Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 16

List of United Kingdom locations: Mos-Mz

What should we do with Mosedale Beck in this list? Disambiguate it to Mosedale Beck (Wast Water) which is where the coordinates lead? Add the other entries from the dab page too? Remove it as being a watercourse not a "place"? (I've just today fixed the entry above by creating Mosedale, Cumbria and disambiguating the previously-red link, as part of a blitz on various Mosedales which were horribly entangled). PamD 12:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Weather box

Discussion started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities#Weather_box on the use of Template:Weather box in articles. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions needed for using 2011 census data for Reculver

For the 2001 census, the output area for Reculver was, helpfully, limited to Reculver and any outlying farms and houses, thus providing useful information for the Reculver article.[1] For the 2011 census, the output area was the whole of Reculver electoral ward, including other settlements such as Hillborough, Beltinge and Bishopstone.[2] The local postcode area is also very different to the area used in 2001, as far as I can tell. I've had a go at using the "Custom" feature at www.neighbourhoodstatistics.gov.uk and managed to get it to produce an "All Usual Residents" count of 178 for the same area that was used in 2001, but I can see no way of saving or exporting this information so that I can cite it in the Reculver article. Any ideas or alternative solutions? Thanks. Nortonius (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

GA article being reassessed: Carnoustie

Carnoustie was reviewed and listed as a Good Article in Sept 2008. The article has been tagged with sourcing concerns since Dec 2009. I have done a GAR, which indicates that the article doesn't meet GA criteria for the WP:Lead, the size and focus, the prose, and sourcing. The main contributor has been notified, though is not able to do any work at the moment. Following the guidelines at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, this WikiProject is now being informed as the article may be delisted. See Talk:Carnoustie/GA2 for more details. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

GA article being reassessed: Askam and Ireleth

Askam and Ireleth was reviewed and listed in Sept 2007. I have done a GAR, which indicates that the article doesn't meet GA criteria. Main contributors have been notified, and some work has been done, but progress is slow. Following the guidelines at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, this WikiProject is now being informed as editing assistance may be needed to prevent the article being delisted. See Talk:Askam and Ireleth/GA1 for more details. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

GA article being reassessed: Basingstoke

Basingstoke was reviewed and listed in Aug 2007. It has been tagged with sourcing concerns since June 2012. I have done a GAR, which indicates that the article doesn't meet GA criteria. The main contributors have been notified, though are unavailable, so work has not been done. Following the guidelines at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, this WikiProject is being informed as editing assistance will be needed to prevent the article being delisted. See Talk:Basingstoke/GA1 for more details. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

GA article being reassessed: Belfast

Belfast was reviewed and listed as a Good Article in March 2007, and last reassessed in Sept 2007. It has been tagged with sourcing concerns since August 2008. I have done a GAR, and I feel that the article doesn't meet current GA criteria. The main contributors have been notified, though are unavailable or not able to do the work at the moment, and there has been no progress. Following the guidelines at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, interested WikiProjects are being contacted as editing assistance may be needed to prevent the article being delisted. See Talk:Belfast/GA1 for more details. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject UK Geography At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Converting grid refs to coords

I have List of Local Nature Reserves in Greater London at FLC with grid refs for the sites. An editor has pointed out at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Local Nature Reserves in Greater London/archive1 that coords would be better. It will be a big job changing 142 grid refs manually. Does anyone know whether there is a bot or other way of making this easier? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Would be good to have both in UK articles. May be you would get a response from WP:COORD. Keith D (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I have added a table with the conversions on your Talk page. It's not perfect but it may help, I managed to load your wikitable into excel, then ran it through this batch converter, then back through the excel to wiki converter tool...Jokulhlaup (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Regarding having both, I already have 9 columns, and I am not sure whether adding another would make it (more) difficult to read on small screens. Any views on this - or should I ask on FLC Talk? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You could put them in the same column, with a line break...Jokulhlaup (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Site	Map References	...
xyz	TQ 334 868 51.5°N 0.07°W / 51.5; -0.07	...

Thanks for the advice. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

"Demography" being changed to "Demographics" as a section heading

User:SkateTier has edited lots of settlement articles so that the 'Demography' sections have become "Demographics", using the edit summary "change to same as comparable articles". I'm not convinced this is the better term to use, nor am I sure how it has been discerned that it is the more common within "comparable articles". Our guide for writing about settlements uses 'Demography', not 'Demographics', and it strikes me that 'Demographics' is a rather colloquial term used by market researchers etc. and perhaps should be avoided. Are there any views on this? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Revisiting my comments from when Demography of Scotland was changed to Demographics of Scotland - this is partly a Comparison of American and British English issue. Interestingly a TIME magazine article calls David Coleman "professor of demographics" at Oxford, but Oxford calls him "Professor of Demography". There is clearly a bias, as a google search for "Professor of Demographics" turns up more US institutions and for "Professor of Demography" includes most of the British institutions. However, most interestingly "Professor of Demographics" only gets 17,600 results, while Professor of Demography gets 200,000 results. So this may be a WP:ENGVAR problem, but it is also a WP:COMMON NAME issue and, although this evidence is less than conclusive.--SabreBD (talk) 12:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The Economist Style Guide is pretty clear on the matter - [3]. Demography is also more consistent with other headings in these articles eg Geography, Economy. And when the heading "Demography" is used on most UK settlement articles, changing them all on the pretext of consistency is clearly absurd. And existing guidelines can obviously be changed, but they shouldn't just be ignored. JimmyGuano (talk) 09:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree - Agree that we should keep to "Demography". Hogyn Lleol (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

To save anyone else checking... the Guardian style guide is silent on the matter! But I agree we should stick to Demography. "Academics" is a similar strange term used outside the UK for "Information on academic matters" or something like that. PamD 15:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree Although these sections often only contain "data resulting from the science of demography" (Collins English Dictionary) we don't want to restrict them and exclude the broader "scientific study of human populations". NebY (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I have restored a number of renamed articles such as Demography of Liverpool, Demography of England, Demography of the United Kingdom. Several had been done already and it seems as if that completes the reversions. It wasn't necessary to revert any article content as none had been changed to begin "The demographics of". NebY (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Lists of Scheduled Ancient Monuments

As part of preparing for Wiki Loves Monuments UK 2014 I have been creating some lists of Scheduled monuments in Somerset and wanted to include these in national lists and found there wern't any. As a result I have created List of Scheduled Ancient Monuments however for the vast majority of English counties these are red links and I wasn't at all sure what to do about Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There are lots of relevant articles in Category:Scheduled Ancient Monuments (and I am sure there are others) - any help with these would be gratefully received.— Rod ^talk 14:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic article

Hi, I hardly ever edit geographical articles but I've noticed the article Hadrian's Wall Path could do with attention from an editor experienced in this area. The tone is like a guide book for walks rather than an encyclopedia: "This is another section across open countryside...", "This is one of the best parts of the walk," and so on (I've deleted both these examples). The path itself surely a notable topic, but I'm not sure how much of the info about walks should be copied to Wikivoyage/ rewritten/ deleted. Thanks in advance for any help. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

List of localities in England by population to be updated to 2011 census key statistics & inclusion of Built Up Area Sub Divisions within articles

Hello to everyone! I am not sure if this will get any response but I would like to put this out to anyone who would be able to help with this topic. Basically my main aim is to get the use of built up area sub divisions (BUASD'S) into articles for towns and cities within England to help in representing the populations of the true urban extent of those towns and cities. Now BUASD's are of course sub divisons of built up areas (BUA's) and these are already in place to represent conurbations. However, I have noticed that BUASD's are not used to describe the towns they are based on accurately. Since the 2001 census, BUASD's have replaced the previous method of representing urban areas or 'Localities', so with change in the guidance and methodology, the way urban areas are represented in England have changed. Some have increased in size and some have decreased or have been included as part of another urban area. Basically I would like to see the population for the entire urban area of a town represented showing the population of the built-up area sub division. I do not mean the wider conurbation it may already be a part of but the urban sub-area or 'town'. For example, if the extent of a town or city's urban area spills over into a neighbouring authority, yet it is still distinct from any other urban area within that neighboring authority, then this should be counted as part of the town/city of which it is physically connected to regardless of council boundaries. I will use my home town of Middlesbrough as an example. According to the 2011 census key statistics from the ONS, the Middlesbrough built up area sub division of the Teesside built up area had a usual resident population of 174,700. This figure represents the entire urban area pretty accurately however the actual article for the town of Middlesbrough shows the population for the Unitary Authority only. Now I am not saying the population for the council area should be replaced by the built up area but in the case of Middlesbrough there is a separate article about the authority area where the administrative population would be more suited. That said I think there is good reason to include the full spectrum of the urban extent, showing both the urban population of the town aswell as the administrative population, possibly even going as far as saying the town spans two different councils (this may be a bit far fetched mind). Even though the urban area of Middlesbrough does indeed spill into a neighbouring authority, this does not stop it from being part of the built up area of a town. Another part of this topic I wanted to point out was the article List of localities in England by population which is need of an update to show the current BUASD's. Although it does state within the article "This article is provided for historical interest only, because this sense of 'locality' disappears in the 2011 census and the population data have been recalculated" I feel there should at least be another similar page showing the updated populations and definitions of the 2011 built up area sub divisions.Acklamite (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Built-up area sub divisions are reliably sourced from the ONS. As they have replaced localities as a measure this fact should be reflected on Wikipedia by making changes such as you describe to articles such as List of localities in England by population. Your claim that they represent "the true urban extent of those towns and cities" is very different - it is your personal point of view and one with little support in reliable sources. In fact the BUASD is an obscure, little-used and little-understood measure and its use on Wikipedia should reflect this fact. "The true extent of towns and cities" are often controversial - there are plenty of people in Altrincham who would passionately argue that it's part of Manchester and plenty in Leith who would argue that it is separate from Edinburgh, despite the fact that both of these positions are inconsistent with BUASD boundaries (in both cases there are also people who would argue the opposite, of course). We should stick to commonly-used measures wherever possible and only use things like BUASDs where there really is no alternative. JimmyGuano (talk) 07:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Maps on major city infoboxes

What is this WikiProject's view on including two maps on the articles of major cities: within-county and within-the-UK maps. I think these pushpin maps are useful for providing broader whole-country context for when that isn't particularly clear from the county map. This two-map arrangement existed on Leeds, York, Nottingham, Kingston upon Hull, Manchester, Plymouth, Norwich, and Liverpool, although Charlesdrakew (predictably) removed all those as soon as I mentioned them, claiming it makes the infobox appear "bloated". I think that function trumps aesthetics. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (shout) @ 21:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Each county map features an inset map that shows exactly where the county is in England. Isn't that enough? -- Dr Greg  talk  00:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Two maps is the convention for American cities (eg New York City, Chicago, Denver). European cities are a bit more mixed - Madrid has two, Paris has two but one is half-hidden; Lisbon just has one. I think we need two because they have different jobs to do - one shows the precise administrative area covered in relation to the immediate locality; one answers the broader "where the hell is it" question. If we are only to have one though the big national one is the more important. Showing Nottingham's relationship to Gedling is only useful if you already know the place pretty well, realistically a far greater number of people using the article are likely to find the fact that it is roughly in the middle of the UK, slightly to the north east, in a key river valley, a important basic fact to know about the place. That's the problem with the inset maps - the more important of the two is so small as to be almost useless. JimmyGuano (talk) 06:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The comparison with the US is not really valid, firstly because, in general, the "counties" (whichever definition is used) are far smaller in area than US states; and secondly because the large UK cities we are talking about here are not within current administrative counties at all - they are free-standing unitary local authorities. Historically, of course, they were (generally - there are exceptions like Bristol) within the traditional counties, but those areas have no administrative status now and it would be confusing to show them in infoboxes. So, I agree that we should use only the national maps. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It seemed a no-brainer to remove the second maps as they take up a lot of space while adding no information at all. That is what the inset maps of the UK do. They are utterly pointless and push the infobox a long way down the page, displacing other more useful images. Guidelines on infobox use suggest that they should not extend below the lead section, although this is often not practical. It is however something to aim for.Charles (talk) 09:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: US states are broadly comparable to counties, when considered as a proportion: The 48 contiguous states cover an area that ranges from 0.03% (RI) to 6.6% (TX) of the whole, while the 48 ceremonial counties range from 0.08% (Bristol) to 8.6% (N Yorks). While the ceremonial counties have no admin role, the UAs are strongly associated with the county, so that is high-value information. It shouldn't be dropped solely because its a UA.

At a basic level location-in-country is the most fundamental point a location map needs to show, regardless of whether its a major city or a village. IMO in general, as the location gets less significant it becomes more of local interest, increasing the importance of location-in-county. I'd like to see more consistency, as High Wycombe (within a larger district), Exeter (district) and Peterborough (UA) have similar populations, but potentially 3 different map styles based on their admin status alone.

I like how fr:Brest handles the two map issue, and think that works better than an inset.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I dont think Nilfanion's first point is completely relevant - the US is almost 40 times the area of the UK, so the locational specificity shown by state maps is proportionally much less than that shown by county maps. It's also not necessarily true that city UAs are "strongly associated with their county" - that's true in some cases but not others (incidentally, particularly untrue in the cases of those cities - Bristol, Liverpool, Plymouth, etc.- that developed as outward-looking ports rather than as market and industrial centres for their hinterlands.) But, I'm all for improving consistency. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

What I mean is while the US is about 40 times the size of the UK, a typical state is also about 40 times the size of a typical county. That means in relative terms the counties-in-England are comparable in area to states-in-US, whilst clearly in absolute terms the counties are much smaller. Mathematically - the precision on a county locator might be ±1 miles or ±0.25% of the N-S length of England, while a state locator might have a precision of ±√40 miles or ±0.25% of the W-E length of the US.

And I'd dispute your comment re Plymouth: Typically seen as part of Devon (in opposition to Cornwall), plenty of evidence of Devon identity within the city and so on.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... I used to work in Exeter, for Devon CC, and the tensions between Plymouth and the rest of Devon were noticeable. Certainly Plymouth was within Devon rather than Cornwall, but most of Devon had (has?) very little attachment to Plymouth. Not that I'm trying to start an argument on that point.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what relevance the relative sizes of UK counties and US states has in the first place? My argument for two maps is based on the idea that there are two separate jobs for the maps to do, in turn based on the fact that major UK cities exist as two different things: on one level they are settlements, on another they are local government districts of various statuses. In one sense Birmingham is just a local authority with responsibility for emptying the bins within a defined territory, no different to neighbouring North Warwickshire. In another sense it is profoundly different - it is one of the most important features of the human and economic geography of the UK. The two maps represent these two roles. User:Dr Greg's argument seems to accept the need for two maps, but argues they can be combined into a single image - a fair point except for the fact that at least as they are currently designed they do this job quite badly. If you met someone who didn't know the geography of the UK very well, they asked you where Liverpool was and you replied "it's between Sefton and Halton" they would probably go off and ask somebody else. A much better answer would be "it's in North West England, on a major estuary at the point where it meets the Irish Sea". Providing this information is one of the article's most important jobs, but at the moment the map that conveys it has been deleted. JimmyGuano (talk) 06:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The existing map shows the river estuary with the inset map showing it is in north-west England. If that is not clear enough people could actually resort to reading the article. Wikipedia is written for people with a reasonable level of education and they should not have to be spoon-fed to the extent of needing a second map.Charles (talk) 09:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The relative sizes mean design considerations should be similar (and the UK is comparable to the US or European countries in that sense). I think focusing on the responsibilities of the local authority is to miss the point slightly. A locator map is only tells you "where is it?" - "what is it?" can only be provided by the text.

The maps for both Liverpool and Southport need to answer the "where". The location within the country is most fundamental fact to be provided. Once that is done, more precise detail within its local area (ie county) is next objective. The two settlements need different treatment at that scale - a pushpin on Liverpool city centre would be misleading, as Liverpool covers a broader area than Southport. In both cases, just using the national map would lose pertinent local detail.

IMO that means that this isn't about the major cities, its about everything. The inset map is one solution to giving local detail and national overview - if that doesn't work then a different method of displaying two maps is required.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Is there any decided consensus here? I would like to know where we stand on these maps. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (converse) @ 18:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

No consensus surely (due to lack of involvement). I think there's acceptance of the need for two maps (national and local scale). What's not clear - and opinion is evenly split - is whether the inset does that adequately.

A side issue: I dislike the use of relief maps in this context - plain political maps are more appropriate. Its somewhat jarring to have two different map styles shown.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Nilfanion about the fr:Brest article: its system of displaying infobox maps is an elegant and effective method of dealing with this question, as all the information is present, the infobox still only displays one map at any one time, and each individual map is very clear and not compromised by trying to show different things at different scales. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem with fr:Brest is that it makes for a massive infobox when javascript is not available as it displays four maps one after another. Personally, I don't see a need for topographic maps in the infobox - if the topography is relevant to the settlement then such maps should be lower down the article in the geography section or somewhere like that. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Just pointing out that, to a geographer, the topography of a settlement is always relevant and of interest - whether it is on a river, surrounded by hills, etc., determines its location and form. I like the fr:Brest idea, but also see the problem if the maps do not nest. Personally, I think a national location map in the infobox is sufficient, with one or more detailed maps - both administrative and topographic, or combined - further down the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd disagree with having only a national-level map in the infobox - that would be a step backwards and out-of-kilter with how small localities are treated. Only a national map on Aylesbury, nevermind Askett, would be wrong - where do you draw the line between "small" and "large" locations.

If we adopted the Brest model, I'd put the two administrative maps in the box. That was if JS works, only one map is seen. If JS fails (or it is in print) both maps are seen, which is where we are anyway :)

Topography is certainly relevant (on occasion, topography is minor compared to things like transport links for some locations), its something to discuss in the appropriate section - its not for the infobox.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It is legitimate to treat small places differently to larger places though. "Near Nottingham" is a helpful answer to the question "where's Ruddington?"; "near Ruddington" is not a helpful answer to the question "where's Nottingham?". The criterion already used on WP:UKCITIES of treating settlements that are roughly coterminous with local government districts as a separate class would seem reasonable here? I agree that the Brest solution limited to two maps looks very promising. The two maps conveying different information - eg one admistrative and one topographical - as well as a different scale does seem to add content value and efficiency to the exercise though. Having an administrative basis for both maps would seem wasteful, in addition to the fact that admin areas on the national maps are quite small and hard to make out. I agree that something like major roads, railways and urban areas would add more value than topography if these existed though. The county maps used for eg Southwell, Nottinghamshire seem excellent in this respect. JimmyGuano (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Good points, but this discussion is about the major cities' maps, as to whether there should be a national map as well as the county map you deem excellent, not about the mapping for UK places altogether. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yak) @ 20:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually defining the line between major and minor locations seems to be a significant issue. In principle, I would support adopting the Brest model (2nd map hidden by JS), with the default being national for major settlements, and local for minor. "Roughly coterminous with districts" is an obvious starting point for defining "major", but isn't perfect: Bradford (not a district) is 10 times larger than Christchurch (a district).--Nilfanion (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Latecomer here... I think we need to have one map for each city, sufficiently showing the location of these cities in the United Kingdom, or there constituent countries, while also showing there administrative boundaries, if applicable. This can be done using inserts and whatnot. Maps are easy to make. For county-level cities, we could use: [1]; while for district level cities, we could use: [2]. Using zoom inserts with this, similar to the map at Newcastle upon Tyne, would show the location within the UK or constituent country and the administrative boundaries of the cities. Thoughts? Rob984 (talk) 11:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:UK geography articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Editor changing infobox UK place to infobox settlement in Welsh community/town articles

I discovered on my watchlist today that Jay13579 (talk · contribs) changed the infobox at Buckley (which I only have on my watchlist to fight vandalism) from {{Infobox UK place}} to {{Infobox settlement}}. In Australian place articles, the use of the latter template anywhere is extremely controversial, so the fact that the editor had made the change without an explanation combined with his/her low edit count led me to revert their edit without much thought. It was only after undoing a few of the user's other edits that I noticed a possible explanation: the WikiProject guidelines say that infobox settlement should be used in settlements where "the boundary is coterminous with a local government district", and in all the edits by this user that I checked, the town seemed to be coterminous with the community, the lowest form of local government in Wales (though I'm not sure if it really counts as a district). I've therefore undone all my reverts of Jay13579's edits, including the one to Cardiff Council, where they changed a hand-coded table to an infobox. What should be done next? One concern I still have about this user's edits is that the infobox uses the population from the 2011 census while the text uses 2001 data. Graham87 10:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The Welsh communities (and English parishes) are not "local government districts", in the sense that the guideline is referring to. 2011 census figures have not been implemented en masse at sub-district level, partially due to concerns about accuracy, as the census areas approximates the community/parish but have significant discrepancies in low population areas.

The change has introduced one other concern: The urban population is higher than the community population, despite having a smaller area. That's probably because the urban area includes Mynydd Isa, outside the community boundary, and out-of-scope of article. --Nilfanion (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

So all their edits like this need to be reverted? Graham87 09:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I think so (others may disagree).--Nilfanion (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

If I don't hear any objections in the next 48 hours, I'll start working on that then. Graham87 14:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I've started going through this user's edits; I've stopped at Argoed, Caerphilly for now. I've and also gone through the edits by92.9.136.209. Jay13579 has also uploaded several images to Commons. Graham87 13:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

All done now. Graham87 11:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyone available to Peer Review Berkhamsted

Over the last two months I have substantially added to this historic town's article and wonder if it is close to B Class yet. -- BOD -- 22:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Quick scan shows that the referencing needs some further work.

• There is one (128) showing an error message, probably URL in wrong field of cite.
• Two (17 & 57) need formatting like the rest - use Retrieved rather than Accessed - and give a full date for access.
• The short refs are a mixture of linked and unlinked. My preference would be to link them all but that is up to you. The linked ones appear to have no target for the link so the full reference detail is missing.
• Some of the ref titles are all in caps, need to change to either sentence case or title case.

Hope this helps you. Keith D (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks :) will correct -- BOD -- 10:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Completed your recommendations 1,2 and 4 (except I was unable to use Retrieved instead of Access for some reason). I am not sure I understand 'short refs' & your advice regards 3. Are short refs the book refs ... Hastie, p. 52, Remfry, p. 9 etc? these were contributions by a previous editor and I am/ have been rather unsure how to proceed in improving them. -- BOD -- 11:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the short refs are the book refs such as "Brown 1989, p. 52" which is linked in reference 51. This needs the {{cite book}} entry adding in to the Sources section to give details of the book being referred to. Similar for "Pettifer 1995, p. 105", probably others as well but have not checked them. If they were added by another user then, if they are still active, you could ask them for the book details. Otherwise you may be able to locate it from another article that uses the same short form.

If you want to convert the others over like "Hastie, p.52" you can switch this to use {{harvnb}} {{harvnb|Hastie|1999|page=52}} or use {{sfn}} {{sfn|Hastie|1999|page=52}} but you will need to remove the <ref></ref> tags if you use the latter template. To get the link to work add |ref=harv to the {{cite book}} template in the Sources section for Hastie. Keith D (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I believe I have now fixed all the citations. I have also been trying to fix the issues suggested by the auto-peer reviewer but my eyes are failing to pick up the remaining missing &nbspp;* and faulty conversions...and I am a natural fluffy weasel speaker so I find it hard to spot my criminal errors there ;) (Editing would be easier if the auto peer reviewer highlighted the areas it considered to be possible errors). Many thanks again. -- BOD -- 20:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Apologies ... Correction the harv links are now fixed apart from one (24 (it is hidden in footnote 2)), which I am finding even more troublesome than the rest. -- BOD -- 10:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Finally all fixed. -- BOD -- 11:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Worcester

An RfC is taking place at Talk:Worcester#Requested move regarding primacy: Worcester UK vs Worcester, Mass, USA. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion re table format for lists of ancient monuments

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#Column widths in table layout about the best way to display lists of ancient monuments which may be of interest to members of this wikiproject.— Rod ^talk 07:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Sleaford peer review

Hello, I am just notifying you that I have just put Sleaford (a market town in Lincolnshire) up for Peer Review here. Any feedback would be great. Many thanks, --Noswall59 (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC).

GA nomination of Sleaford

Hello, I am just letting everyone here know that I have nominated Sleaford, a market town in Lincolnshire, for Good Article assessment (see WP:GAN#PLACE). Regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC).

Discussion of {{cite map}} template conversion

There is a discussion about the {{cite map}} template ongoing at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 7#cite map. It is likely that the discussion will result in formatting changes (including some improvements and additional flexibility) to the template, which is used in about 18,000 articles. Your feedback, as frequent users of this template, will be welcome and needed if these changes are to be implemented with the least amount of negative side effects.

Please link to this discussion from Talk pages of other projects that use {{cite map}} frequently. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

GDP in US dollars

I noticed that the GDP figure had been added to the infobox for Bristol in US dollars, and then saw it applies to many UK cities. Is this required for international comparisons or could this be changed to UK pounds to make it consistent with the rest of the information in the infoboxes? Is there some sort of convert template which would do the conversion easily?— Rod ^talk 08:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It depends what the source says as the figure will be dependent on the exchange rate on the day the data was created. However for a number (all of) them the data is incorrect. The data added to Portsmouth is actually labeled in the source as Portsmouth-Southampton with a population of 1.365m. As the two cities have a combined population of ~500k the data is inappropriate to be used against either city or as a conglomeration. Similarly the Bristol data covers a population of 1.126m, again far higher than the population of Bristol. As it stands I'd suggest that the information should be removed from all articles until what it actually covers is understood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuttah (talk • contribs) 08:43, 6 February 2015‎ (UTC)

On a similar tack the entry for Leeds should probably be for City of Leeds as covers more than the settlement. Keith D (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

A lot of these are inappropriate because the data is for a much wider geographic area than that covered by the article. As another example, the figure quoted in the entry for Derby is actually for a wide area which includes Nottingham as well as Derby. I'm going to revert that one on the basis of its obvious inappropriateness Neiltonks (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I tried clarifying that the London figures are for the metropolitan area,[4] but the editor reverted me and has declared war! NebY (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said in my comments at Talk:London, use of the statistics there requires clarity on what definition of London they apply to. It sounds like in some other cases, there's too big a mismatch between the area the statistics apply to and the city they're being used for here. In those cases, we shouldn't use this data. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks like most of these were added by the same user (the one who declared war on NebY) on 6th February. WaggersTALK 09:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If they are inaccurate or inapprpriate for that article, just delete them! The better solution would be to find the corresponding figures in GBP and enter that. The "declaration of war" is a stupid act and best ignored for now, but if it is followed through or other similar statements are made, some action should be taken.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed change to Template:Infobox UK place

The guidelines for that template require "Council website for place (specifically)", but the text simply shows "Website".

This is misleading for many smaller settlements, where the council website (if there is one) is merely concerned with the governance of the town/village - and given the few powers that are devolved to town/parish councils, this is often a fairly small subject matter. (I write as a town councillor!) Meanwhile, the town/village may have its own community website which gives a wider and more informative representation of the settlement.

I would therefore suggest that the infobox text is changed from "Website" to "Council website", and would be interested to hear support/objections/whatever.

I'm raising it here after a suggestion by an editor on the template talk page; raising it on the talk page itself didn't get any other responses. --ChaRleyTroniC (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC) --ChaRleyTroniC (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Would Council be applicable for the whole of the UK, for example there are Council areas in Scotland which are larger than just the place in question. Keith D (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Experience suggests that you're opening yourself up to a world of grief if you get beyond something as precisely defined as "Is it the official council site - or not?". I know a village which had just such a "good-but-unofficial" website, which then gained a competitor, and the politics of which was the "official-unoffical" website all got a bit unpleasant. In Wikipedia if you've got two legitimate contenders but only one "slot" as in an infobox, it's an invitation to an edit war. Also, infoboxes tend to be more about the "official" incarnation of a place - the parish/district etc, so it's probably best to keep the official stuff in the infobox, and have the unofficial websites in the External links - even if they are "better" than the council's effort. Le Deluge (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

District maps in location maps

Mendip

Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) pinged me on Commons regarding district maps, like the one to the right. He has created location map templates, for use in articles such as this.

Personally, I do not think this is a good idea because IMO the main purpose of the location map is to indicate location within the broader area of greatest significance to readers. The county-level maps show location-in-county, and also indicate location-in-country, which I believe are the two most important. The district is only really of interest, when the district is a single town/city.

There are some secondary concerns as well, which could be addressed with a more appropriate map series for this task: eg the loss of roads and urban areas, and the use of (unstable) electoral wards as opposed to (stable) CPs.

Any thoughts on this?--Nilfanion (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I think for small locations the district maps are fine. Although it would be better if you could create similar maps but showing the parishes rather than electoral wards. Perhaps on more prominent settlements though the main Somerset map would be better. If you could also add Somerset locator windows like in the main Somerset one this would solve the problem of being too local.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Rodw and Peter I. Vardy might comment. I personally think it's great to have some better scale maps for areas of British countries but I think you should also add a sub window for location in southern England to not look too localised. You'll also find Dr Greg created some ones for Lancashire and has implemented them. See Central Library (Blackpool) for instance. I think it looks great, although it like the others would benefit from a Lancashire in England locator for wider context. In fact I think we ought to have district maps like this of every county of Britain.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The Blackpool map emphasises my primary point though - the main map should show the region of greatest interest. For something within Blackpool, or any other major city, where it is in within that city is of primary interest. The map used on Ingleborough - showing the Yorkshire Dales, not North Yorkshire - is consistent with that too.

However, with a subject in rural West Oxfordshire, such as Blenheim Palace - the area of greatest interest is not West Oxfordshire, but Oxfordshire as a whole.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Why did you create them then??♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I created these maps for electoral purposes, such as in Basildon Borough Council election, 2011, at the time of the last general election. That's why I used wards. The civil parish variant has obvious uses, such as in Grade I listed buildings in North Devon, where the primary subject is the district and the civil parishes are subdivisions.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Some years ago, I created district maps that showed civil parishes for most of the then existing districts of Cheshire. When the reorganisation happened, I was soon going to re-locate to China, and my sources for these maps remains in the UK, so I didn't update them. I think they could be quite useful. My dream was to also implement more of the older divisions of a county into maps, though I think this is straying away from the original issue of this thread. Once I finally retire (in July this year) I may bring some of the material to China and carry on where I left off because I will have much more time on my hands.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Just catching up with these discussions. I think the district maps are useful but not necessarily for buildings etc, which I would agree need the wider context. Where I would see them as useful is the articles about districts eg for the map illustrated above it could be used on Mendip - what do others think? I will also put a note on Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset about the maps, which I wasn't aware of, to get local opinion.— Rod ^talk 17:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Rodw: Yes, you could copy the example in Borough of Chorley for each of the Somerset districts.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the majority at the moment: for buildings and the such, these maps don't give enough context for the general viewer. Yes, for a local it will be useful, but for everyone else, showing the position in the county is far better IMO. Harrias ^talk 18:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

One option to consider is a system that French Wikipedia uses to have several maps for the reader to choose from. Have a look at fr:Paris, for example, and click on the links near the bottom of the infobox that all begin with "Voir sur la carte...". If we could implement a template that achieves something similar on English Wikipedia we could have the best of both worlds. -- Dr Greg  talk  19:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This idea has appeared before but cannot put my finger on it, may be worth digging around to see if it was implemented here. Would be useful to flip between a county map and a more local one for things such as buildings. Also may be useful on places where you could flip to a topographical type map. Keith D (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

As I say, if you added a county in England locator into the district maps you'd solve the problem of it seeming too local. I honestly think for some of the lesser buildings in rural areas you'd be better using better scale ones. For the Blackpool one for instance if you put File:Lancashire_UK_locator_map_2010.svg inside the top right of the window you'd know exactly where it is.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

There are two issues raised here: the map scale (and its appropriateness to the article subject), and the information depicted within any given map. Bearing in mind that the encyclopedia has an international readership, like Nilfanion I personally would favour county and national locators as the default, with district and local maps added as an additional option. That way, the question of "how important is this subject?"—a rather subjective issue—is avoided. On the second issue of the information depicted within any given map, my view is that county/district/local maps that only show political boundaries are not very informative; roads, urban areas etc. provide a much better impression of the context of location. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

A clickable map option would be good like they have on French wikipedia as said above.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

With regards to the clickable maps, I'm generally in favour of that. The big caveat that came up in the past is "what happens when the reader does not have Javascript?" - those users get all the maps, at once, which overwhelms the article. I would also suggest we keep the number of maps to a minimum. At a guess, 99% of readers would not bother to click off the default map, and most of those who do are satisfied by the 2nd. The harm to non-JS readers probably outweighs the benefits to those readers who want more than 2 slices.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Most computers today have javascript or javascript alternatives, anyone who does not have these is most probably making a choice. I dont feel other wikipedia users should be restricted by their choice. I agree that many folks will not bother to click the alternatives or they will not realise the are indeed alternative maps. On the whole I personally think Dr Bloefield's map is an improvement as the image gives an easy to understand and accurate location of the subject in question -- BOD -- 13:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Bus station naming

People over at Talk:Peterborough Queensgate bus station are complaining that "it's just called Queensgate bus station" and want to move it. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations) is pretty clear for railway stations and rail/bus interchanges, that you include the town name even when the short form is the WP:COMMONNAME like London King's Cross railway station. At present I can't find any official guidance on bus stations, but it would seem to make sense to align them with railway stations. Perhaps people could comment over there? Le Deluge (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, one person at Talk:Peterborough Queensgate bus station was trying to move the article back to its original title, but there was a technical problem with moving the associated talk page, so it was listed (incorrectly) at WP:RMTR, then contested. Nobody is "complaining" about anything.

Anyway, I was going to expand the article as it is presently contains no more information than a sentence or two at Peterborough Queensgate shopping centre would. However, I'm not willing to get into a protracted exchange, so I shall leave that to Le Deluge. I look forward to reading the improved article. 163.167.125.215 (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Leeds, Kent: is the distance to the other Leeds useful information?

Just a check. Do we think that articles on villages such as Leeds, Kent, Barnsley, Gloucestershire, or Sheffield, Cornwall are improved by giving the distances to their better-known namesakes? Not at all in my opinion, but just asking. Mr Stephen (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

No the distance is not really notable, it is doubftful that the better known location is really connected to the village, so it should be either an about type template at the top or a see also at the bottom. In nearly all these sort of cases there is really no link between the two other than a similar name so really doesnt need to be mentioned in the main body. MilborneOne (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

County areas in infoboxes

Some infoboxes were recently merged and three articles show {{convert}} errors (search for "convert" in the displayed article to see them). For example, this edit by Alakzi shows that North Yorkshire, as a ceremonial county, has area_total_km2 = 8,038 km², but no value for area_council_km2 has been entered, so the infobox shows an error. Perhaps the infobox should be edited to not complain if the value is blank, but the areas should be easily found so it might be better to work out what should go in the field. When I started I found I was out of my depth:

• List of ceremonial counties of England claims North Yorkshire has area 8,608 km²
• List of two-tier counties of England claims North Yorkshire has area 8,038 km²

The same problem is at Warwickshire and Worcestershire. I'm hoping someone who understands the issue will fix these articles. Johnuniq (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• I will look into it in a moment, thanks. These infoboxes are overly complex, so some minor errors when migrating can be expected. Alakzi (talk) 10:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• York, Middlesbrough, and a couple other places have got their own councils, which is why the non-metropolitan council is smaller in size. Alakzi (talk) 11:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Related requested move discussion

See Talk:Rain in England In ictu oculi (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

English Heritage is Changing

Copied following note from template talk:NHLE to make people aware.

EH is splitting into two parts (see this) and the part that looks after listing, etc. is to be called Historic England.

Keith D (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed change of UK "Demography of..." titles to "Demographics of..."

There is a move discussion in progress at Talk:Demography of Birmingham proposing some UK article titles be renamed from "Demography of..." to "Demographics of...", which (together with the use of "demography" or "demographics" as a section heading) was discussed here in July 2014. As the notification bot puts it, "Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you." NebY (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Peterborough FAR

I have nominated Peterborough 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. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Infobox arms

There is a discussion at Talk:St Albans#Arms, concerning showing a coat of arms in the infobox of St Albans, which editors here may well be able to help along. NebY (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hydrology/water chemistry on the River Tone

Can anyone help? The River Tone article is currently on GA review at Talk:River Tone/GA1. Although many of the reviewers comments have been dealt with, I have been unable to find any reliable sources with information about the hydrology/water chemistry of the river, which the reviewer sees as essential. Can anyone help?— Rod ^talk 16:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

How much have you searched through Environment Agency pages? I did a very brief search and found this page, which, although rather scanty and about the wider catchment, gives an indication that more detailed information might be available. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks had fund that one, but agree it doesn't give much - what do you mean about more detailed information?— Rod ^talk 18:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The analysis of water quality that is presented there must obviously be based on raw data, which may be findable. Other possible sources include publications by geography departments of local universities - have you tried searching through those? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I haven't tried university libraries. I may get to that point but if it requires physical attendance, rather than electronic searching (assuming access rights), it may take a while. I'm working on this in my sandbox if you (or anyone) had anything to add.— Rod ^talk 18:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Monitoring station webpages (such as this one) give data on normal and extreme river levels, which could perhaps be summarised. At the least, it's probably good if the article lists where all the stations are. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant - that is exactly the sort of thing I was looking for and hand't found. Currently putting them into User:Rodw/sandbox and will put it into the article when complete.— Rod ^talk 21:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The Environment Agency also has pages giving the station data - I don't know if you'd regard the EA as a better source? This page has a map showing the stations' locations, which is useful - clicking on the green dots takes you to the appropriate EA station page. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I've added an average flow to the Geobox for the article, the reference gives some other hydrological info which may be useful. There seems to be two flow measurement sites, the other is at Greenham, flows are probably more relevant to this than river levels. In terms of chemistry/quality, the summary page that Pale Clouded White found seems a good one, there may be some other info in the sources I have used before...Jokulhlaup (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The Tone doesn’t seem to have an interesting pollution history like the Irwell or the Trent, but there is some information from the Water Framework Directive, which has a five part scale for ecological quality which ranges from high, good, and moderate, through to poor and finally bad. The Tone itself has been subdivided into three sections, for assessment. see Map

• Upper (good quality)[5]
• Wellington to Taunton (moderate) [6]
• Downstream of Taunton (moderate) [7]

The moderate classification being due to Phosphates under the Physiochemical quality element. This is highlighted on p.54 of the south west basin plan, and is due to the large sewage works (I think?) and agriculture see CSF154...Jokulhlaup (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks you so much for you advice, sources (and edits), which have really helped. I've now added the sub section to the article. In the process of working on this I consulted Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers and the article structure guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers. In the light of the reviewers comments about the importance of hydrology/water quality should we add something about this to the UK guidelines?— Rod ^talk 17:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for a new WikiProject

Hello there, I have just proposed a new WikiProject be started; National Parks of the United Kingdom and I was wondering whether you would be able to come and have a look at the proposal and join the discussion. Thanks for looking.  Seagull123  Φ  14:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

GT nom English Heritage properties in Somerset and FT nom Scheduled monuments in Somerset

Would anyone be willing to review a couple of nominations which are relevant to this project? I nominated English Heritage properties in Somerset as a good topic back in April and it has only received 2 comments, while Scheduled monuments in Somerset has been almost a month without any comments on its featured topic nomination. Any comments would be very welcome.— Rod ^talk 20:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Somehow 'impressive' seems like an understatement. I've noted my support on each page. Nev1 (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

County Palatine of Lancaster

I've just discovered a new article County Palatine of Lancaster (which may have slipped in under the radar, replacing a long-standing redirect), which takes the view that "County Palatine of Lancaster" is another name for "historic Lancashire" i.e. the pre-1974 version of Lancashire. This could be interpreted as against the WP:UKCOUNTIES convention of not having a separate article for an historic county with the same name as a current ceremonial county. (Although the convention does allow deviation from this rule "by consensus".) We already have articles on Lancashire and History of Lancashire. Thoughts? -- Dr Greg  talk  15:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

And also the template {{Lancashire County Palatine}} -- Dr Greg  talk  16:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, WP:POVFORK seems to apply here, regardless of the UKCOUNTIES convention. Even if consensus is UKCOUNTIES is out of date, and ends up being overturned to say that historic counties should be treated as extant entities, that does not justify two separate articles on Lancashire.

The article at County Palatine of Lancaster is more a history of the county dispute, and an inherently POV one at that.

The template is troublesome too. Not least because it conflates the modern admin subdivisions with the historic - it indicates Culcheth is in Cheshire. Is Culcheth in Lancs or Cheshire?

Recommend reinstatement of the redirect (or maybe a merge if any of that content is actually useful).--Nilfanion (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Merge or delete, unnecessary pov pushing. J3Mrs (talk) 07:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree the views expressed on the new article, however I have wondered if merging the history article into the palatine article might be worth discussing. UKCOUNTIES now seems a little shaky, and the POV pushers are likely to keep pushing. This article might be a better space to explore what remnant of the old county survives and occupy those contributors with something less prominent?--Trappedinburnley (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The history article is probably the best place to merge it. Keeping the article will only result in it being spammed into any other articles that mention Historic Lancashire like Wigan. J3Mrs (talk) 10:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Lancashire County Palatine

Template:Lancashire County Palatine has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.  Dr Greg  talk  19:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission

See Draft:List of states of the British Isles. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Strete Gate

Hi. Please take note about this Merge-Discussion please. Thank you & Regards. --Gary Dee 10:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Large number of redirects nominated for deletion

A large number of redirects related to the UK and Ireland have been nominated for deletion, a full list is at User:Rob984/dis. You are invited to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 19#Republic of Ireland and United Kingdom (disambiguation). Thryduulf (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)