Open main menu

Contents

What kind of "parish"?

Please see Talk:Lasswade# What sort of "parish"?. The gist is: In the United States, at least, "parish" almost always refers to an ecclesiastical unit, and its unmodified use to refer to civil parish is misleading and confusing to the typical American reader-- unintentionally, of course, but confusing nonetheless. I changed the first use of the word in Lasswade to civil parish and pinged Tom1955, who seems to have done the most work on the page.

Then it occurred to me that there were likely to be many more instances of this mistaken unconscious assumption about what the reader knows. And so I'm bringing the issue here for the UK, as I have done for Ireland (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland/Requests, § What kind of "parish"?). [For some reason the usual notation of PAGE#SECTION in double square brackets isn't working for me here.] Please {{Ping}} me to discuss.

--Thnidu (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Confusion is not restricted to the typical American reader. The following exchange took place some years ago on the Chadwell St Mary talk page.
" Village or Parish
Until the 20th century, Chadwell (St Mary) was a dispersed settlement. I suggest that in discussing its history, it is better to refer to the parish rather than the village. Rjm at sleepers 09:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Definitely not a parish. Thurrock is unparished, and the predecessor Thurrock Urban District consisted of one Thurrock parish rather than being comprised of individual parishes. MRSCTalk 17:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)"
I think it makes sense to specify either civil or ecclesiastical parish, although the latter is also confusing when boundaries have changed in the 20th century. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I would agree, that it would be useful to specify but I would assume most articles about UK parishes would relate to Civil parish, but will freely admit I don't always put that or link to it. There used to be an article for Ecclesiastical parish which could be used to specify the church related area, however this now appears to redirect to Parish. Potentially confusingly we also have an article Parish (administrative division). When writing about churches I tend to use the format "X parish is part of the benefice of Y", which is within the diocese of Z.— Rod talk 08:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
It would be interesting to know whether the majority of Wikipedia usage was about the modern civil parish or the ancient ecclesiastical parish. In the context of history and genealogy, a reference to a parish almost always means the ecclesiastical parish as it existed in the middle of the 19th century. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 05:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Wiki articles are generally about the modern units, as geography articles are written from "present day" perspective. The only articles which will diverge from that are historical ones. Pre-1866 the civil parishes and ecclesiastical parishes were the same thing. The bit I'd be unsure of is biographical articles for late 19th century people. However that sort of article will generally refer to the village, not the parish.
One thing that might be worth considering: Are ecclesiastical parishes notable?--Nilfanion (talk) 08:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure ecclesiastical parishes are notable. There will be a large number of references to them in the literature. Are wiki articles generally about modern units? I'm not convinced, but I have no data. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not convinced there is a large number of references to ecclesiastical parishes (apart from discussion of CofE churches). What there will be is a large number of references to the ancient parishes as they existed before the civil and ecclesiastical functions were separated. That doesn't mean the modern EPs are the same unit as the ancient parishes of the same name.
If you look at a typical article about a village, the main unit referenced is the modern civil parish. That is the unit used for pretty much all statistical references, like current population data. When you look at lists like Grade II* listed buildings in South Somerset, the locations quoted are the CPs. The buildings in that list also generally mention the CP.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I think I have (unwittingly) extended the confusion. When I said that ecclesiastical parishes were notable, I meant traditional ecclesiastical (C of E) parishes which existed (and in some cases still exist) for hundreds of years. I looked at a number of articles about places. They typically began "x is a civil parish". However, the content of the article was often about the ancient parish of the same name and sometimes included information about the Domesday vill. The extent to which the modern civil parish is exactly the same as the earlier ecclesiastical parish varies. Some areas (eg Thurrock) do not have civil parishes. Modern ecclesiastical parishes may not correspond to either civil parishes or traditional ecclesiastical parishes. Modern data often refers to the civil parish. Historical data often refers to the ancient parish. It is messy. I believe the word parish should usually be qualified to make clear whether it refers to the modern ecclesiastical parish, the traditional ecclesiastical parish or the modern / current civil parish. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 08:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and I believe in most contexts it is clarified already - either by the addition of a word ("civil parish"), or by its context when used in prose about historical events. What I would say is we should avoid referring to the pre-19th C parishes as "ecclesiastical parishes". Sure they had a religious meaning, but they had many other purposes as well. The term "ecclesiastical parish" should be restricted to the modern religious units with no local government function.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
That seems OK to me - civil parishes, ecclesiastical parishes and traditional (or ancient) parishes. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I'd use "civil parish" whenever present-day information is being discussed. When discussing historical matters (before the split of EP and CP) I'd just use "parish", instead of inventing another class of units. The modern and ancient parishes are pretty similar in many cases but even when they are not, statements like "This house in the civil parish of X" and "This house was built as the manor of Y parish" can co-exist in one article without complications. That means I don't see any real need to worry.
Whitchurch, Devon is a rare example needing much more careful treatment: The village itself isn't in the civil parish. The date it was added to Tavistock is a key fact not described by the article.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
The unqualified use of the word parish does not solve the confusion noted by the OP. Whitchurch is by no means unique - all 17 ancient parishes in Thurrock are similar - and I suspect there are other examples. I posted the example above where MRSC was not comfortable with the unqualified use of parish in the case of Chadwell-St-Mary.
That is not the only Whitchurch to cause confusion Whitchurch, Bristol covers part of Bristol and part of Bath and North East Somerset. The old village is also a civil parish whereas the newer part is a suburb covering two council wards. The EP covers both and has two churches: one old to St Nicholas (which I'm sure we have an article for but I can't find) and St. Augustine's Church, Whitchurch, Bristol which opened in 1972 and closed in 2007. I think the point is that although attempts at standardisation can be useful there will always be "difficult cases".— Rod talk 09:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
FYI, when working on Sleaford some years ago, I found it rather difficult to work out what my subject was. In 1974 the civil parish that exists today was formed from the merger of four civil parishes: New Sleaford, Old Sleaford, Quarrington and Holdingham. Each of those are thus notable and all represent former settlements. But they do not correspond to ecclesiastical parishes: Quarrington had long been merged with the benefice of Old Sleaford (although they had been separate and Old Sleaford had its own church in the medieval period), while Holdingham had never been its own benefice and always fell under New Sleaford. New and Old Sleaford were in different hundreds. Sleaford was also a prebendary and the prebend had peculiar jurisdiction over New and Old Sleaford and Holdingham (but not Quarrington) for matters like probate. Now, things become even more complicated when it comes to what 'New' and 'Old' Sleaford were; today, no-one growing up in the town would recognise Old Sleaford as a place: it disappeared years ago. But historically it was very significant, although aspects of its history are debated; New Sleaford, meanwhile, corresponds with today's market town. I tried to do my best, but I remain struck by the complexity of working out what Sleaford the article's subject should be. —Noswall59 (talk) 10:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC).
For me, it's precisely these kind of foibles that make editing and researching for Wikipedia interesting. When I was writing the South Stoneham article I had a similar-ish problem. Over time it has been many things - a parish (of the old type), a private estate, a hundred, a poor law union, a sanitary district and a rural district. Nowadays the manor house still stands in a much reduced estate but there's no administrative or ecclesiastical region carrying the name. My solution was to break the article into sections and deal with each one of those in turn. I'm all for standardisation but each of these places is unique and the articles need to reflect that to a certain extent. WaggersTALK 15:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I would say that a parish itself is not generally notable (it could be considered administrative trivia). However, if the name of a village is also the name of a parish, then it is a good indication that the village is notable. There are two cases that can be distinguished. If it is an ancient parish, there will be a church and hundreds of years of history for which there will be reliable sources that can be used for the Wikipedia article. If it is a more recent civil parish, there is probably a large population and a parish council website, etc. (My comments mainly apply to rural areas in southern England where parishes are small and based on a single village. In urban areas the situation is more complicated - a larger authority may have replaced the civil parishes - ecclesiastical parishes may have been subdivided when the Church of England built more churches - and this may be a complicated on-going process which should not be allowed to overwhelm the lead section of Wikipedia articles.) JonH (talk) 11:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Following this discussion User:Nilfanion and I took a look at this for one diocese over Xmas and New Year. The result can now be seen at: List of ecclesiastical parishes in the Diocese of Bath and Wells. It would be useful to have your feedback on the format and content - all I would say is that it is quite a lot of work.— Rod talk 21:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Historical info in civil parish lists

I believe the the civil parish lists like List of civil parishes in Greater Manchester are giving undue weight to a relatively minor point: The former rural district (or UD or MB or whatever) that the parish was in prior to the local government reforms of the 1970s. Unlike the counties, I'd be shocked if anyone cares about the former district. Moreover, compared to the counties the former districts existed for a much shorter period. As a specific case, someone might care that Carrington was in Cheshire but who is going to want to know that is was in Bucklow RD?

I suggest the "former local authority" column is dropped from the tables and replaced with something else. A couple possibilities are Westminster constituency(ies), or if it has a parish council, parish meeting or is part of a joint parish. Both of those have actual practical impact on the current governance of the place. Thoughts anyone? @Rodw: as primary author of the featured Somerset list.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the reason is because there is no other practical point to go by, I have no objection to dropping it though. Joint parishes or similar might work but could easily be vague as different sources will likely describe different names/partnerships. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to remove them: the parishes were part of those authorities for a century, and for local historians it can be very helpful to have that information (it's also worth adding that historical boundary information is not easy to find online, so having the material gathered in one place helps the researcher). Removing the column also potentially gives "undue weight" to the current local government boundaries. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC).
It feels like cherry-picking to me - simply because its the status as it was in 1973. It excludes any changes within the era of the Urban Districts (if a parish was moved from one to another). With regards to other historical things why not mention not the hundreds or the counties (when it was changed)? Or how about changes within modern district structure? Why should the Cornish list associate Advent to Camelford Rural District but not North Cornwall District?
I agree this information should be recorded but I think it should be on the articles for the places - not the civil parish list.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
The List of civil parishes in Somerset includes the former "local authority" (eg RD, UD, MB etc) because it is organised under sub lists related to each current district council (or unitary authority) so this is already shown, As commented above the former name is very helpful when looking for records (see Vision of Britain Through Time). This obviously doesn't apply to the Manchester list which is not sub divided in the same way.— Rod talk 16:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd favour either the addition of the more units (the hundreds, possibly sanitary districts and poor law unions), as then the lists could show the full history of the parishes; or the removal of the historical completely. Minor changes could be added via a "notes" column. Its just those that have been more radically changed since 1990 which need more thought. It seems wrong to give the district in 1950 greater prominence than the district in 2000.
I think part of my problem here is the heading "former local authority". In the case of Bathampton: Bathavon RD, Wansdyke and Avon are all "former local authorities". A proper title for the RD-era subdivisions would help.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
My opinion, for what it's worth, is to remove all the historical information so long as it is recorded elsewhere. A possible link to the "elsewhere" might then be provided. The problem is making sure the historical information is recorded somewhere and is not removed by any zealous editors who see it as removing excess information. I have my own copies of Youngs' two volumes which provide the historical information (in a much more reliable way, I find, than the various online sources) on the local administrative divisions of counties in England up to 1974, and this can be used to fill in gaps where needed - I used it with other sources when I wrote Ancient parishes of Cheshire, for example. I have found, however, that in some cases, the historical information I provide from it gets removed by subsequent editors in articles about villages, towns, or civil parishes that I have contributed to, and I find it sad that this has happened.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

One hill or two?

Would any hill experts please offer advice on the following? Between Burnley, Hyndburn and Rossendale is an area of raised ground known as Hameldon 53°45′23″N 2°18′49″W / 53.756300°N 2.313667°W / 53.756300; -2.313667. As far as it can tell there are two Hills called Hameldon and Great Hameldon, however every source I can find seems to treat it as one hill. An example from the Victoria County History entry for Hapton: At its southern end is the hill called Hameldon or Hambledon, the summits of which attain 1,305 ft. and 1,343 ft. above the sea.[1] It is news to me that a hill can have more than one summit. I plan to write an article, so is this one hill or two? And can anyone think of a good example to shamelessly copy from? Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Its very common for hills (or mountains) to have multiple summits. The dividing line between a secondary peak being a subsidiary summit, or a being a distinct hill, is very arbitrary. The only useful objective measure is the prominence of the secondary peak. With regards to this case: Treat the two summits as features on a single hill, unless you can find sources that do otherwise.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks that is very useful, I will try to crack on with an article soon Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Coordinates format

Is there a recommended preference regarding how to display coordinates within UK place articles? That is, should we default to numbers expressed in degrees and minutes/seconds, or as decimals? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm asking this because an editor is going round changing lots of East Midlands coords from one form to another, using the description "updated". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I must say that the format they are changing them to is more difficult to understand/find, the all decimal ones can easily be found from the maps. Keith D (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
That is my concern. Template:Infobox UK place doesn't seem to recommended either form over the other (in fact it lists 3 options), but whenever I've adjusted coords in the past (to make them more accurate), the online maps that I used operated with just the digital format, so I lean toward preferring that also. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Another strong vote for decimal lat/long. Much easier to find, easier to adjust precision, and fewer formatting options to get wrong. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Agree with all the above. Not an update but personal preference. J3Mrs (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I have alerted the user in question - EJM00 (talk · contribs) - about the existence of this thread. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Images of rivers and streams

Editors from this project with an interest in Commons may wish to comment at Commons:Category talk:Rivers of the United Kingdom...Jokulhlaup (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you help us review images for Wiki Loves Monuments UK 2018?

Hi all

Wikimedia UK is supporting the annual Wiki Loves Monuments contest again this year, and I am looking for 20-25 volunteers to help review and filter the entries.

The contest finishes at the end of September, with reviewing and judging taking place immediately after that. We normally have several rounds of reviewing during October, enabling us to reduce the expected 10,000+ entries down to a long list of a few hundred from which the winners are selected by our panel of judges.

You'd need to be able to commit to a minimum of 5-8 hours online reviewing, spread out over the month of October. As reviewing is done online, volunteers can be based anywhere in the world and you don't need to have any UK connections. We’re not looking for expert photographers, but you should have a basic ability to be able to distinguish a good photograph from a poor or mediocre one. Training in the online reviewing software is available.

If you are able to help, or if you'd like more information, please let me know either here, on Commons or by email. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Merger of Taunton Deane and West Somerset

I note from today's BBC news and Somerset County Gazette that the councils voted for the proposed merger of Taunton Deane and West Somerset, although this still has to receive central government (Sajid Javid) approval (likely to be given in my opinion). What should be on the two articles now to reflect this and when should the new article about Somerset West and Taunton Council be created? I have put this on Talk:Taunton Deane#Merger with West Somerset - probably best to comment there to keep this discussion in one place.— Rod talk 20:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest noting in the existing article's that the councils have voted for the merger subject to approval. Once it exists formally, obviously that would good time to create an article (leaving the existing articles then as stand-alones about historical LAs). I suppose one could create an article for the new council, but if it doesn't look likely to be created and if there is not much background, then maybe it's best to hold off... (If every proposal for local authority mergers had an article, we'd have dozens of stubs!) I reckon a good test is whether you think an article could be sustained even if the proposal were to fail. Just my opinion though. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC).

In the local BBC South East news last week, there was a report that (unspecified politicians in) Lewes District and Eastbourne Borough councils had "agreed to consider" merging their councils and separating as a unitary council from East Sussex. (They are not even contiguous areas!) Allegedly that would save money (!?). Despite the local news's often limited grasp of local government issues, the reporter pointed out some serious reasons why it would take several years if it did happen. With the state of local government finances, these type of suggestions will undoubted be floated quite regularly and maybe a few come to implementation. I agree with the above comment, would we expect an article on a proposal that's dropped? Perhaps not. And to be honest, the vast majority of matters discussed by any council don't get mentioned on their Wiki page, the fact that a structural change proposal is being debated says more about Wikipedian boundary geeks than about the real issues. Sussexonian (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed changes to guidelines on UK counties

If anyone is interested, there is a discussion taking place here [2]. All comments are welcome.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion notice - Talk:Willingale,_Essex#Requested_move_20_November_2018

  Hey there! I'm Flooded with them hundreds. There is a move discussion at Talk:Willingale,_Essex#Requested_move_20_November_2018 requiring more participation, please consider commenting/voting in it along with the other discussions in the backlog (Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings). Flooded with them hundreds 17:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Population

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ceremonial_counties_of_England

I have no idea who did it but most of these population numbers aren't even accurate. I thought it odd that North Yorkshire doubled in population in 1 year. The data in the source is completely different from these numbers. LordAtlas (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Civil parish in infobox UK place for Scotland

There were formerly civil parishes in Scotland. Some articles such as Arniston, Midlothian have had a |civil_parish= argument in their {{infobox UK place}}. However, this causes the infobox to link to Civil parishes in England. To remove this link, an IP editor is currently removing the civil parish information from Scottish place articles. Similar considerations may apply to Wales and Northern Ireland. What do we think is the best way forward? Certes (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Please see Template talk:Infobox UK place/Archive 13#Civil parishes...; Template talk:Infobox UK place/Archive 16#Template-protected edit request on 3 January 2015; Template talk:Infobox UK place/Archive 16#civil parishes outside england; Template talk:Infobox UK place/Archive 17#Scotland again and Template talk:Infobox UK place/Archive 18#Civil Parish link query. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the links. My question seems to be a perennial one, and there is a lot of text in response. Would it be a fair summary to say that there is a consensus to omit the |civil_parish= parameter for places in Scotland? Certes (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

SSSIs - URLs need to be updated?

I've just left a note on Talk:List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Cumbria, saying:

It looks horribly as if all the links to Natural England pages might need to be updated: for Shap Fells I found the detailed "citation" info not at http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1000081.pdf but at https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/PDFsForWeb/Citation/1000081.pdf and for Arnside Knott not at http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1004315.pdf but at https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/PDFsForWeb/Citation/1004315.pdf . If this is a permanent change and not just a temporary blip, presumably every link here and on all the parallel lists for other counties will need to be updated. Ouch. PamD 12:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Looking at List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Greater Manchester (a featured list) and List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest on the Isle of Wight there's the same problem, although the links to Natural England are presented differently (one reference with multiple links). Presumably the problem is widespread. This seems the best Wikiproject to discuss it, though I'm leaving a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas too, inviting people to come here. Presumably an AWB expert would be able to rattle through changing all appropriate URLs, as the site number is preserved so that there's a clear mapping from old to new URL. Maybe we need to use a template to link to SSSI citation pages with the number as a parameter (and perhaps name of site too), so that next time there's a reorganization of their website we can just fix the template? PamD 12:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Probably a template would be useful here as there are 1,218 articles using that URL at the moment. Would help to standardise the information given in the reference as well. Keith D (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Is it a consistent pattern? That is, when converting from old URL to new URL, the above examples show that 1000081.pdf remains unchanged, and so does 1004315.pdf; so is the last portion always unchanged? Also, should all instances of http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/ (plus an identifier) be altered to https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/PDFsForWeb/Citation/ (plus the same identifier)? If the answer to both these is "yes", this is what we do:
  1. Create a template (let's call it {{naturalengland}} for now) that upon being fed an identifier (such as 1000081) will emit a URL consisting of that passed-in identifier prefixed with https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/PDFsForWeb/Citation/ and suffixed with .pdf
  2. File a request at WP:BOTREQ asking that all URLs matching http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/ plus an identifier plus .pdf should be replaced with {{naturalengland|identifier}}
This sort of task has been handled at BOTREQ before. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Seems like the kind of thing some integration with Wikidata would be good at handling. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I was more thinking of a {{cite web}} type wrapper that allows you to get the same output format for all instances rather than just substituting the URL in the page as that will not get common output. I would personally avoid wikidata like the plague. Keith D (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

"High Street" or "the high street"?

No doubt this has come up before as it can't be unusual so I beg your indulgence. In this sentence (from Milton Keynes), should "high street" be capitalised:

The former Rose and Crown Inn on the high street is reputedly the last place the Princes in the Tower were seen alive.[1]

References

  1. ^ "Parishes : Stony Stratford". A History of the County of Buckingham: Volume 4. Victoria History of the Counties of England. 1927. p. 476–482. Retrieved 17 February 2019.

(this bit of Watling Street through the town is indeed called High Street). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Capitalise it. The definite article is optional, but should not be capitalised, unless part of the name (e.g. The Parade, Leamington Spa). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

List of metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom

There is a discussion at Talk:List of metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom#Accuracy on whether the article is reparable. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The article was last checked / verified at source on talk page by user Eopsid, 5th of February 2017.[3] Subsequently there have been two or three of us tidying / reverting where people have made changes. The differences I can see between versions are 10,000 population for Derby / Nottingham (which may be an issue of transposed numbers originally) and the recent edit to "The Potteries" on 15th February 2019 which appear to have been missed for reversion. From what I can see, all figures are identical to ESPON source other than those noted above. Koncorde (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I have just repaired it (further comments on the article talk page). -- Dr Greg  talk  21:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Lists of Marilyns

 Template:Lists of Marilyns has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Nessie (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

There is a requested move at Talk:Harris, Outer Hebrides that is presently at "no consensus" and may need your help to assess future consensus. Please come and add your rationale. Thanks in advance! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  19:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

"Town in Foo-shire, England" v. "English town in Foo-shire"

Bmcln1 has changed the lead sentence of several UK settlement articles so that they state, for example, "Foo-town is an English town in Foo-shire" rather than "Foo-town is a town in Foo-shire, England" (diff). I've reverted a couple of these because the hierarchy is wrong - England contains Foo-shire towns, as is obvious from the original wording, but it is odd to state that Foo-shire contains English towns, as it implies that Foo-shire might contain non-English towns. The same principle applies to any of the constituent countries. Comments welcome. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusions. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Also agree with this logic. Jellyman (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree as well. Thryduulf (talk) 08:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
It appears that they are still doing this here Keith D (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Country or nationality is the first thing to establish about a place or a person. There is no "logic" involved here, just identification. Names often recur. No page I have seen asserts that "'Foo-shire' contains English towns." Bmcln1 (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
If in doubt, look for a featured article: Sheerness and Weymouth, Dorset confirm that "English" is not used in the lead sentence, but ", England" appears after the county name. PamD 23:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
PamD, I don't see what I'm supposed to be doubting. "England" usually appears, although sometimes it doesn't, I'm afraid. In either case, what I've been doing amounts to putting first things first. Say first which country the place belongs to, if possible, followed by other information that identifies the place. This is what we do with people pages too. In the case of some places, district or borough need not even appear in the lead if the county is there. I see no sense in PaleCloudedWhite's assertion that the lead should have all in rising size order. Leads should be informative and tightly written. We all know that. This discussion is a becoming time-waster, I'm afraid. Bmcln1 (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
The purpose of discussions is to resolve issues caused by differences of opinion; they are not wastes of time. Wikipedia is based on discussion. The point behind my assertion is that your preferred wording inevitably causes Englishness (or Welshness, Scottishness etc.) to be a subset of towns within a specified county, whereas the reality is the opposite: being within a specified county is a subset of Englishness etc. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
On the contrary, my wording implies that the county etc. is a subset of England/English, not the opposite. Bmcln1 (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with everyone else. "English"ness is not an identical concept to being "in England". Towns should correctly and accurately be described as "in England", not "English". Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
We're in for a busy time. Several thousand pages will need changing. We've been writing that Rouen is a French city and New York an American one for many years. Are you sure it's necessary to change that? Bmcln1 (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
The City of New York [...] is the most populous city in the United States.
Rouen is a city on the River Seine in the north of France.Rouen
Both of those articles' leads use the country name, not the demonym. I think current practice (and consensus) are not in your favour, Bmcln1. Rcsprinter123 (articulate) 12:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
It's probably not essential to change every example of "...a French city..." to "... a city in France...", etc., if that wording has been in the article for years without any opposition. If someone changes it from the first wording to the second, that's fine. If someone changes it from the second style - or, for example, "..a city in England..." - to the second - "...an English city..." - that is not an improvement, and should be challenged and, in my view, reverted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Another vote for the consensus, I'm afraid, for the reasons outlined above. I see no advantages to "...an English town in Fooshire" over "...a town in Fooshire, England". The latter has the familiarity of an address; the former falsely implies that not all towns in Fooshire are English (which I think is why it reads rather oddly). I'd feel the same about "an English actor from Fooshire", incidentally, should such a construction ever arise. Bmcln1's contention is that "Country or nationality is the first thing to establish about a place or a person" but I don't think that this has been established – on the contrary, I'd say that for smaller settlements the county is more important to (and less likely to known by) most readers than the country. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
With the consensus.If you have ever had to explain to 30 eleven year olds the etymology of English Bicknor Welsh Bicknor you will understand why I am commenting. If you try to unravel Northern Ireland you will understand too. Saying that a settlement is a Catholic village in County Down explains that it is a village containing Catholics in a Protestant county. If you describe Antwerp as a Flemish town in Belgian you are commenting on the inhabitants origin and traditions. We don't incidently, we use the other form. If you say to me that this is an English town- I expect the same, a town filled with the 'Anglo-Saxons' not Hugenots, Britons or Foos. There is a case in the case of an exclave- Ceuta is a little Spanish town in North Africa- or historically Calais!ClemRutter (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not one for mob rule but I too agree with the prevailing consensus and existing convention. The fact that such a far reaching change wasn't discussed first is a bit of a cause for concern too. WaggersTALK 16:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
@Bmcln1: I didn't think I needed to spell it out. Featured articles are Wikipedia's Gold Standard, so if Sheerness starts off "Sheerness is a town beside the mouth of the River Medway on the north-west corner of the Isle of Sheppey in north Kent, England.", rather than "Sheerness is an English town...", and Weymouth, Dorset starts off "Weymouth is a seaside town in Dorset, England," rather than "Weymouth is an English seaside town...", then I think it is clear that your changes go against the established best practice. PamD 22:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Milton Keynes article has achieved GA

FYI, Milton Keynes was awarded GA today. I have left it to others to update the Project page accordingly. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject UK geography/Archive 18".