This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The newspaper (and other stuff) archive Highbeam are generously offering up to 1000 free accounts for their service to Wikipedians with more than 1000 edits to their name. No catch, you just sign up by Easter Monday at Wikipedia:HighBeam.Le Deluge (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Article for town and an article for the district
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Should there be articles one for a town in a district and one for the entire district. This is the case in most circumstances except where the boundaries of the district and town coincide (this in most cases is debatable one definition is that the boundaries contain another town or village which is physically detached from the main town/city). However I have noticed there are four circumstances where there is no article on the district and it just redirects to the town/city the district is named after. These four examples do not have a coinciding district and town in accordance with my previous definition. These examples are Redditch, Warrington, Peterborough and Sheffield. Sheffield previously had an article on the district back in 2004 but it was changed to a redirect see the history of City of Sheffield. Eopsid (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Edits by a new user about Renfrewshire
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello all. If any of you are interested, there is currently a debate going on at the London talk page about whether to change the page's main infobox image montage. It would be useful to have a few more editors' opinions on this matter, so please drop by if you can. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Boundary sets for conservation areas
Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
This isn't the full list, but that's already thousands of sites and those are the ones with real encyclopedic value. The big caveat here is, as usual, there's no free data for Northern Ireland.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Map to right is example output. I could do with some input as to what is most useful. Locator map in country / region / county? Location map (in style of the National Park ones)? Relief maps? All are easy enough for me, but when there are about 10,000 SSSIs I want to get the most useful map up first. My inclination for SSSIs is locator map in Area of Search (basically the counties).--Nilfanion (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like some exciting possibilities. Area of Search locator maps sound useful, although at least in England the county maps do this pretty well. For SSSIs, NNRs and the like, is it possible to make fairly detailed site maps with the SSSI boundary and an OS Opendata background? (I did a one-off here for example). To have such a base map and then use Location Map+ to add additional labels to show particular features would be truly wonderful. At present I guess only 1 in 5 (or less) SSSIs have a page, and not all NNRs. With some good map resources, that could be addressed really effectively. RobinLeicester (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
This might be just because I like maps, but I think ideally each article should have 2 maps - one showing the general location of the defined area (within a county or country), and one depicting just the defined area, complete with relevant detail. The general location map should be at a relevant scale, as depicted by the 'experimental' examples already shown (a large area such as an AONB should be shown within a country, a small area such as an SSSI should be shown within a county). The more detailed map showing only the defined area should in my view attempt to depict those aspects which are pertinent and/or unique to the site, and it would be most useful in that respect if information is depicted which cannot be gleaned from an alternative map source such as an OS map or Google Maps. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
The location is always important, as is a rather more detailed map (depending on subject!). I'm inclined to do the locators en masse first, as they are always handy and I can do them quickly.
I can produce high-scale maps (~1:10,000) using this plus OpenData: Good vector maps will be time-consuming, but decent rasters are easy enough (for example). Raster maps can readily use a relief background. There is also geological data freely available too - that might be useful for geological SSSIs. It is harder to find obscure areas like the SSSIs on online maps, but the government-run MAGIC has everything and uses the standard (non-free) OS 1:25,000 and 1:50,000 maps.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Update on this (taken a while due to complexities in the data and RL distractions): I've uploaded maps of Cornwall showing the Cornwall AONB, SSSIs, SACs, SPAs and NNRs. I can see a few problems, but can also see how to overcome them. There's 4 basic area types:
Small areas such as Polyne Quarry. For these, a pushpin on the county location map is better than a locator (the highlight is so small as to be invisible!).
Large areas such as Goonhilly Downs. For these, a locator is better than a pushpin - the site is large enough that a pushpin at one point within it is misleading.
Linear areas such as River Camel Valley and Tributaries. A pushpin is misleading, but the area is barely visible as a thumb (Easy to solve - use a thick line to mark it)
Sites composed of multiple areas, such as St Austell Clay Pits. A single pushpin is misleading as the individual sites may be spread out. Multiple pushpins via {{location map+}} will work better than a locator, but the infobox cannot do that at this time.
I'll upload locators for the ones where a location pushpin is inappropriate. I'll also figure out what sort of large-scale map design will work best (these always have value).--Nilfanion (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Great work on these. For Wales, does anyone know if the site data for these sites is available as a spreadsheet anywhere? Or can it be extracted from the GIS database? (Natural England have a spreadsheet for each county, with site name, ID number, Grid Ref, Area, etc which makes a richer list such as this very straightforward). RobinLeicester (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the Welsh data - the GIS data contains name, an ID, Area and northing/easting data. The .dbf in a shapefile is a spreadsheet that can be read by Excel and similar. That data doesn't contain county-level info, and some (the river ones) may cross county borders. That said, once I get the maps up it should be easy enough to work out what applies to what district.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Hamlets within civil parishes
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
There are a ton of merge tags from April 2009 suggesting that tiny hamlets be merged into their civil parish articles. A large number of them consist only of "XXX is a village in XXX" plus a map and info box. Talk:Singleton, West Sussex, which suggests merging Charlton, West Sussex into Singleton, West Sussex is one of many. Should I do these merges/redirects, or should I just delete the merge tags? D O N D E groovilyTalk to me 01:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I would just remove the merge tag. Keith D (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
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.
So if the consensus is against merging these pages, then this guideline would need to be changed. D O N D E groovilyTalk to me 12:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Some support please over at the Slough article. Not for the first time I have had to revert edits from two anon IPs, (though I suspect it may be one and the same person), claiming that Slough is still in Buckinghamshire. I have also posted on that article's Talk page (see here). I know there have been several previous discussions on this page, and maybe elsewhere, about the relevance of historic counties where there has been a boundary change. In Slough's case not only did it move from Buckinghamshire to Berkshire in 1974 (as per Local Government Act 1972) but also became a unitary authority which I understand had the effect of it being created a 'county' in its own right in legislative terms. Having checked the guidance on 'how to write about settlements' I believe the format and content relating to Buckinghamshire on the Slough article is correct. I kind of appreciate it might be an issue for those who live/ grew up in, or have a particular fondness for Slough that it is no longer in Bucks. Their argument, in summary, is that this change of counties was purely for administrative reasons and legislation did not affect boundaries of 'ancient counties' so all such places such as Slough remain today within the bounds of the original county. I know this is also a long-standing contention of the Association of British Counties, however I also understand that Wikipedia has not had any truck with these arguments. Anyway, I am no subject matter expert on this so would appreciate some help over on the Slough article from those who know more on this subject.Tmol42 (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Medway or Kent
Latest comment: 11 years ago27 comments14 people in discussion
Medway is a unitary authority that from 1998 has operated separately from Kent, yet is still associated through the Lieutenancies Act 1997 with Kent. It is administered separately from Kent (though the council does pool resources in some areas, and pays Kent to use their police force), and is not in Kent, though it is surrounded by it. I have been updating Medway related articles with the following information: Foo is in the unitary authority of Medway in South East England. It was, until 1998,[1] part of Kent and is still ceremonially associated via the Lieutenancies Act.[2], and also changing the article titles where appropriate from Chatham, Kent to Chatham, Medway. My understanding is that this is similar to any other administrative area where the administration has changed - such as Bromley and Enfield Town. However, queries have been raised regarding my changes, so it needs wider input. SilkTork✔Tea time 11:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
For reference, here is the majority of the discussion so far [3]. ChiZeroOne (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I enclose (slightly edited to remove irrelevancies) the text of WP:UKPLACE:
Where possible, articles on places in the United Kingdom use [[placename]].
Disambiguation should never be to post town, former postal county or postcode district.
For localities requiring disambiguation:
(1) The usual convention is to use [[placename, ceremonial county]]. For example, Halling, Kent.
(2) When the city and the county use variants of the same name (and disambiguation is required) disambiguate with England for clarity throughout the English-speaking world; thus Lincoln, England, not Lincoln, Lincolnshire.
(3) For localities unambiguously located within a town/city settlement (according to reliable, external sources) [[placename, town/city]] is used. For example, within the borough of Milton Keynes, for localities in the defined new city area [[placename, Milton Keynes]] is used, as with Bradwell, Milton Keynes. Localities within the borough but outside the city area continue to be disambiguated by ceremonial county, as with Olney, Buckinghamshire.
(4) When further disambiguation is required district/unitary is used. Example: two Belmonts in London become Belmont, Sutton and Belmont, Harrow. If there are two places of the same name in the same district/unitary then parishes, wards, or lowercase compass directions are used as appropriate to identify the relative locations. Example: two Woolstons in Shropshire unitary authority become Woolston, north Shropshire and Woolston, south Shropshire.
* Point (1) implies Rochester, Kent. The ceremonial county remains Kent.
* Point (2) might be held to imply Rochester, England. The only other Rochester within England listed in Wiki is Rochester, Northumberland a "a small village and civil parish" which is unlikely to be confused with the city. Perhaps a hat link might suffice?
* Point (3) does not apply, Rochester is not within another town or city.
* Point (4) would imply Rochester, Medway, however it is listed as the choice of last resort.
I therefore suggest that the name should remain as Rochester, Kent. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Medway Council has operated separately from Kent County Council politically, doesn't change that it is in Kent. I would especially like a source that unambiguously stated that Medway is not in Kent as claimed. In fact the only relevant source, the Lieutenancies Act, convincingly states that the Medway Towns are still in Kent. Bromley and Enfield being part of Greater London are subject to entirely different circumstances legally speaking so I'm unsure of the comparison trying to be made, for example Greater London (unlike Medway) is legally equivalent to a county so there actually was a change in location of these areas. London is also a city for disambiguation purposes. ChiZeroOne (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I suggested on SilkTork's talk page that, given the Lieutenancies Act, and my reading of WP:UKPLACE, articles which have been moved from "N, Kent" to "N, Medway" should be moved back to "N, Kent" unless further disambiguation is required: e.g. there seems to be only one place in Kent [or relevant WP article] named precisely "Cliffe", so the relevant article should be "Cliffe, Kent", not "Cliffe, Medway". In other words I agree with ChiZeroOne and Martin of Sheffield, providing none of the articles in question require further disambiguation within Kent. My 2p. Nortonius (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
As this seems to be the place where the discussion is taking place, may I add an opinion before someone does it for me.
Technically User:SilkTork is correct, this is a change that needs to be made to comply with a flawed convention.
The text that User:SilkTork has added to many pages is correct and should stand.
Providing, that users can still search on the term Wigmore, Kent and Upnor, Kent and these pages exist as redirects my principal concern is addressed, so I will stand on the sidelines and hold folks coats as they slug it out.
Where the page is stored is immaterial providing it is properly indexed.
The user experience of reading a page with a heading that is artificial is less than perfect, and i think it is this part of the rule that needs to be addressed. Does user experience mean less or more than administrative tidyness- that is an issue.
Any other fact on a page must be supported by a verifiable reference- this one doesn't. In the two examples I have given only national estate agent use the Upnor, Medway notation. Vision of Britain has had to address the issue. It Googles on both- but Titles on Upnor, Kent. An issue.
It is not just Gillingham Dorset/Kent- or Rainham Essex/Kent that are possible cases for exception, for decades Rochester, Kent has been in use to distinguish it from Rochester, New York (which is marginally bigger) and the amusing distinction between Chatham, Kent and Chatham-Kent the unitary authority in Kent county, Ontario. I would suggest that historical precedent is an issue that really only affects UK unitaries and this was not taken into account sufficiently when the convention was formulated.
When I write an article on a suburb of Macclesfield, say the non-existant Upton, am I require to call it Upton, Cheshire East after the unitary- Upton, Cheshire after the traditional county, or Upton, Macclesfield- I could work up a case for the latter two. But I see that Moston, Cheshire West and Chester has already had the treatment- though in that case there are two Mostons in Cheshire. Coats gentlemen? --ClemRutter (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd disagree with saying the standard text added is correct: "Until 1998, Foo was in Kent and it is still ceremonially associated with Kent", is a poor substitute for "Until 1998, Foo was administratively part of Kent and it is still ceremonially in Kent". The counties are not just administrative entities, and Medway is an integral part of the ceremonial county of Kent - not merely associated with it.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I think we should leave these medway articles as they were eg Chatham, Kent instead of Chatham, Medway. Firstly because Medway isn't very well known (I doubt most outside outside the ceremonial county of Kent would have heard of it) whilst Kent is.
Secondly changing to the name of the unitary authority would lead to Olney, Buckinghamshire being renamed Olney, Milton Keynes which implies it is located within the town when it is (according to it's article) 12 miles outside the town. This situation would also be true for other towns and villages unambiguously outside the town the unitary authority is named after.Eopsid (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I think there are two linked but distinct issues here, and it may be worth looking at them separately. The first is the informative text in the articles when it says where a place in Medway is located, and the second is the disambiguation title.
Should the text in the articles say that Chatham is in Kent, or should it say that Chatham is in Medway?
I think the title disambiguation may be related to the answer to the first issue, though I can see that other factors may be considered. It may be helpful to come to some consensus on the first issue before addressing the second, as I feel the second is more complex. SilkTork✔Tea time 16:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
When considering the informative text, the Post Office do not recommend using counties as part of the postal address. They recommend postal town and post code. I'll find a link to that in a moment (distracted by the England v France game!). SilkTork✔Tea time 16:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
One good point and one red herring! I agree that the informative text should make it clear that, Rochester is in the administrative unit called Medway whilst retaining the title "Rochester, Kent" (as per WP:UKPLACE point (1) above). I think that post towns might be mentioned, but AIUI the post towns are Rochester, Chatham and Gillingham, so by that we ought to have Rochester, Rochester which is why the second line of WP:UKPLACE specifically forbids it. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I think that it is possible that everyone would agree that Rochester/Chatham/Gillingham is in Medway. Perhaps the contentious issue would be how to describe the location further. So is it - "Rochester is in Medway in Kent, England" or "Rochester is in Medway in South East England" - with further details about the administrative change in 1998? SilkTork✔Tea time 17:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Ceremonial county, so AIUI, Rochester, Kent. Never mind what estate agents, postmen, etc think; we are not selling a house or delivering mail. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes there are two distinct but related issues here, not least in part because I think the original rationale for changing the disambiguators was the assumption these places were no longer in Kent.
I've never had a problem with stating the places are in Medway, In fact I've considered redressing the lack of discussion on Medway in articles recently myself. The problem was in categorically stating that they were no longer in Kent, and using a source to back it up that said nothing of the subject. For what it's worth "Rochester is in/part of Medway in Kent, England" would be preferable, especially as counties are far more widely understood geographic areas.
In my opinion the disambiguators should follow the guidelines, which as discussed above in most cases means "X, Kent". This is also far more likely be common usage as unfortunately as another editor points out, the concept of Medway isn't well known outside of Kent. ChiZeroOne (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I would say, speaking as someone who thinks that titles should be clear and not baffling, that X, Kent is both unambiguous and just as importantly, reflective of usage in that strange place called "everywhere that isn't Wikipedia". DuncanHill (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Regarding The Kent (Borough of Gillingham and City of Rochester upon Medway) (Structural Change) Order 1996, please read the legalese;
"Interpretation
2.—(1) In this Order—
...
“Kent” means the non-metropolitan county of Kent and “the County Council” means the council of that county;
...
"Kent" here refers to the non-metropolitan county, i.e the political area administered by Kent County Council. So in stating that Medway is no longer part of this "Kent" it isn't stating anything more than we already know. This is a unit of governance and is a separate concept to the ceremonial counties. Medway was created as a seperate non-metropolitan county with a singe tier of governance (A unitary), but not a ceremonial county which is what the name of Kent, or any other county for that matter usually refers. Incidentally this is the same point I hit on earlier, unlike this case Greater London did become a ceremonial county. This is why the disambiguation guidelines specifically state ceremonial counties. Or is Derby not in Derbyshire? ChiZeroOne (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
For my money, a suitable opening sentence avoiding misunderstanding would be something like: "Foo is a (whatever) in the unitary authority of Medway in the ceremonial county of Kent, England." More details can be given in a later section of the article. Having said that, I'm not particularly in favour of having a rigid standard form of words to use; it makes the encyclopaedia more interesting if different articles use slightly different forms of words, as long as they're accurate. -- Dr Greg talk 18:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
If it helps, districts in the unitary authorities of Southampton and Portsmouth requiring disambiguation are named "foo, Southampton" or "foo, Portsmouth" respectively following this requested move, instead of their ceremonial county ("foo, Hampshire" in those cases). WaggersTALK 09:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Those unitary authorities are entirely urban in nature and their districts are now unambiguously suburbs of the city the unitary authority is named after. The particular case we are discussing is slightly more complex as Medway is a mostly urbanised authority with Medway being sometimes used as a name for the conurbation but the name is not well known outside the area and the authority does contain a significant rural area with a number of villages outside the Medway conurbation. Eopsid (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I am not clear on why it is felt that the Medway name is not known outside the area. The name has been in widespread use for most of the 20th century, and I was familiar with the name Medway Towns long before I moved here. What happened in 1998 was that the area formally known as the Medway Towns became renamed as Medway. Having said that, the ceremonial county is listed as being "Kent and the Medway Towns" rather than "Kent and Medway". And something worth considering is that the ceremonial county of Kent does consist of two places - the geographical and administrative distinct places of Kent and Medway Towns - [4], which is mentioned in our article on Kent.
What this discussion is revealing, is that it can be difficult to describe places by using the ceremonial counties as opposed to the geographical areas and administrative units. Chatham and Rochester are not administratively in Kent nor geographically. They are administratively in Medway and geographically in South East England. It can also be mentioned that under the Lieutenancies Act they are part of the ceremonial county of Kent - though I question how much value that is imparting, as it seems to me to have as much (or less) value than mentioning that Medway is twinned with Valenciennes. SilkTork✔Tea time 18:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is the only place in the world where one would hear places described as being X, Medway rather that X, Kent. Are we to rename all these articles every time there is a change in council structures? Or are we to accept that they've been in Kent for a thousand years and almost everybody still refers to them as being in Kent? DuncanHill (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Medway Council, who might be expected to know a thing or two about where Medway is, give their address as being in Kent. in their contact details. DuncanHill (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
The ceremonial county that contains Chatham is just "Kent", not "Kent and the Medway Towns". The 1997 act says that the ceremonial county that is called "Kent" consists of the local government areas of "Kent" and "Medway". Medway may have a stronger sense of self-identity than most UAs, and more people may see it as distinct from its county compared to say Derby or Poole, but most seem to still see it as part of Kent.
I struggle with SilkTork's comment that "Chatham and Rochester are not administratively in Kent nor geographically. They are administratively in Medway and geographically in South East England." Administratively I agree, but geographically I can't conceive of how an English location can be without an associated county and simply be a disembodied location floating ambiguously somewhere within South East England. The Medway area remains physically within the geographical bounds of the ceremonial county (presumably there is no water boundary shared by the unitary authority and Essex?). I would lean towards "Foo is an X within Medway, Kent." danno 20:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
The ceremonial counties are the standard modern geographic units - how many times has this been gone through now? (Although usually it's the postal addresses problem.) The fact that Medway is a unitary authority makes no difference - there are many unitary authorities across the country and in fact some councils have had their county councils abolished altogether. That doesn't stop places being in those counties. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Featured article candidate
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Dorset article was nominated for featured article status here on the 29th June. Despite some initial comments, no-one has committed to it, possibly because they lack interest in the subject. We wondered therefore, whether anyone here feels they have sufficient knowledge of FA criteria to judge it. We would be most grateful.--Ykraps (talk) 08:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
UK 2011 Census - First data release 16 July 2012
Latest comment: 11 years ago18 comments5 people in discussion
Today (16 July 2012) ONS announced the first release of demographic data from the 2012 census for England and Wales. See here and NISRA (Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency) made a similar announcement. See here. The NRA (National Records of Scotland) will not be releasing data for Scotland until December 2012.
Currently, the data available is population by number, gender, age, density etc by Country, region, county, London borough, district and unitary authority. Much more will follow in subsequent releases later this year and next year. Just wondering whether or not there is an established methodology for updating georgraphy related articles with the new demographic data as it is released. If not any thoughts and ideas on how editors could be assisted with the update to articles? Tmol42 (talk) 11:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
My first thought is: is this a good opportunity to ensure all 2011 data is properly sourced, i.e. explicitly to the appropriate web page and not just to "2011 census"? The English region articles, e.g. South East England, have already been updated (by an IP) with unsourced data. Would it be appropriate to revert-on-sight any unsourced changes (even if the existing 2001 data is not properly sourced), or would that be seen as unhelpful? My second thought is that we should avoid having articles which contain a mix of 2011 and 2001 data. My third thought that it is best to say "the population of X was Y in 2011", not "the population of X is Y". -- Dr Greg talk 17:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Correct-on-sight is more useful than revert-on-sight. Template {{English district population}} and its friends contain the tools. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
And if there are problems with that template, {{As of}} keeps it marked correctly. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Thing is the ONS since 2010 have been using a nine digit code for output areas rather than the four digit code, for example E07000005 has replaced 11UC for Chiltern District. As this new coding will not work with the templates how does one ask for the templates to be reprogrammed? Tmol42 (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Is there a 1 to 1 correspondence between old and new code? If not then all the articles will have to change as well as the code is passed in to the template from the articles. Keith D (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Keith, I'm a bit outside of my comfort zone on this but generally looks like the answer is yes as there appears to be a straight cross-over. For instance the batch of unitary authorities created around 2009 from legislation introduced circa 2007 seem to be OK as they have old and new codes and there are only a few in transition at the moment that might be excluded. However, only the new code is used by ONS so not sure if the crossover from old to new will function unless it goes through a 'translation table' behind the scenes. When you say "passed in to the template from the articles" do you mean the code in the info box is populated automatically by the authority name added to the name perameter in the info box? Tmol42 (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
So we need to get the new data into the templates using both the old and new codes (the translate table is at Local Authority District to County (England) for today, anyway). Then we can go through all uses of the old codes and change them to the new. Then we can strip out the old codes in the templates. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
That data appears to be incomplete, for example 00FA for Kingston upon Hull is not there. Keith D (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I have updated the data for the population using the existing codes which will allow the articles to use the data. I have not changed the rank information as yet as time for bed. Keith D (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I have now done the population ranks, just leaves the density figures to sort out. Keith D (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I have done the desity figures now. I have had to modify {{United Kingdom district population citation}} & {{United Kingdom statistics year}} to allow for a per country cite for the population as Scotland & NI figures are not yet available and so are still on the 2010 estimates. Just add the country as a parameter to the templates. For the former I have changed the redirect {{English district population citation}} to call the template with England as a parameter. If you spot any problems, purge the page as the template changes may not have been propagated yet, otherwise let me know and I will see if I can fix it. Keith D (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Well done Keith! Good work updating all this so speedily. Looking down the line at the second and third releases later this year which will include population data for wards, parishes etc etc. This looks like a much bigger task to bring the new data across. Any ideas on how it could be best tackled? 22:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
We do not have a central place for the lower level data but it is hard coded into each of the articles which is going to be difficult to go through and edit. Has anyone got any ideas how we can have a dataset of the lower level figures? A template with big switch is not really an option. May be other countries have done something like this which we could use. Keith D (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I think that trying to do it with the current parser functions will be hard. Sometime Lua is due to be introduced (Signpost report) but I don't know of a timescale. Lua has look-up tables (tables, dictionarys, whatever) which should do the job. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I have updated the five templates to allow the use of the nine digit GSS code. I have tried to do it without a performance hit, and in a way that will allow the ONS codes to be stripped out at a later date. If I get chance later on tonight I will swap a few article over to the new codes using AWB and see how it looks. If it's all OK we can update the documentation. If not, reverting is easy. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah, instructions: use GSS=E00000000 instead of ONS=AAAA throughout. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, so far so good: 12345. The edit summary needs fixing. I think that swapping {{EnglishStatisticsYear}} to {{United Kingdom statistics year}} might come back to bite us at some indeterminate time in the future, but for the sake of consistency I will make it {{English statistics year}}. I see that there is a line for the ONS code in the infobox, at blank1_name = [[ONS coding system|ONS code]] and blank1_info = 45UC. Any thoughts on this issue? If it's to be changed then now while the edit is open and the codes are loaded is a good time. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Depends if the 4 character code is used for any other purpose. If not then probably change to the new code. It may be a good time to check all the articles use the templates rather than hard code the information, both in the infobox and the text. Keith D (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Contents boxes
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Does anyone know how to delete or move contents boxes that serve no purpose? The article at Halstock is a good example. When in edit mode, I cannot find where the contents box text is - I'm assuming it's hidden somehow? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
You'll need to add the code __NOTOC__ to the article (I think it has to go right at the top). That's two underscores on each side of "NOTOC". Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
One contents box duly removed - thanks! PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population
Latest comment: 11 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion
Currently the List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population is quite a mess. Full of original research mainly because the population figures for Milton Keynes, Telford and London use a different definition of settlement than the rest of the article. The first two use the entire urban area figures, London uses the population of Greater London back in 2001 whilst the rest of the article uses urban subdivisions from the article's source which are no where mentioned as corresponding to settlements. The article's source lists a number of subdivisions with two names most of which are ignored (notably Oldbury/Smethwick with a population of over 100,000 but the article's list has a cut off point of 50,000) or in Cambridge's case has the parish of Milton's population taken from it (Cambridge's subdivision is called Cambridge/Milton).
I attempted to create a new version of the article which removes most of these problems and also lists the settlement's urban subdivision population as before, the total urban area population (which is included already in most of the Notes section of each settlement) as well as the population of the local authority district area which it lends it's name to or is mostly in. I increased the cut off point to having an urban subdivision population of 100,000 but the new article I created also shows every single urban area with a population over 100,000 so Telford and Milton Keynes which have no subdivisions greater than 100,000 or indeed 50,000 in Telford's case would appear on the list. There were still problems regarding London
OK so I made this new version and put on the article's talk page that I was going to do this here. It garnered no responses and so 10 days later I replaced the article with my new one. But alas someone changed it back and after a short discussion (which mainly involved calling my new article confusing) we need more opinions on whether to keep the article as is or replace it with my one or how to improve my article so that it is agreed it should replace the current article. Eopsid (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Eopsid's proposal would perpetuate the myth that settlements were pickled in aspic sometime around 1912. Milton is now part of Cambridge.
The subdivisions of Milton Keynes and Telford are purely artefacts of the ONS - each time they began a new a new enumeration, they would add a new sub-area. Read first North Milton Keynes and then Central Milton Keynes#ONS Urban sub-area to see what I mean. Both Milton Keynes and Telford are wholly and completely the sum of their sub-areas and indistinguishable from them. It is OR to single out any arbitrary sub-area.
To summarise, I am strongly of the view that a list based on archaic settlement definitions is WP:OR. It denies the reality of expanding places like Reading/Wokingham, Swindon, Northampton, Oxford, Cambridge, Milton Keynes, Telford and many more. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Re-reading, I'm now not sure that Eopsid was trying to modernise to reality but was being opposed by those who did not. Sorry if that is the case but either way my charge of OR still stands. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Would you rather delete List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population because I would support that. I was just trying to get a middle ground between calling it all OR and what it is now. Eopsid (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I quite like the idea of listing the different ideas of what the settlement is. The current article is a mess because it defines what a settlement is (i.e. an urban sub-division) which the ONS does not do. The ONS says:
"Major urban areas and others with more than one central focus are divided where possible to produce figures about localities within them. Previously separate urban areas, where urban land has merged, are also recognised by subdivisions where possible. Subdivisions often follow the boundaries of local authorities existing before reorganisation in 1974, or the boundaries of current authorities within urban areas." [5]
So the sub-division could represent a 'locality' (whatever they mean by that) or it might not. I believe it is deliberately vague. Saying what constitutes a settlement is a messy business as shown by years of discussion regarding various places on wikipedia. Presenting the information available whilst being clear that what it represents may be limited is the best way to proceed in my opinion. Polequant (talk) 11:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me to be OR/POV-pushing to use anything other than the full Urban Area as defined by the Office of National Statistics. They are the reliable authority for what the settlement is today(even if that settlement today has absorbed multiple locations which were previously independent settlements). Newspaper or magazines that put their own spin on the ONS stats are 'secondary sources' and therefore do not meet the standards set by WP:RS. It is entirely invalid to define in 2012 a locality by its 1974 boundary. The only reliable source is the ONS and we MUST use their Urban Areas exclusively and not start picking and choosing to suit some private agenda.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The urban areas (as defined by ONS) have a clear meaning, and so should certainly be the subject of a list. However, there are issues with "use the ONS definition of an urban area and only that". The biggest issue relates to the administrative divisions, which rarely exactly match the ONS urban area, and unlike the ONS definition have real practical effects on the ground to people and businesses in the area (what services they get).
Three examples to illustrate the problems:
Cambridge has expanded outside the City Council's area, and the urban area includes outlying villages like Milton. As Milton is outside the City Council's control, it is distinct from the city in 2012.
In the urban core of the major conurbations, like Greater Manchester, the boundaries between the subdivisions match the current administrative borders. For example, the boundary between the Manchester and Stockport subdivisions is the 2012 administrative boundary between them.
In some, like Torbay, the Urban area developed from multiple towns. Torbay was created in 1968, and there is no administrative distinction between Torquay and Paignton today (the ONS subdivision matches the pre-1968 line). The two towns have merged physically and as it has no practical meaning, I doubt there is an exact boundary any more. That said, the towns still have very distinct identities.
The best solution might be to redirect the settlements list to a page describing settlements in the UK (and describing the various way to define them) rather than directing to the list of urban areas. This could then link to all relevant lists: One pointing at the Urban areas list, one pointing at a list by administrative area and one describing towns and cities etc. Each of those can be defined, though the 3rd one will be awkward. City status is well-defined and can be matched to an area the ONS gives data for. Towns are a problem as the meaning may be less clear in conurbations - the ONS subdivisions may be the only NPOV way to give area/population figures. Ones like Carlisle might be awkward too.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Your three methods of defining a town seems to be similiar to what was in my earlier draft article which I tried to replace the current article in question with.
I dont see how Carlisle in particular would be awkward? What I see as more awkward is where one subdivision includes areas outside the local authority eg Hull and Reading.
There are also civil parishes which can be used as a measure for the population of a settlement but they are only suitable for smaller settlements eg villages and small towns but it gets very confusing when suburbs of towns have their own civil parishes. Eopsid (talk) 12:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Your draft article is flawed IMO. Doing all 3 methods in one list is a bad approach, better 3 different lists. For instance if you sort by Urban area you have to wade through 3 different Londons and 7 different West Midlands to get to Greater Manchester - as opposed to it being the 3rd thing in the list. My suggestion is not quite a disambiguation page, but rather an article to describing the difficulties and giving an introduction - it then links to the carefully-defined lists.
Carlisle is a problem because the administrative area of the City of Carlisle bears no resemblance to the settlement called Carlisle. Bewcastle is hardly part of the settlement, but any list of largest cities in the United Kingdom would have to list the population of the City of Carlisle, as including villages like that - because it is in the area with city status.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I disagree here. "City of Carlisle" is an administrative district which includes villages that are not part of the ceremonial city. There are many Unitiary Authorities like this - Carlisle is by no means unique. So in an list of largest cities, you may only include the Urban Area population and no more. A list that included the population of the Admin District of the City of Carlisle belongs in and only in a list of Admin Districts. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
To clarify a little more, a list of cities includes Carlisle and gives the population of its Urban Area, ignoring its admin boundaries. [Same goes for Cambridge]. A list of Local authorities (Unitary Authorities, Districts, Metropolitian Boroughs etc) gives the population within the admin boundary. So City of Carlisle has a greater population than Carlisle, City of Cambridge has a smaller population than Cambrige. [At least in theory. In reality, I wonder if the A14 plus embankments is wider than the gap than the ONS is prepared to ignore when defining contiguity). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
POV
I have now tagged this article as POV because it has no evident objective basis for its selections and divisions. Please respond at [Talk:List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population#POV tag]]. This is a preliminary step that may lead ultimately to an RfD. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
List of British towns with no railway station
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
UK 2011 Census - Second data release 11December 2012
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
The next major release phase of data for England and Wales and NI based on the 2011 census starts on December 11th. As well as this data, I believe the first release of data relating to Scotland is planned about a week later on 17 December comprising population data for each 'council' area. For England and Wales and NI there is a vast amount of new data series which are planned to be released in two phases between December 2012 and March 2012. I understand this release will include for the first time some ward and parish population data for the 2011 census. For the first release in July 2012, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 13#UK 2011 Census - First data release 16 July 2012 there was some excellent work done by some editors to code up ONS tables and populate data table so it automatically loaded population data for Unitary Authorities etc. This time the task of populating info boxes is much more complex and I am not sure how feasible it will be to preclude a rash of manual updating with all the consequent errors and confusion by automating this behind the scenes for parishes and wards. As far as I can see the bespoke data for 'towns' is not being released yet, though for England and Wales and NI I guess it could be manually obtained by using the relevant Lower Output Area (LOA) and Output Area (OA) data for each town which has recently (November 23rd) been released. For Scotland there is also the task of catching up on the ONS coding for Councils as was done last July for England and Wales. Enough said, I will open up for others with more knowledge and expertise to discuss how to proceed. thanks. Tmol42 (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
The Scottish templates are of a different form to the English and Welsh versions. IIRC, it was not obvious how to change them to include the new codes seamlessly. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I updated List of English districts and their ethnic composition manually (In the process I no doubt made a few errors). It seems that all the actual articles on Districts and Boroughs also need updating with regards to data on Ethnicity and religion. Eopsid (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The ward-level data is now out at www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk - presumably there's some nice Excel files with the "concentrated" data somewhere on ons.gov.uk. No I'm not volunteering! Le Deluge (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm not volunteering either, though I do have a related question. How do we verify the reliability of data embedded in templates such as {{English district population}}? If we have doubts, do we replace such templates with data directly obtained from the ONS? In addition, I also note that the ONS released English parish level statistics today. I suspect that the work necessary to code such data into templates is enormous; I would also suspect that the cost, in terms of the work necessary, outwieghs the benefit by a large margin. Would I be correct? --Senra (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
River Lee, Ireland
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Does anyone want to look at Talk:River Lee (Ireland) for a move proposal? It relates in some ways to the River Lea. Simply south......walking into bells for just 6 years 14:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I've noticed a little edit war going on at the top of the article between using England and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There seems to be a certain standard going on through other articles, I don't know why Herts should be different.
What should be the standard, I still think under WP:COMMONNAME it should be just England. Govvy (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I think there is doubt about whether the common name really is "England". Perhaps it is unduly affected by the Americanism which uses "England" to refer to the UK? I have also noted an IP address editor has just changed Bedfordshire so that it also uses "England" instead of the United Kingdom. If there really is an edit-war going on, I can temporarily protect the article to allow effort to be directed at discussion and consensus-building, rather than be expended in useless and counter-productive edit-warring, but it would be better if everyone took personal responsibility and restrained themselves. DDStretch (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Probably part of the Americanism! I think we have come to an agreement on the talk page there know. Hopefully it will stop the little edit-war. So should it be England or UK across the articles with the opening address sentence? Govvy (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there is any consensus which is the most prevalent. Simply south......catching SNOWballs for just 6 years 21:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia a reliable source?
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I considered posting the below to our reliable sources noticeboard, hence the title. I should post it here first, so please consider the below...
The initial construction and then maintenance of such data driven templates is applauded as an excellent contribution to the encyclopaedia. In this case, I assume one or more editors have spent considerable amounts of their time collecting the data from the Office for National Statistics then transcribing the data to templates. I see two issues with this approach: we are relying on accurate transcriptions and someone has to continue to maintain the templates as the underlying data changes. As an article editor, should I rely on Wikipedia as a source in this way?
The template {{United Kingdom district population citation}} gives the cite for the tables in the templates, just as any entry on Wikipedia this is subject to typing errors and would be just the same as someone editing the figure directly into an article. It is a very useful tool to keep all of the articles up to date and keeps all of the data in a single place preventing editors changing the figures directly in articles. Keith D (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
As I am the one or more editors referred to, I can assure Senra that the figures are never manually retyped - they are processed automatically from the ONS spreadsheets. The combination of figure + date is as reliable as anything in Wikipedia, and, as Keith D says, there is a citation footnote in each article if you want to double-check.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 08:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Erm. Now that I have the rabbit caught in my headlights as it were, I have a few questions:
is there a central location, such as a sub-project of WikiProject UK geography, that collects queries and comments about these templates? If there is such a location, could it be linked such as from Category:Templates for UK subdivision lookups and from the template documentation in here {{English district population}}?
if the figures are so automatically processed, when will the templates be updated to reflect the 11 December 2012 release?
I thought I understood {{infobox settlement}}. I have used it many times. In particular, I believe the parameter|population density= is automatically calculated from |population area= and |population total=. If that is still the case, what is the purpose of {{English district density}}?
are there any plans to include parish level statistics?
Please don't misunderstand me. I think these templates are a brilliant idea. I came across them recently by accident via East Cambridgeshire. I have since been trying to understand the mechanism behind them. Your help would be appreciated.
Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion
I'm sorry if this is a hoary old FAQ. I've been around here a million internet years but still don't know an awful lot. Where do I learn about boundaries - the boundaries of things like civil parishes, boroughs. counties etc? I know that it is difficult to define the boundaries of, say Middlesbrough the town (which is why you can have such lavish arguments about it), but it must - I assume! - be far easier to see the exact extent of say Middlesbrough Borough Council, the administrative entity. I know these things are on some maps but clearly not all. What do regulars here use as a definitive source when they want a nice clear map that clearly shows whether the charming hamlet of X is or is not in the local council district of Y, or indeed the civil parish of Z or even the electoral ward of &? (Bother, ran out of alphabet.) I'm sure there must be a favourite, reliable place to find this stuff, and I am equally sure that I don't have a clue where it is. All advice very gratefully read. Thanks! DBaK (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
For locations in Great Britain (not NI), there's two approaches. Either look at the maps or directly at the underlying boundary data:
Ordnance Survey mapping displays all administrative boundaries (including civil parishes at 1:25,000 scale). OS mapping is available online via their getamap service.
The boundary data has been made available by OS, and there's a lookup service available which determines the regions that cover a given location. As an example, if you click coordinates at the top of Riverside Stadium you get this page which has a long list of mapping services. One of the Great Britain services listed is MaPit. If you follow that link (marked containing areas), among other things it shows the Riverside Stadium is in Middlesbrough (like you need look that up!) and its in the Middlehaven electoral ward. That service provides county, district, civil parish, constituency and ward boundaries.
The look-up service isn't perfect as it can only return the locations that cover one point, so for subjects that cross boundaries (eg the Humber Bridge) consulting the maps is a better option.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
http://www.election-maps.co.uk is a simple but very handy official website for seeing electoral and administrative boundaries throughout the UK (courtesy of OSGB and OSNI). You can click to see an overview map of an entire region, county, borough, district or constituency, or zoom in to also see statutory boundaries for local wards, divisions, townlands, civil parishes or communities. It is not possible to link directly to a particular location, so you need to start afresh each time then zoom in manually or by postcode.
Puzzlingly, this seems to be the only free website that shows comprehensive and easily accessible boundaries, even though Great Britain boundary data was made publicly available with the release of OS OpenData three years ago.
As an alternative, http://www.sysmaps.co.uk/sysmaps_os.html is easier to navigate, but the boundary lines are not displayed as clearly and it does not include parish/community boundaries. Nor does it extend to Northern Ireland (which is not covered by the OpenData releases).
Several other mapping websites show county and unitary boundaries (or include them along with district and parish boundaries on mid-scale Ordnance Survey map tiles). There is a helpful list if you click the GeoHack coordinate link at the top-right of most placename Wikipedia articles (example).
Two simple and easy sources of boundaries i use for identifying within which authrity a settlement sits are:- www.magic.gov.uk which under the interactive map section has the up to date boundaries for all administrative divisions. The other is www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk which provides a quick look up by post code or name for local authorities from civil parish upwards.Tmol42 (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Hidden away on the ONS's website is Nomisweb. Its official title is "labour market statistics", but if you look closely there's also a pile of mapping data, including Urban Areas and Urban Subdivisions. This is a good place to start. If you click on the names in the right hand side (and leave the drop-down lists alone), you get the individual areas listed. Immediately to the right of the check box is a little map of the UK. Click on it, and it shows you a map of the relevant area. If you want to know whether something is in Middlesbrough (the town), that's the place to go! (This is the map for Middlesbrough, BTW) Fingerpuppet (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Some urban subdivisions can be slightly problematic, as they are based on the pre-1974 district boundaries. Its questionable if those lines on the map have any meaning today, when they have had minimal administrative purpose for nearly 40 years.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
That's a common misconception. Urban subdivision boundaries are only based on the pre-1974 district boundaries when the boundary between two places is entirely within a conurbation - and that boundary was completely built-up at the time of the 1981 census! It is a deliberate choice by the ONS because modern local government districts are mostly not based around single settlements - the classic examples being Metropolitan Districts like Tameside, Calderdale or Kirklees, or even rural-based districts such as South Staffordshire. If this was not the case, it would be impossible to provide data on towns such as Sale, Ashton-under-Lyme or Middleton, or even very substantial towns such as Sutton Coldfield, Blackburn, Halifax or Huddersfield - all of which clearly exist, but do not have local authorities named after them. As can be shown very easily from the data, the areas of USDs change with every census - this notion of them being fixed is a falsehood. Fingerpuppet (talk) 08:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Like I said, some urban subdivisions are potentially problematic (and I agree its only ever inter-subdivision boundaries - within the built-up areas - that have issues). The ONS definition of an urban area (such as Halifax) is well-defined and objective, but the same cannot be said of the subdivisions. Inter-subdivision boundaries can coincide with current administrative boundaries, like they do for Middleton and Huddersfield, but there's no guarantee of that.
Sutton Coldfield's border is a good example. Sutton Coldfield and its subdivision have gotten bigger. However, its border with Birmingham was fully-developed and is essentially frozen since 1974. ONS gives Sutton Coldfield a well-defined border with Birmingham purely to report statistics. For instance, in the B23 postal district: The subdivision boundary cuts across Beech Road and Sycamore Road. That line was appropriate in 1973 as it was the borough boundary, but today what difference is there between 18 and 20 Beech Road?
Its likely that other reliable sources will disagree with ONS in such cases because the exact line isn't relevant in most situations. In practice Sutton Coldfield's southern border is a fuzzy region, not a line on a map. That means in border areas, answering "what town is this location in?" needs a bit more investigation than "ONS says its in X subdivision".
In the case of Sutton Coldfield, Birmingham City Council defines its area differently to ONS - compare ONS to the City Council. There are subtle differences along the southern border with Birmingham (in the area I mention above). There's two reliable sources giving quite different boundaries :)--Nilfanion (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks to you all for the very interesting replies. Sorry I've taken so long to get back to this. I should have guessed that it wouldn't be quite as simple as I hoped, but it's been fascinating and very useful to see what it has brought to light. Thanks, all. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 09:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Itchington : Could someone have a look
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Itchington appears to me to be mostly a joke, but I'm not familiar with the place and don't feel qualified to delete 50% of the current text. Sorry if this isn't the right place to bring this up. Modal Jig (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree that much of the text appeared to be a joke, so I've removed the offending elements (though another editor saw fit to revert my changes, and reinstated the text about villagers drinking cider, listening to The Wurzels and celebrating the solstices etc.....<sigh>) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
It looks like its been in pretty well that state off and on since 2009. Given if you remove all the POV as you did PaleCloudedWhite it amounts to two lines and having checked it on streetview it would seem sensible to merge it in with Tytherington, Gloucestershire which is not only the nearest village but also the name of the parish council withiin which it lies.Tmol42 (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes that seems sensible; it had occurred to me that it didn't warrant a stand-alone article - removing the nonsense just seemed a valid first step. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I have added merge tags to both these articles, and would welcome your input there.Tmol42 (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
(Great) Britain/UK and Ireland
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
We currently have a disambiguation page at Great Britain and Ireland and an article at UK & Ireland that have virtually identical content. Several similar terms redirect to either one of those targets or British Isles. At Talk:Great Britain and Ireland#Merge proposal I have proposed merging the article and dab page (with no preference to direction) and retargetting all the redirects to the merged page. Your comments on the proposal would be welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Article alerts
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hi. I've been adding London distances and compass directions in England place articles. Taking the angles, I have used "b" (by) - such as in EbS - where it is obvious that that direction is not expressed sufficiently by going either side. Is it necessary to be so accurate or should I take a stab at one of the angles either side ? I say this as perhaps it might not be obvious for readers what the "b" is and might not link to the Boxing the compass page. Is there a convention here ? Many thanks. Acabashi (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
My feeling would be that by is sufficiently unfamiliar to non-sailors that it's not a great idea to use it. If you're going to attempt that kind of precision, then just use degrees and have done. By is neither one thing nor the other, with the disadvantage of unfamiliarity. Le Deluge (talk) 08:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
When I did Rutland eg Egleton and Sussex, I kept to the 16 points of the compass. The honest reason for this is that this was the accuracy of the utility I was using. You have to consider the application, does the reader want to navigate using Wikipedia or just some idea of where the location is? I doubt there will be any real need for SEbE accuracy. I expect there will be inaccuracies anyway, depending on which part of London is chosen for the measurement. MortimerCat (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
All points taken, and my suspicion that I was being too anal is confirmed - I'll stick to the 16 points. Many thanks for the feedback. Acabashi (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
