distinguish between district and borough these days is baffling as, in real terms, there has been no difference between the two since 1974). The problem with  DDStretch  (talk)'s preferred option is that hardly anyone would refer to, for example, Metropolitan Borough of Manchester just as, prior to 1974 hardly anyone would refer to County Borough of Manchester. The usual term people use is City of Manchester and you are likely to find anything else being repeatedly changed by editors. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

At civil parish level the articles really fall into two groups. The first consists of Chichester and Lichfield where there are civil parishes and districts sharing the same name. In that case it is not unreasonable that the articles should be titled, for example, City of Chichester and District of Chichester. The second group of Ely, Hereford, Ripon, Salisbury, Truro and Wells has no conflict, being in respectively East Cambridgeshire, Herefordshire, Borough of Harrogate, Wiltshire, Cornwall and Mendip, and per Wikipedia International naming policy should appear under those simple titles. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) But we use terms all the time on wikipedia that common usage never uses. Most sources use "parish" to mean both civil and ecclesiastical parishes, even when there is a risk of confusion, and so it is clear that we make choices where it is necessary to reduce confusion. I'm not sure that is a good reason. The reason I use Youngs is that it shows us what the "value-free" terms for the administrative areas would be if we stripped them of the "City" term. I agree that we need to combat single purpose accounts and sockpuppetry which brought about the Leeds debacle, and I still think that using "city" in article name titles merely allows them to make their cases more easily, since most people do not know or care what body holds letters patent for the city status, and argue on the basis of not well-documented popular opinion often. The suggestion I put forward tries to remove that option by making use of reliably sourced information about the local government areas. However, I can see I am not likely to persuade people about this one. There is still the issue of the names of the cities whose status bearers are civil parishes that I do think needs some discussion, however.

The appeal to wikipedia principles for some of the civil parish cities doesn't seem to work, since one is also appealing to wikipedia principles to keep "City of X" in the other cases. One merely then passes the buck to which principles one chooses to emphasize. I don't think that counts as a strong argument in this case, since the same principles would argue in favour of adopting the form used when granting or reconfirming their city status.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"With the decision to merge Leeds and City of Leeds made by two/three users and a small army of sock puppets against the wishes of many users, we're now seeing ideas to merge Carlisle and Bradford the same way." Come on, be fair! Chrisieboy (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been. Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pr D Phillip, User:Blacklans, Quantpole (I think), and several other "new" accounts mysteriously seem to have stopped editting and agreeing with each other. And I counted opposition - strong opposition - from myself, Nev1, Fingerpuppet, Joshi, and (I believe) DDStretch, amongst others. Sure it's been enacted, and I've respected that, but that was the reality of how the merger came about - it was put through without any consultation to WP:ENGLAND or WP:UKGEO, or without seeking to renotify the opposition.

Fine, Leeds was a "borderline" case, but Bradford? Carlisle? Salford? These are not like Leeds. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as I now see that I am in the role of "devil's advocate", can I suggest that someone extracts the arguments we have had, above, together with the strongest rebutting responses to the alternative solutions offered (which would include my own) so that at a future time, when similar wrangles occur, we could refer to them. Is any of this useful in dealing with the arguments about Bradford and Carlisle, for example?  DDStretch  (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"The reasons why City of Leeds and Leeds were merged is actually because people are confused by the terms, and were forceful in their arguments which they pursued in a way that wore everyone else down." No, the reason why they were merged is that a consensus was formed in keeping with Wikipedia's core policies. Please do not insult our intelligence. Chrisieboy (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's move on, please.

Christieboy, I believe you wish to merge Bradford and Carlisle into "catch all" articles. OK, I can (really) understand why. But as I say, how can you assure us that we have a coherant and uniformed policy? What kinds of articles would this apply to? Just cities? Would there, for example, be any reasoning in merging say, Bolton and Metropolitan Borough of Bolton? If not, why not (I believe the two are much closely related than Carlilse and City of Carlisle you see)? Salford and City of Salford are two really great, well split and well maintained articles - how do they fit in to how you envisage the future of this issue? --Jza84 |  Talk  15:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I do. Many other UK cities manage to follow this formula. Would you separate Peterborough, for instance, from City of Peterborough? What is the difference (in your opinion) between the two and where would you put what you take out? Into articles based on urban and rural districts, abolished so long ago that nobody under 50 would recognise them?

As I have stated at City of Carlisle: where a city's boundaries have been effectively enlarged, under LGA72, the settlement article should now discuss the whole area; from my perspective, you seem to want to arbitrarily preserve in aspic the boundaries as they existed immediately prior to 1974, something of a minority view not dissimilar to that of the crackpots over at the Association of British Counties. The idea that articles should start with the absurd tautological construction "X is the principal settlement in/ a town which lies at the heart of the wider City of X metropolitan/ non-metropolitan district," reserving "City of X" for an article that should properly be located under "Local government of X" rather than it re-directing to "X" itself, is damaging to our standing as a credible reference work. Where else do you find this approach taken?

I cannot emphasise strongly enough that it is a complete fiction, based on nostalgia and original research, to claim that such "settlements" continue to exist (particularly in non-metropolitan counties) independently of the districts now holding the city status and to dismiss the latter as existing only for "local government purposes." In short, to state that a city (or borough), which is so inextricably linked to the (civic) government of a given settlement, has expanded, must be synonymous with stating the principal settlement has itself expanded, incorporating the outlying area. The Ministry of Justice, for instance, advises that notable features include: "A real community, with a distinct sense of place (i.e. more than a satellite or suburb of an existing city or large town)."

I hope this goes some way to clarifying my position. Chrisieboy (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. Well, it does clarify this, but I think there's an error or two in there. The Local Government Act 1972 categorically did not extend boundaries of cities. That's original research on your part I'm afraid (no really, try find a source!). The act may have effectively extended boundaries in some cases, but in theory and practice this wasn't what the act did. Even for places like Oldham, Rochdale, Wigan, the districts were only named in reference to former county boroughs for familliarity (indeed, Oldham nearly got renamed in 2008!). Does that mean (for example) Oldham (proper) was a settlement, became a district, then almost became a settlement again?

Secondly, I feel at pains to say that when you say settlements existing in districts is notalgia and fiction, well, my lord, what is Ashton-under-Lyne to Tameside? Milnrow to Rochdale (borough)? Aspull to Wigan (borough)? Local examples for me sorry, but really, how is Rochdale proper different to Milnrow? What part of the act merged Milnrow into Rochdale? What part of the act made Tameside a settlement as well as a district?

I'm at pains to say I think your guilty of hipocrisy when you talk about fiction. These ideas are really simple to pull apart and have enthused me personally even more now given I've seen your understanding of the LGA1972. I don't think (my emphasis) your position will have much support for these reasons. Can I suggest we look at something different than a catch all solution going forwards? --Jza84 |  Talk  18:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Your claim that districts were named only for familiarity, which needs backing up, is a red herring. I cannot, for example, envisage anywhere being named for its smallest, least important (or familiar) component. We are discussing boroughs where the name of the principal settlement has been deliberately adopted and the dignity of city and mayoralty continued in unbroken succession under the provisions of Section 245. I am perfectly well aware that on 1 April 1974 all municipal boroughs and corporations outside the capital ceased to exist and were replaced by metropolitan and non-metropolitan districts and their respective councils. Despite our differences, I would have hoped that, by now, you would have at least been aware that I do know the legislation.

Of course other areas, villages and even towns exist (and have articles), but, lets be clear, what you are advocating is that the majority of content for a given city remains in an article limited to within static pre-1974 boundaries. I'm pleased to "have enthused [you] personally even more," but why don't you answer my questions before posing your own? Are you really suggesting separate articles at Peterborough and City of Peterborough?

On a side note, I do wonder how you can reconcile your claim that Shaw and Crompton is a town, by "custom, local convention and traditional definitions", with your emphatic arguments that Bradford and Carlisle are not cities (which I concur, as you define them, they are not)? Chrisieboy (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

One further error which keeps being repeated and which I feel I ought to point out is that of the 30 English cities coterminous with a district of the same name, only nine have separate articles. These are: Bradford (where a consensus seems to be forming in favour of a merger), Canterbury, Carlisle (where I have also proposed a merger), Chichester (where the settlement article nonetheless begins "Chichester is a city..."), Durham (which has been recently abolished as a local government district), Lancaster, St. Albans (whose council use the unorthodox style "City and District"), Salford, Salisbury, Sunderland and Wakefield. Hardly a "coherent and uniform policy." Chrisieboy (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a good reason why the settlement article on Chichester begins Chichester is a city.... That is because it is. It is the civil parish which has city status. The wider district is just what it says on the can, a district - it doesn't have borough status and nor does it have city status. Lichfield is the same, and neither of them really have anything to do with this discussion. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You haven't addressed a single question or point of mine, so I'll just repeat them: What is Ashton-under-Lyne to Tameside? Milnrow to Rochdale (borough)? Aspull to Wigan (borough)? How is Rochdale proper different to Milnrow? What part of the act merged Milnrow into Rochdale? What part of the act made Tameside a settlement as well as a district? Did the settlement of Oldham become a district then almost a settlement again? How does city status change the nature of the settlements more so than borough status?

You clearly don't know your legistlation; what part of the act named the districts? Where does it say how the district names were selected? - no really, where does it say how the district names were selected? - I have a source, but I want to know where you have recieved your information from, because I suspect there is no source.

As for Shaw and Crompton being a town, well, I thought you might not want that mentioned :S --Jza84 |  Talk  16:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

--I'll give you a head start,:

• "[E]nvisage anywhere being named for its smallest, least important (or familiar) component" - try Sefton, Merseyside and the Metropolitan Borough of Sefton for an example where a borough was named after one of its smallest settlements. Tameside was chosen for its neutrality, and Kirklees for its historical significance. So envisage I certainly do. Why post that question?
• "We are discussing boroughs where the name of the principal settlement has been deliberately adopted and the dignity of city and mayoralty continued in unbroken succession under the provisions of Section 245. - so, does that stand for Sefton too? Why did Manchester have to reapply for city status? Unbroken succession for who? - where is Keighley's mayor for example? And the town of Morley's?
• "I would have hoped that, by now, you would have at least been aware that I do know the legislation." - you don't. And I distrust your every interpretation of it because you get it so wrong each time. Extentions to boundaries of cities and boroughs have to be made by extention bills; the LGA72 was a reformation of "Local Government". The Ordnance Survey seems to confirm that in the Borough of Bury, there is a settlement called Ramsbottom, and that their council's website talks about "six towns" ([1]) - why? I contest your understanding here to the full.
• "Of course other areas, villages and even towns exist (and have articles), but, lets be clear, what you are advocating is that the majority of content for a given city remains in an article limited to within static pre-1974 boundaries." - this is not what I am advocating. I am also advocating reform of how cities are dealt with, but I just disagree with your system because it's based on bad or false evidence, or outright misunderstandings. Any Ordnance Survey map confirms that Brampton is not in Carlisle, but the City of Carlisle. In most Metropoltian Boroughs, there are internal boundary markers between towns. Why?

I have answered the above to prompt you to answer my concerns. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood; those are not questions they are statements. Please read the above again and you will find that you have not addressed a single one of my questions (they are followed by a question mark). However, I am not prepared to engage with anyone who finds it difficult to remain civil. Please bear that in mind if and when responding. Chrisieboy (talk) 11:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Jza84 just said "Any Ordnance Survey map confirms that Brampton is not in Carlisle, but the City of Carlisle." I don't have a map showing Carlisle, but, unless Ordnance Survey (OS) has very recently changed its policy or treats Carlisle different to the rest of the country, I think you'll find it shows Brampton in "Carlisle District". I do have a 2005 map (OL41) of the Lancaster area, and it clearly has the word "Lancaster" right next to the urban settlement, and, in a different grey font, in the rural countryside, is the phrase "Lancaster District", showing the two entities are distinct concepts. The phrase "City of Lancaster" appears nowhere on the map. If this applies in Lancaster, it seems reasonable to assume (unless there is specific evidence to disprove it) that it applies to other cities (i.e. that the surrounding district is not the same entity as the settlement of the same name). I, personally, think we could avoid a lot of confusion by following the lead of OS, and renaming our "City of X" articles as "X District" (or "X (district)" or something similar). We can explain the technicalities of City status within the article itself and avoid having article titles that will confuse a proportion of our readers who all colloquially use the word "city" to refer to an urban settlement rather than a rural district. --Dr Greg (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be quite happy with a change for "City of X" articles to become "X District" or similar. One thing I will suggest is that all district/borough articles should follow whatever consensus is reached, so that Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale becomes something like Rochdale District; and even that Kirklees becomes Kirklees District. Technically, all boroughs and cities (where that is applied to a local government unit) are districts with extra honorifics, so use of "District" is correct. The extra honorifics make no difference to the function of the body, so treating local government districts with city status (or those with like-named settlements) differently to everything else is nonsense.

As for the OS, yes, they do treat districts as being distinct from settlements, although some districts are given slightly different names - Salford (district) is just labelled "Salford" in the font for districts (whilst there is also a "Salford" in the settlement style), though rather oddly there is "City of Wolverhampton" for the district whilst "Wolverhampton" for the settlement. I've got a suspicion that Wolverhampton City Council (as is their right) changed the name of the district to "City of Wolverhampton", just as the then-Blackburn Borough Council changed the name of the district to "Blackburn with Darwen".

On the subject of Blackburn with Darwen - I can't remember, is it an Administrative County with one county council and no district councils, or an Administrative County with one district council and no county council? Whilst that's being fairly pedantic it would have affect the naming of such unitary authorities. Fingerpuppet (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a unitary district. Legally, to achieve this "A new county shall be constituted comprising the area of Blackburn and shall be named the county of Blackburn," but without a county council. See The Lancashire (Boroughs of Blackburn and Blackpool) (Structural Change) Order 1996 (SI 1996/1868) s.6(2 & 4). Chrisieboy (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) As this discussion (of which I understood less than 50%) seems to be moving towards consensus, could I ask for some help/advice - or, even better could someone check that these 3 cities are appropriate/properly described (unless this is a purely northern England issue):

• Wells, the smallest city in England, is a civil parish with many administrative functions provided by the Mendip district of Somerset. (NB there have been moves to retitle this as "Wells, Somerset" or similar because of articles about water wells oil wells etc)
• Bath, Somerset was made a county borough in 1889 and hence independent of the newly created administrative Somerset county council. It became part of Avon when that non-metropolitan county was created in 1974. Since the abolition of Avon in 1996, Bath has been the main centre of the unitary authority of Bath and North East Somerset (B&NES). The (ceremonial) city functions are managed by Charter Trustees which include all the councillors elected to BANES from wards within the old city.
• Bristol is a city, unitary authority area and ceremonial county.

I know lots of this is historical as well as adminstrative - but its not surprising it is difficult to produce a "catch all solution" which applies in all cases.— Rod ^talk 19:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wells is the second smallest city in England, after the City of London. All other details are correct. Chrisieboy (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Winchester

User:Chrisieboy has unilaterally moved City of Winchester to Winchester City Council. Considering the above discussion is ongoing, he has no mandate to perform this action (especially as no discussion was made about Winchester specifically) and as such I believe the move should be undone. Nev1 (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the article back to its original title per WP:BRD and the reasons I have stated above. Nev1 (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I have also reverted the lead section back to the original (bar a correction and source for the population figure) pending the outcome of this discussion. Fingerpuppet (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(An attempt at) discussion is ongoing at Talk:City of Winchester#Page move. As I stated there: I have been bold (or, according to Nev1, acted "unilaterally"), Nev1 reverted, but there has been no discussion since. If you are not prepared to engage, it is, in my view, a misuse of policy. I shouldn't have to remind you that, per WP:V, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

The main points, as outlined above, are 1) the majority of English cities are treated this way, and 2) this is in line with both WP:NCCN and WP:NOR. There is no compelling evidence that there remains a distinct settlement called Winchester, with borders identical to those of the city and municipal borough abolished 35 years ago and the status quo is, in any case, confusing to readers. I would add that there has been no "local" opposition to the proposal. Chrisieboy (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I refute that the suggested move is in accordance with WP:NCCN and WP:NOR - "City of Winchester" is both the official and the most common name for the district. To use any other name would be a breach of both policies. waggers (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

With respect, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm suggesting that the page at City of Winchester should be merged with (and re-direct to) the article at Winchester. What precisely is your definition of what constitutes Winchester as distinct from the City of Winchester? I think the former is "the most common name" for the latter. Chrisieboy (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As this discussion is supposedly "ongoing," I'm still hoping for some more input. Otherwise I do not think the revert is fair and propose to reinstate the changes I made previously. Chrisieboy (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources have been given, both in the article itself, and here. Fingerpuppet (talk) 11:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that an Ordnance Survey map is really an appropriate source and I don't see any others on this page. What sources are you referring to here? Also, with Bradford now changed, Winchester remains one of an even smaller minority of counterintuitive cases which diverge from the consistent approach taken by the majority of other English cities coterminous with a local government district of the same name. Chrisieboy (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Just in case anyone has been misled by Jza's accusation of sockpuppetry, I would like to clarify that I am certainly not a sock. Quantpole (talk) 07:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Question re bio infoboxes

An IP user has been changing place-of-birth information in infoboxes to include "United Kingdom" in what I consider an unnecessary fashion—for instance, changing Ringo Starr's birthplace from Liverpool, Lancashire, England, to Liverpool, Lancashire, England, United Kingdom. Does WP have a guideline that one could cite in order to tell the user not to do this? Deor (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand that the most acceptable, sustainable and long-lasting approach with regards to this is to say Ringo is English in the lead, that his birthplace is England (without the UK), but the nationality field in the infobox says British. However this is from experience alone - I believe it's never been formally codified (though perhaps it should). --Jza84 |  Talk  11:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Settlement -- leader

A recent edit to Preston has added the 3 MPs who between them cover the Preston District as "leaders" of Preston. This seems to me to be inappropriate use of the leader_... fields in {{Infobox Settlement}}. But I might be wrong if this is already established UK practice. Rather than me undo this edit for a second time, it would be better if someone else would undo it (if I am right), and give an authoritative reason in the edit summary. Thanks, --Dr Greg (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem myself, there's nothing wrong with mentioning the MPs that represent the inhabitants of borough in the infobox in the "government" section. I think there's some slight confusion here, although in raw wikisource it reads "leader_3", when it appears in the article "leader" is not mentioned and it does not assert in the infobox that it means the MPs administer the borough (which of course they don't). Since it's wikisource, the naming is arbitrary and insignificant, what's important is how it looks to the average reader and I don't think it misinforms. Nev1 (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

If there is a precedent for using the infobox in this way in the UK, i.e. a significant number of articles that nobody objects to, then fair enough. I guess there's a discrepency between the source (plus the template documentation) and what the reader sees, but, as you say, that doesn't really matter as far as the reader is concerned. In that case, I withdraw my objection. --Dr Greg (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It is used in the same way on Mendip, North Somerset, Sedgemoor, South Somerset, Taunton Deane and Bath and North East Somerset with the label MPs linking to MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2005 - obviously will need updating after the next general election. What I have noticed is the names of MPs being removed from town & parish articles with an edit summary of "rm transient info" which conflicts with WP:UKCITIES - what do others think about that one?— Rod ^talk 11:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think that the information should be present as it saves going to the constituency article, though it will change over time like most of these things. If we go down this route then we can start removing all sorts of things as transient such as population figures etc.. Keith D (talk) 11:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I would agree. It is clearly nonsense to remove the information. I think a 5 year term is long enough not to be considered transient (and many MPs have been in office a hell of a lot longer than Wikipedia has been going) and, in any case, the MP information is important enough to be included regardless. Skinsmoke (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

If non-permanent information is to be included it should surely be qualified with some indication of when it was current and/or when it became true CanOfWorms (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a template for this situation {{update after}}. I was fixing Burgess Hill#Governance so I took the opportunity to try it out. The idea is that next year the message appears and a category is created with all the articles that need to be reviewed. I used 2010 General Election in the United Kingdom as the category, although that is probably not the best name. MortimerCat (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Knighton, Powys

Am I not correct on this? 78.109.182.8 (talk) 00:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You are, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)/Counties we use the current administrative county when referring to a settlement's location. There is no harm in mentioning a settlement's location within historic boundaries, however, as stipulated in WP:UKCITIES. Nev1 (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Collective noun grammar

There have been a few "grammar corrections" recently that I personally disagree with, I would like a second opinion please. This change to Cheddar for example, changing the local council from a plural "Somerset council are..." to a singular "Somerset council is...".

Council is a collective noun: "British English" favours treating these as plural, whilst "American English" treats these as singular. My source Grammar Girl, see American vs. British Usage. As this is a UK based article, I think WP:ENGVAR applies, and "Somerset council are..." should be used. ++ MortimerCat (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Another example is Cricket St Thomas. I agree with "The district council is...." but not "Somerset County Council is....". MortimerCat (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Why should a county council differ from a district council? Agreed it/they consist(s) of members, but it/they take(s) decisions as a body. I would personally use 'is' in both cases. Pterre (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC) (from the UK).

The difference is not due to county or district, rather one uses "The", the other users the councils name. "The council is..." and "Somerset council are ..." sound correct to my ear. To be honest, after studying it for a few hours, they both now sound right to me so at the moment, I do not have an opinion. MortimerCat (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

MortimerCat, despite giving yourelf a headache from studying it your original statement about collective nouns is spot on and what are good for the County (Goose) are also good for the District (Gander). The debate has cropped up about football clubs several times and the English convention of plural nouns has generally won outTmol42 (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This issue has also cropped up on music articles, and the consensus is that collective nouns are plural in British English. Nev1 (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that won't wash - it varies with the type of collective noun. The Beatles are a group (and generally though not consistently) England are a team. But Winchester City Council is a planning authority. Pterre (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose this could be put to rest if we looked at how the councils describe themselves (plurally or singularly). Anybody have examples? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well just look at any council website (random example) - see para headed 'View representations on the Submission Statement of Community Involvement' - 'the council was asked.'., planning decision letter, etc. As a former LG officer, I never referred to my council (London borough) as 'they' in any report. Pterre (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Any more examples? Just that it would help your case (I'm indifferent) and we could then codify something if this approach is used nationwide. I suppose this would have implications too for the governments (devolved and supreme) and the UK Parliment for example? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's another random example.[2]. There's no consensus I'm aware of that collective nouns are plural in British English, or in any other flavour of English for that matter, and I wouldn't consider "council" to be a collective noun in any case. A similar issue often crops up in football articles, where the team itself when named is usually considered plural (as in "Manchester United are the 2009 Premier League Champions") vs "the club plays its homes games ...". the alternative "The club play their home games ..." is just an abortion. The obvious analogy for councils is that "Trafford Council" might arguably be considered plural, but not "the council". Against that though "Trafford Council were awarded..." sounds grating compared to the more natural (to my ear anyway) "Trafford Council was awarded ...". --Malleus Fatuorum 11:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's the relevant section from the grammar guide MortimerCat referred to:

Here’s another example. A listener, Jody, asks how to use the word “family.” She wants to know which is correct—“Tim’s family is ranchers” or “Tim’s family are ranchers.” Jody points out that she prefers “are” but that Word’s grammar checker prefers “is.” She wants to know whether having something plural, such as ranchers, after the verb makes a difference. In this case, it doesn’t matter what comes after the verb; it just matters what idea you’re trying to get across. In Jody’s “ranchers” example, I too would prefer “are” because it seems that you’re referring to a bunch of separate individuals. What would happen if we changed “ranchers,” a noun, to “wealthy,” an adjective? Would we prefer “Tim’s family is wealthy” or “Tim’s family are wealthy”? In this case, I would prefer “is” because it seems we’re talking about one family, one unit.

So as in the case of a council we're not talking about each of the members of the council, but the council itself (not themself, see?) there's really no reasonable doubt that "council" has to be singular, not plural, as does "Trafford Council". --Malleus Fatuorum 11:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Have to say I agree with Malleus on this. For twelve years I was a member (councillor) of Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council. The Council was always referred to as singular (The Council has taken a decision), and was taken to mean the whole shebang : councillors and officers. However, if one of those occasions occurred where the councillors overturned the officers' decision then each would be referred to as plural (The officers have taken a decision which the councillors have reversed}. To complicate matters even more, the political groups on the council plus the committees, like the council itself, were considered to be singular (The Conservative group has proposed a policy which the Labour group has supported or The Housing Committee has decided). I suppose the basic rule was that if it was a "body corporate" it was considered singular, but if it was an informal grouping it was considered plural. Isn't the English language great, eh? Skinsmoke (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with MortimerCat. As a published author of English grammar references that cover AE and BE differences in depth, I favour consistency of style throughout an article, and therefore retaining 1. the article creator's (or major contributor's/editor's) original style, and then 2. the 'nationality' of an article if a single author/contributor has become clouded.
With all due respect to our elected representatives, their position in society does not automatically make them authorities on the use of language, although as SkinSmoke mentions, it may be safe to rely on precedent per default. However, most grammarians would probably agree that this is a grey area, and as the English language is neither owned nor governed by a central body, so I would assume some tolerance is called for, and that includes some from Wiklipedians. I cannot cite my own works here, as to do so would be to enter into a conflict with a major Wikipedia policy.--Kudpung (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Your claim to be an authoritative voice is noted, but is undermined by your evident misunderstanding of the distinction between a statement referring collectively to the members of a group and one referring to the group as an entity in its own right. This is not an issue of AE vs BE, the same logic applies equally to both. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Not quite the same logic; AmE often uses the formal in cases where BrE would use the notional agreement: "Metallica is an American heavy metal band from Los Angeles" vs. "U2 are a rock band from Dublin". But I digress, and for this conversation you're right; AmE can be left to one side. In BrE, though it pains me to say, it depends on whether the emphasis is on the individuals within a group or the group itself. So while "Manchester United are the 2009 Premier League Champions" is considered correct, so is following the sentence with "The club plays its homes games at Old Trafford." Accepting for the sake of argument that "council" is a collective noun (I wouldn't), even then the singular would be the best choice, as it is with companies and most other organisations ("Virgin is set to roll out its new brand of...") Save for in sports writing, the plural is usually reserved for emphasising the contributions of individual members: "The steering committee have discussed"—though even as Brit, I much prefer the Americans' way of doing things. Steve ^{T • C} 13:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, didn't notice you said pretty much the same thing about individual emphasis vs. group emphasis in your outdented comment above. Steve ^{T • C} 14:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Caolas / Vatersay - westernmost in Scotland?

The Caolas article claims it is "the westernmost settlement in Scotland and the United Kingdom", whilst the Vatersay article claims "Vatersay is also the name of the only village on the island". Aside from the fact that Fermanagh is obviously further west within the UK (Enniskillen is given as 7.64W for instance versus 7.53W for Vatersay), is Caolas a sufficiently distinct settlement for these purposes? Skimming Google, the only support for this position seems to come from Wikipedia mirrors, so I'm dubious - if there's no WP:RS supporting this position then there's no reason to have an article on Caolas at all, and even if there is then I'm not sure it shouldn't be subsumed into the Vatersay article anyway. Given the interest in extreme points, I'd suggest this needs to be fixed, but I don't know enough about this stuff to do it myself. So over to you folks.... FlagSteward (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If there's no reliable source supporting the claim(s), I say remove them. For me, the policy WP:REDFLAG applies here... in my humble opinion. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt about the claim that somewhere on Vatersay is the westernmost inhabited point in Scotland, it just comes down to definitions of the fuzzy term "settlement". It might be more defensible if it was cast in terms of "parish" or perhaps even "habitation" - they are more definite terms than "settlement".FlagSteward (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Merging minor settlements

The above seems a bit of a general problem with UKgeo articles in general if I might be so bold. I've done a lot of "big picture" work on the equivalent articles for Italy, where in general Wikipedia is strongly aligned with the official list of 8,101 comuni (administrative area lying roughly between parish and town council), and then there's articles on a couple of hundred of the most notable frazioni (equivalent to wards or minor parishes, they're typically outlying hamlets). Usually they're recognisable to anglophones because they are ski resorts or wine areas, but otherwise the frazioni are lumped in with their "host" comune. Now I know it's a bit different in this country as we don't have such a reliance on the comune as a basic building block (which makes it feasible to fill in Italian village infoboxes by bot from government websites for instance), but I can't help wondering whether there should be some attempt to merge outlying hamlets into nearby towns. Working on Scottish articles recently, I see a lot of articles on "villages" that I know are little more than a farm and some cottages, of which 1-2 might be used by farmworkers and the rest are now holiday lets. They are never going to amount to much. I understand that editors with stamp-collecting inclinations will want an article "on every settlement" but I can't help feeling that in many/most our readers will be better served by redirects to the nearest parish article, which can give a bit more context and background. Certainly in the first instance, it seems more sense to prioritise getting reasonable articles on every parish and then worry about the two-sheep hamlets. At least IMO.FlagSteward (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This is already in the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements.

Writing about the smallest of settlements in the UK can be difficult due to the lack of source material, especially when compared with the country's major metropolises. Some of the UK's smallest settlements may form part of a civil parish or council ward. Country hamlets and villages may mention significant places that might not be considered part of the village, but which lie within the parish or ward. Hamlets that are within another parish or council ward could have their own articles, but if there is no more than a couple of paragraphs that could be said about the hamlet it may be best practice to merge the articles.

The initial course of action is merge-tag the one liners pointing the merge to the appropriate parish. I have already done this for Sussex and Rutland. Most have gone unchallenged, a few have had locals suggesting a more appropriate redirect. MortimerCat (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

My rule of thumb in Somerset has been that the civil parish is the smallest unit, unless a particular hamlet is especially notable. This has generally been supported by members of WikiProject Somerset, but in a few cases editors have argued for separate articles for hamlets/villages within a parish, if they are geographically separate & have something specific to write about. I've taken the view that if someone is willing to argue for separate articles they probably interested enough to work on them, which is generally (though not always) the case.— Rod ^talk 21:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

OK - I wasn't sure if anyone was working on this kind of stuff or not. To be honest, I've got such a pile of things on my Wiki "to-do" list that I'm unlikely to do anything on this for at least a year. However, if there's a convenient list of civil parishes somewhere, I might see if there's anything that might fit with some of my existing scripts. In the meantime I've thrown 700-odd Scottish villages your way. <g>

For lists of civil parishes start at Category:Civil parishes in England & then look at the sub cats. List of places in England and the scarily large (and sometimes innacurate) List of United Kingdom locations may also be of interest.— Rod ^talk 13:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

But if anyone's looking for a job then two regions that have stood out in my Scotland tagging have been Category:Villages in Aberdeenshire - which seems to have had a lot of grotty articles on minor settlements added by locals (oilmen home from the rigs for a few weeks?) - whereas Category:Villages in Highland seems to have had a more systematic effort to add every 2-sheep collection of houses, they tend to have infoboxes and categories. Category:Villages in Dumfries and Galloway would probably be third in order of categories potentially needing attention. If anyone's looking for meatier articles to get their teeth into, then many articles on {{Areas of Glasgow}} have a reasonable amount of information but need wikification and referencing.FlagSteward (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Tagging

Whilst I'm here, one more thing. I'm not entirely clear about the scope of this project - is it meant to be more an administrative convenience as a parent for the England/Scotland/Wales/NI projects, or does it take an active role? I assume the latter, but it's not entirely clear. Specifically, I'm about to go to work on a load of Scottish articles and it's nae bother to add a UKgeo tag to the village/loch/glen articles that don't have one. I assume that's in the spirit of the project, but let me know (fairly soon!) if it's not.FlagSteward (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Usually UKgeo tags are added to all settlements and places in the UK, even if there is a (more) local project banner added - this is, in one way, a method by which we can measure the progress on creating a comprehensive account of British geography. Also, this project is more about standardisation and big, meta-issues that have implications on large numbers of related articles, as well as a centralised place to publish concerns, suggestions, debates, polls etc. It's not, nor ever, really been about the UK vs home nations issue(s) - a strength in this project is that is not especially politicised in that way. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

OK - >700 tags now added, <g> - there will no doubt be more. That's how I thought it worked, I just wasn't sure to what extent it was an administrative convenience in the same way that you get categories of "Things of the UK" which are just placeholders to contain the "real" categoroes of "Things of England", "Things of Scotland" and so on. The preamble on the Project page could perhaps be clearer on that point. FlagSteward (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

England at GA review

A range of issues have been identified with the England article, which was promoted to GA status a couple of months ago. The problems are detailed at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/England/1 and if anyone wanted to help improve the article to meet these concerns that would be great.— Rod ^talk 07:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

UK Geo Stub

I have removed a UK Geo Stub from Beverley Beck, as it is no longer a stub, but have no idea what to replace it with. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be replaced with anything! MortimerCat (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I just wondered if the article needed to be in a Geo category. Bob1960evens (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If you update the project banner assessments on the talk page (as Keith D did for WikiProject Yorkshire) that will will put the article in the correct category. Nev1 (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Settlement notability

Project members might be interested in this discussion at wikipedia's village pump for policy about whether settlements should automatically be considered notable. Nev1 (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sheffield in WP:FAR

I have nominated Sheffield 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.YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Village Signs

Is anyone interested in taking photos of village signs and adding them to Wikipedia? I've been adding some myself but it's a slow process and was just wondering if anyone else can help. See my userpage for some examples. If you've got a sign nearby to you then why not take a photo! -- Uksignpix (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List of towns and cities in England by population#Misleading first sentence

I have started a discussion at the above, and would value input from others. Cheers. Quantpole (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Regional Assemblies

I just noticed that the page on the South West Regional Assembly needed updating following its winding-up and transfer of powers to South West Councils, so I've attempted a quick'n'dirty update. Is there a consistent approach being adopted across the board to the pages on regional assemblies? Should there be? Just a quick heads-up really - I certainly don't intend to update them all myself! Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

They might have views over on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom ? FlagSteward (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

They don't. Silence reigns. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Northamptonshire

Im thinking on creating a WikiProject on Northamptonshire but I would need some help and what do you think on this idea, please tell me on my talk page or go to :Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Northamptonshire if you support or don't. Likelife(talk) 13:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Southport move suggestion

There is a discussion at Talk:Southport#disambiguation requesting to move Southport and replace it with Southport (disambiguation). Comments welcome! Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 20:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox UK place proposal

I have proposed a set of changes to the template, some of which will require a bot to effect corresponding changes in many of the articles which use it. If you have any observations or comments to make, including any questions or potential issues which might need addressing, please contribute at Template talk:Infobox UK place#Possible_bot_tasks. Thanks. —ClickRick (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The first change - to the population and population_ref fields - completed with only a very small number of issues needing manual intervention. Template talk:Infobox UK place#Bot_task:_images is now discussing final detail of the next change, namely to the static_image-related parameters. Please contribute there if there are any concerns or potential issues. Thanks. ClickRick (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Vision of Britain URL changes

The historical site Vision of Britain which has for ages provided census data etc now has additional material including historic boundary maps and the results of every Parliamentary election since 1833. The new version of the site is now at http://vision.port.ac.uk/ rather than http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk which may mean that any articles which use it as a reference will have broken links. I'm not sure of the best way to replace/correct these as there doesn't seem to be a simple way to convert the old URL to the new one.— Rod ^talk 09:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Depending on the complexity of the URL changes which are involved, you might ask at WP:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks. —ClickRick (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just checked one specific link to the old Vob page [3] with the comparable Vob page [4]. Whilst the respective URLs are similar they are not identical. Another possible issue though is that the chart view / table date of populations displays a different range of data. The old version from 1801 - 1931 and the new version 1881 - 1931 so if the old version was cited for pre 1881 populations its replacement table is no longer a valid cite. I can't see any link to the pre 1881 data. Tmol42 (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

For the population census information table the change looks to be from "http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/data_cube_table_page.jsp?data_theme=T_POP" to "http://vision.port.ac.uk/data_cube_page.jsp?data_theme=T_POP&data_cube=N_TOT_POP" at the start of the URL. Would it be possible to do this using a bot? Keith D (talk) 00:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)