Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 19

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Finstown

The Wikipedia article on Mainland, Orkney states that Finstown is the third largest settlement, whilst the article on Finstown itself says it is the fourth largest. Neither claim seems to be backed up by a reference. Is anyone able to help resolve this contradiction? I suspect it's actually the third largest, but I can't find a source to confirm this. --188.30.198.254 (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

New bot to remove completed infobox requests

Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject UK geography since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!

Sent on behalf of Trialpears (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon

Hi. The Wikipedia:The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon is planned for March 2020, a contest/editathon to eliminate as many stubs as possible from all 134 counties. Amazon vouchers/book prizes are planned for most articles destubbed from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland and Northern Ireland and whoever destubs articles from the most counties out of the 134. Sign up on page if interested in participating, we have over 44,000 stubs! A good opportunity to improve stubs for your area!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Take photos!

If you're wondering what to do with yourself at the moment, the next 2-3 weeks is always the best time of year to take photos outdoors - you get a better view of buildings without leaves on the trees (particularly important in towns I find), but there's daffodils etc in flower. And the weather forecast for the next week looks good - everywhere always looks nicer with a blue sky! Special:Nearby is a good place to start (and also good for generally finding local articles that need work), WIWOSM is a map that includes all the geocoordinates in lists of eg listed buildings. It's also worth a quick reality check to make sure that geocoordinates are accurate - it certainly used to be the case that they weren't always. Relatively few articles are tagged in Category:Wikipedia requested images (in particular Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in the United Kingdom) but that's another place to start. Also worth noting that a lot of rural places in particular only have low-resolution 640x480px images from Geograph, which would be good to replace. A good excuse to go for a walk/cycle/drive when you've nothing else to do! Le Deluge (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

A good idea. Hope everyone is keeping well. Richard Nevell (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Just got back from taking nearly 150 around Hove in the good light. Now to sort and upload them...! Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 16:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

template:Infobox English county about to run into the sand at Buckinghamshire

As of 1 April, Buckinghamshire County Council ceases to exist, being replaced by Buckinghamshire Council, a Unitary Authority. The ceremonial county of Buckinghamshire will thus have two UAs and no CC. The infobox for the ceremonial county (at present combined with the BCC information and minimal BoMK information) will cease to be valid. I tried to fix it but the effect was for a load of valid information about the BC area to disappear. So would editors contribute to Template talk:Infobox English county#Only one admin_hq allowed?, please? (The "Only one admin_hq allowed?" issue turns out to be just the tip of the iceberg). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Defaultsort for UK buildings

There is an RFC on Commons about if churches, pubs and other buildings should be sorted by name or location which might affect how its done here, which seems to be mixed for churches but location for most others. Although as people have noted Wikipedia and Commons are separate projects it probably makes sense to standardize this on both projects. See Commons:Commons:Village pump#Defaultsort for UK buildings RFC. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorting of churches was discussed here. Surely other buildings are generally sorted by the name of the building, not location? And is there any reason why UK buildings should be sorted differently from buildings elsewhere?--Mhockey (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Grainger Town project

Please can someone take a look into Grainger Town#Grainger Town project. If it isn't a copyvio then it needs significantly rewriting to be an encyclopaedia article rather than a consultant's report. Thryduulf (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Barnard_Castle#Dominic_Cummings

If you have an opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

How to write about UK national parks

I notice wide variation in the way in which the UK’s 15 national parks are dealt with on Wikipedia – no surprise given the way each article has arisen (and there’s still the debate around whether to have separate pages for the traditional area v. the designation but let's leave that to one side for the minute). Can anyone tell me, has the subject of a more uniform treatment by Wikipedia of the UK NPs been addressed previously? Between the lede and the usual ‘see also’, ‘references’ and ‘external links’ are a wide variety of headings and sub-headings – many in some cases, few in others – the latter articles generally require rather more attention to ring them up to speed.

Most NP articles have a section dealing with administration/local government arrangements near the start though going under a variety of titles. Almost all have a geography section, often broken down into a series of subtopics on both the physical and human side. Most too have a history section, typically broken down into particular periods from prehistory through to modern times. The majority appropriately enough given the purposes of the designations have a section titled ecology, wildlife or natural history. There is of course usually a section on tourism and/or attractions and/or activities as would be expected for designations which include the promotion of quiet enjoyment as one of their three prime functions. Aspects like culture and the economy get mixed treatment.

Some sub-sections will be specific to a particular national park by virtue of local circumstance. e.g. the coast path which is integral to the Pembs Coast NP, or tors in the Dartmoor article.

In the hope of improving the family of UK NP articles, I propose we discuss some degree of structure common to all fifteen. It would both stimulate bringing the thin articles to a better place and allowing readier cross-referencing between parks, ensuring key aspects are not inadvertently omitted. The Lakes and the Peak are amongst the best at present - though all have their issues - whilst those for the Beacons, Pembs Coast, Northumberland, South Downs and the Dales are those with most catching up to do. We've guidelines for settlements and counties and so forth - what would the ideal UK NP article look like?

cheers Geopersona (talk) 10:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This is would be an interesting challenge. One problem may be that the area being written about does not necessarily match the designated area of the NP - my example would be Exmoor which I have been involved in writing. I would suggest that "Government and politics" is less important in NP articles than in those about counties etc, & more emphasis on geography etc, but why don't you draft a guideline based on the best of the existing articles for use to debate?— Rod ^talk 11:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Rod – I anticipated interest on your part, knowing your commitment to Exmoor amongst other things. That park is in a similar position to The Broads, Dartmoor, Loch Lomond & The Trossachs, the New Forest, North York Moors, Peak District, Pembs Coast and Snowdonia; that’s 9 out of the 15. I don't particularly envisage a problem when attending to most of the topics - geography, history, ecology and so forth; where there are differences between a traditional area and the more recently designated area those can be accounted for in the text. So far as government and politics is concerned it would at one level be simply an explanation of what body manages the designated area e.g. from a planning point of view and what other local authorities manage other services in the area. In the case of my local national park the role of the Brecon Beacons National Park Authority is explained and, if desired the fact that Powys and the other constituent unitary authorities (there are 6 in this case) deliver various other services. A history of designation section would attend to the process ending in the 1950's (at least for the original 10 NPs of England and Wales) and then mention what subsequent planning boards etc were in place until dedicated NPAs were established. So too with any boundary changes and so forth. The format would differ from that say, of a county, though there would be many similarities and despite my call for uniformity there would of necessity be some differences between parks; their treatment would need to reflect different enabling acts and hence powers for the two Scottish parks and indeed the Broads with its status 'equivalent to an NP'. Presently I'm thinking as per below but this will change through discussion and contemplation!

• Lede
• History of designation/governance (unsatisfactory working title!)
• Geography
  • sub-sections to include (as appropriate) i) Geology, ii)Hills/mountains, iii) Rivers/valleys/lakes/marshes/bogs, iv) Coast(if relevant), v) Climate, vi) Settlements, vii) Communications
• Natural history
  • subsections to include(as appropriate) i) fauna, ii) flora, iii) Conservation designations
• History
  • subsections to include the common periods of UK history from the Stone Age through to the modern period, also archaeology and protected sites info
• Economy
  • subsections to include i) Agriculture/forestry ii) Industry, iii) Tourism
    • tourism subsections to include access to the landscape for walkers, cyclists etc
• Culture
  • subsections to include (as appropriate) i) Traditions, ii) Myths/legends, iii) Food/drink, iv) sports, v) festivals/events
• Further reading/References etc

Doubtless some would re-order these, promote topics to sub-topics and vice versa. One of the issues is that so much with for example, tourism, is cross-curricular - mountains, access, historical sites and so forth. Again, water catchment is key and has economic aspects, landscape & wildlife aspects and touristic aspects - think of the complexity of the situation in the Lakes or the Peak to consider just two - where do you best deal with it. But is this perhaps a starter for discussion? cheers Geopersona (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Ordnance Survey Boundary Line maps

I am trying to use London locator maps in info boxes, some, eg File:Camden London UK location map.svg, can be invoked using "| map_type = United Kingdom London <whatever>". For a few, eg. File:Hillingdon London UK location map.svg, (Barnet is another) I only get the ward map, how do I get the map I want? I gather it is a problem because en:Module:Location map/data/United Kingdom London Hillingdon is coded to have the ward map as a default location map for Hillingdon, whereas en:Module:Location map/data/United Kingdom London Camden and others have the street maps hardcoded. Is there a way round this? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Stockbroker belt

I've just nominated Stockbroker belt at RfD. It presently targets London metropolitan area, but it isn't mentioned there and is much broader. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 15#Stockbroker belt. Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

England or UK?

Perhaps readers of this page will have a view on this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Forbury_Gardens_stabbings#England_or_UK? --2604:2000:E010:1100:7103:4EB4:D27F:3D0D (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Skegness at Peer Review – comments are welcome

This is just a note to say that I have opened a request for comment at WP:Peer Review for Skegness; the review page is here. I'm hoping to take the article to FAC soon so all comments are welcome. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC).

NOMIS url has changed

FYI, NOMIS has changed the URL used to access the 2011 census data. Provided your favourite articles use {{NOMIS2011}}, this change makes no difference because that template has been revised to use the new URL. But if it doesn't, now would be a good time to update it so that it does. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Leamington Spa Infobox discussion

Hi, please see talkpage discussion when you have the time, thanks. Here --Vauxford (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Parishes RFC

See User talk:Crouch, Swale/England#RFC. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

New RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England/Parishes RfC. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Help some new users?

Hi! I was wondering if anyone would be interested in taking some new users under their wing. I'm pinging them here (@Piete Brooks and J V Neal:). They're working on a draft of a park in England, Draft:St Matthew's Piece. They seem to be quite eager and the park offhand does look like it's probably notable, it just needs more work to help it better fit Wikipedia's style guidelines. Parks aren't really in my area of interest, so I wanted to reach out here and in another area or two that could also fit their topic. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

East End

I have nominated East End of London for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKay (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Westgate-on-Sea for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Chew Valley for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

River lengths

I've become increasingly aware of shortcomings in the quoted lengths of rivers on WP. There has been discussion on individual WP pages as to competing references etc, and the generic difficulties in measuring the lengths of rivers; there is a problem akin to that of measuring coastlines, though not quite the same, as they're not fractal in the same way. We're all about referenced material on WP but, in respect of river lengths, the problem seems to be that there either exists no readily discoverable references or else many of those that are around are inaccurate, at times woefully inaccurate. I have myself taken to measuring river lengths directly using the tool available at the wheresthepath website. What it produces are figures that I can feel reasonable confidence in but that cannot be used in WP since it amounts to original research. It does however flag up where the greatest needs are and where most effort needs to be made in sourcing suitable references. On this basis I have recently been able to improve upon the River Wye's previous given length of 134 miles to a better referenced 155 miles - a surprisingly substantial change for one of our key rivers! I've added 5km to the referenced length of the River Teifi and a referenced 23km to the previous 102km length of the River Usk, that's almost a quarter as long again, and I'm confident that's still on the low side by several kms. I'd welcome any observations on the part of other editors as to how best to tackle what one imagines is a wider issue, and indeed any suggestions as to where those missing references might be found. cheers Geopersona (talk) 12:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

If reliable sources can not agree on the source of a river it becomes difficult to provide accurate lengths (see River Thames which has four competing potential sources). Therefore it may be appropriate to say that "Source A says the length is X (ref) while source B says the length is Y" (or similar).— Rod ^talk 12:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

It's a problem that doesn't have a simple answer, I've fallen back to using the Environment Agency figures but I don't believe they are necessarily that accurate as that is not a prime requirement for EA purposes, though they do quote them to several decinal places! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

It might be useful to check the list article Longest rivers of the United Kingdom to see what sources it uses, and perhaps annotate some of the figures to say "(But ref nnn gives the length as xxx)"? That list has the Wye down as 134 miles and the Usk as 125km, so agrees with you on the latter but not the former. PamD 18:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me to the inconsistency re the Wye - I've altered the list to match with the article, making the judgement that an SSSI citation by a statutory body is likely to be more authoritative than a less-involved source (though that's no guarantee as we learn above). Leaving a note re the difference on the article's talk page. Geopersona (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Featured Article Review for Weymouth, Dorset

I have nominated Weymouth, Dorset for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Country Vs state debate

A discussion is taking place at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_Kingdom#Sovereign_Country about whether the term country or state should be used in the intro of the article for the United Kingdom if any one is interested in commenting. Llewee (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Geographical counties v unitary authorities

This issue seems largely resolved by adding footnotes but there is a discussion at Talk:The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020#Geographical counties v unitary authorities about how we handle cases where the legislation uses "X Council" (or similar) instead of just "X" but we have used just "X" and I had noted "(except X UA name)" in small text but this was objected to since the legislation doesn't use this format. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Consensus needed on London move requests

I have proposed four London districts page moves for qualifying as being primary topics:

• Hayes, Hillingdon to Hayes
• Kilburn, London to Kilburn
• Harrow, London to Harrow
• Sutton, London to Sutton

Along with another for both consistency and notability:

• Wimbledon, London to Wimbledon

I'd appreciate users here to take a look at these proposals and state their support/opposition on their talk pages. --Jf81 (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Chew Valley Lake for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

"Large" town

There is a discussion at talk:Milton Keynes#"Large" town on whether the adjective "large" may be applied to settlements like Milton Keynes and Reading, that have populations over 200,000 or more but do not yet have city status. Members of this wikiproject may wish to contribute. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Theres probaly a similair qualifier on most articles for settlements in Britain. Small village, large village etc. Which are obviously all relative as well. Should we be changing those? Eopsid (talk) 12:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Old census figures vs newer population estimates.

I've noticed on some pages the 2011 census figures are being used, and on others, more recent but presumably less accurate population estimates are being given. What are people's feelings on this? Should we stick to a consistent format of census figures, even though they are now a decade old, and we will presumably have to wait for the latest 2021 census (if it goes ahead under the current circumstances). G-13114 (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems it will be 'digital-first', taking place on 21st March. Note that this applies only to England and Wales, not the whole of the UK. More at https://census.gov.uk/about-the-census/the-census-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic and indeed 2021 United Kingdom census. Geopersona (talk) 11:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

There's usually then a long wait for data to be released: it was over a year for the first data from the 2011 census and then more detailed data was released over time (not finishing until 2015!) [1] Hopefully being digital-first this year will speed up the process, but I won't hold my breath.

On the estimates question: if they are from a reliable source then I see no issue in using them. Particularly in some urban areas population has changed dramatically over a decade. We should keep the census figures in the article as well, but use more up-to-date estimates where we have them. the wub "?!" 11:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes I think still using 2011 figures by 2025, if we have to wait that long would be a bit silly. The City Population website is generally quite good for up to date estimates. G-13114 (talk) 11:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Is City population.de a reliable source? I assume its a secondary source but It has stuff like this: https://www.citypopulation.de/en/uk/agglo/ and the population estimates which appear to be primary sources Eopsid (talk) 12:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that it has some odd quirks like that, where it creates its own interpretations, but we can ignore them. But as far as I can tell most of it seems to be based directly on the ONS, it gives its sources here. G-13114 (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

"it has some odd quirks like that, where it creates its own interpretations, but we can ignore them." Just ignoring its quirks doesnt make it sound like a reliable source but it is the easiest to use secondary source I can find. Eopsid (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the large majority of it is based directly upon the ONS data and definitions. I've checked it against the ONS website and it appears to have copied the data verbatim, so in the main I would say it is reliable, and also easy to use. The only place where it diverges is where it appears to have taken the ONS data and used it to define 'agglomerations' which is not as far as I know an officially recognised definition. But for our purposes we don't have to take any notice of that. G-13114 (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Urban agglomeration redirects to Urban area, which we have taken as being the same as the ONS "Built-up area". But if you compare, for example, the map at "Milton Keynes. Agglomeration in United Kingdom". with the ONS map at UK Census (2011). "Local Area Report – Milton Keynes built-up area (E34005056)". Nomis. Office for National Statistics., you will see that citypopulation has added surrounding villages from Aylesbury Vale, South Northamptonshire, west Bedfordshire and rural parts of the Borough of MK. They vary in distance from about 500 metres to two or three km. All are an easy cycle-ride away, which is good enough but arbitrary, unlike the ONS's 300 metres max separation. So certainly a trap for unwary! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Note they also have a link to the Milton Keynes urban area, which is based directly on the ONS definition. As I said, we should ignore their definition of agglomerations. G-13114 (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, when I said "the unwary", I was thinking of no-one in particular . # nonchalant tuneless whistle # --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

This is tangential but kind of related but do we have a consensus on what figures we should be using for the populations of towns. Parishes? Districts? Urban Areas? Unparished areas? When the data is from may be different between each one. Eopsid (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

This to me is the fundamental reason why all articles should use the formal census figure. Any estimates should only be 'as well as', never 'instead of' and come with health warnings. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I would say that if the town is a parish, the parish should be used, if not, then the urban area. Or if the town is also a district, like Tamworth say, then the district. If the parish and urban area figures diverge significantly then it might be best to use both, like Atherstone for example. G-13114 (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree but there are a few awkward cases where the town is in an unparished area but the urban area is wider than the district, Stockton-on-Tees is a good example. Eopsid (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• @G-13114: this was the question I raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England/Parishes RfC#Infoboxes so perhaps this discussion would be better there but I tend to give the 2011 census with municipalities (parishes, unparished areas and districts) but the latest estimate for settlements (BUAs and BUASDs) since City Population appears to give the area the place currently occupies even for the older data, for example Aldcliffe-with-Stodday was created in 2017 but City Population lists the 2011 census as 542. That's likely the case with settlements as well so if we gave the 2011 figure (rather than 2019 estimate) it would probably be based on current boundaries even though the settlement may well have grown since then while parish boundaries rarely change and district boundaries don't change hugely (apart from merges). Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

If you scroll to the bottom of the parishes page on city population it says this is how it calculates them "Explanation: Parishes as at December 2019. All population and corresponding area figures of parishes are based on assigning output areas by using population-weighted centroids. Thus, slight discrepancies are possible compared to the actual parish boundaries that are depicted in the map. No population figures (and the actual area) are provided for parishes smaller than output areas." basically its just estimating the parish population based on output areas. I guess thats why you have that oddity where it gives a population for those parishes in censuses where it didnt exist. Eopsid (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks like they are doing some original research here to get the figures. So the source should be avoided and just use the ONS figures directly. Keith D (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I think city population de is a primary source rather than a secondary one Eopsid (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Article for both Borough and town?

When does it warrant having seperate articles for both a town (or city) and the district that it shares its name with? Just looking at some recent edits to the Middlesbrough article. A new article for the Borough has been split off the one for the town. I dont think in this case it warrants two articles because the Middlesbrough district only contains one urban area (well part of it) so its not like it contains multiple distinct towns. Whilst on the other end of the spectrum Sheffield has one article for both the district and city despite the district containing multiple urban areas. Eopsid (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

In most instances, one is the area covered by the Council, the other is the town/city itself, for exampe, Carlisle, although it's a city there is a local council region that is called City of Carlisle, see Carlisle + City of Carlisle, the later includes other surrounding towns + villages in addtion to Carlisle itself. Devokewater 21:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The test is generally based on (1) if the district is larger than the settlement, if it is its generally split, if its roughly the same or smaller it usually isn't, (2) are the district boundaries older than 1974, if yes then usually its not split if they are newer then it usually is and (3) does it contain other civil parishes (or unparished areas) which is similar to 2 in that if its a single unparished area its usually not split if it does contain parishes (or other unparished areas) it usually is, although this is generally the same as 2 unless a new parish has been formed in the unparished area such as Feckenham in Redditch. See WP:UKDISTRICTS and User:Crouch, Swale/District split. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

And also Darlington has only a few villages but is still able to have a borough page. And another example overlooked is Bolsover. Bolsover has a small population but covers towns like Elmton with Creswell, Shirebrook and Clowne. But is unparished except old Bolsover. But it has a district page. Same for North East Derbyshire. A district made up of towns and villages with a village as the main Admin centre. And Kirklees where I live multiple towns but two councils in Huddersfield and Dewsbury but we still are one borough. RailwayJG (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

And also Bedford. It is one town but has a borough and multiple settlements and a town too. It is classed as a borough and town so can boast two pages same as Mansfield. It is a town and a district. So can boast both RailwayJG (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

There is Draft:Borough of Corby if anyone wants to improve it as there is currently only 1 article at Corby. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

RailwayJG all your examples are of cases where the borough definitely contains multiple towns and villages. This isnt the case for most articles where the town and district have one article e.g. Crawley, Cheltenham and Chesterfield. I would support corby being seperated, it has multiple villages and because of local goverment reform the borough is going to be abolished this year anyway. City of Sheffield is another one that could probably be split. I dont think the Middlesbrough borough has more than one distinct settlement though, although it does have two civil parishes (according to citypopulation.de), although they are firmly part of Middlesbrough's built-up area. Eopsid (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The cause of this problem goes deeper. It comes from some unsounded assumptions resulting incorrect statements of fact. Look at the start of two articles. First - "Crawley...is a large town and borough in West Sussex"; second - "Thetford is a market town...in the Breckland district of Norfolk". In the first the town and borough are the same; in the second they are not the same. However, the structure of both is the same. The difference is simply that in the first example the common name of both entities is the same whereas in the second it is not the same. The solution to so many problems like in the current debate is to make it clear a town and the borough in which it sits are not the same, whether or not they share a name. Alternatively, we could continue trying to fit a square peg into a round hole by juggling around a list of exceptions and amendments. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Eposid actually I can mention one distinct thing that can support a reason for the Borough of Middlesbrough article. Some areas like South Bank is in Redcar and Cleveland but forms part of the built up area with Middlesbrough despite not being part of the borough itself. That is one distinct settlement, another one is Normanby again in Redcar and Cleveland but part of the BUA and Ormesby. It spans both areas so they are distinct areas which form part of the BUA of Middlesbrough. And the village of Stainton and Eston to name a few form the BUA and are part of Redcar and Middlesbrough. RailwayJG (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Most large towns have built-up areas spanning multiple districts. Middlesbrough is nothing special and the Built-up Area goes wider than you mentioned to Redcar and Stockton-on-Tees. Eopsid (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how we can have a 'one size fits all' policy. Yes, there are Boroughs that are coterminous with the town, as described above. There are others like City of Plymouth and Borough of Milton Keynes that are definitely not: having separate articles has stopped no end of edit wars. Leave it alone, it is not broken. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree there, there is clear evidence Middlesbrough is a borough as the council were called Middlesbrough Borough Council and BBC News and Teesidelive refer to it as the Borough of Middlesbrough and home sale sites. Even the council so It can have imo two seperate pages one for the town and another for the wider borough it covers. It exists whether we all agree or disagree. RailwayJG (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Can we all agree to leave it as is. Been two days now since the discussion started and many of us agree to leave it from the sounds of it. So please can we close this discussion now. RailwayJG (talk) 04:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with John Maynard Friedman in the leaving it alone, not broken approach. Which would mean a reversion of the recent Middlesbrough change back into one article. Also City of Plymouth and Plymouth aren't seperate articles, have I missed something? And RailwayJG regarding Middlesbrough article being one for town and wider borough it looks like the article has now been changed so that instead of the borough it covers the Built-up area subdivision of Middlesbrough.... Which is honestly just wrong and is bigger than just the borough, which contradicts what you said. I know you didnt make those edits though RailwayJG so please don't take that the wrong way. Regarding keeping discussions open they usually stay open for a week or more because editors have varying amounts of free time. Eopsid (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

That'll teach me to make pronouncements from memory! City of Plymouth has quite a large rural area, maybe it has been merged? (he blustered). I stand by Borough of Milton Keynes, which I do know about and which has a few sizable towns like Olney, Buckinghamshire. Regarding Middlesbrough, it makes a great deal of sense to me to have an article about the real-world built-up area that justifiably ignores out-dated local government boundaries BUT it is also necessary to have an article about the LG definition, that has all the political stuff. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

There already is an article about the real word built-up area surrounding Middlesbrough, its called Teesside. Not sure what district youre thinking of, maybe Sheffield, the City of Plymouth has pretty strict boundaries. Eopsid (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

"If in a hole, stop digging". It was probably (the former) Borough of Bournemouth but I think it is now time I got my coat. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Barrow-in-Furness an industrial town very similar to Middlesbrough, also has its own borough, Borough of Barrow-in-Furness this includes other town + villages including Dalton-in-Furness, the place + the borough are two very seperate places. Devokewater 10:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes but similar to Bolsover Barrow includes several other clearly distinct settlements such as Dalton, while similar to Cheltenham Middlesbrough doesn't even though like Cheltenham it has recent boundaries and parishes. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The best comparison might be with Newcastle upon Tyne its the only other town or city in the North East which doesnt have seperate articles for district and town. And honestly its more deserving of seperate ones than Middlesbrough because it contains more than one built-up area the main one as well as the villages of Dinnington, Tyne and Wear and Woolsington. I think we should be following the guide here Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about districts with its 6 steps on whether to decide we should have an article. Although i'd put numbers on stuff like 95% of population in district in one built-up area etc. Eopsid (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Help on disambiguation suggestion

Hi. I'm looking at Oulton Broad, which is the name of both a fairly significant bit of water and a suburb of Lowestoft (it's also a parish now fwiw). My gut feeling is that the article could really use splitting into two - one on the bit of water and one on the parish. But I've no idea what the best way of splitting it might be.

Does anyone have any suggestions? Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Split the suburb of to Oulton Broad (suburb) (or perhaps move the current article there) and cover the parish there, the suburb/parish is kind of a sub concept of the broad so the water should probably be at the base name. However I'd keep the suburb and parish in 1 article per the parishes RFC. Oulton Broad (area) is another option like Old Trafford (area). Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, something along those lines - suburb or parish? For some reason I didn't think to look at what we did at Windermere, Cumbria (town) and Windermere, which is a similar situation... Anyone else? Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I’d go with parish for consistency Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Consistent with what? Generally only those such as Scotforth (parish) that don't deal with anything else use "parish", those like Corfe Castle (village) that also deal with the parish use the settlement type. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

On the grounds I’ve not come across “suburb” at all Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I would go with parish or village instead of suburb. Are there any pages which use (suburb) to disambiguate? Suburb is also ocasionally a controversial term. Eopsid (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Parish is fair then - it never really was much of a village. I'd ave no problems with suburb mind. I'll leave a note on the article talk page to check that no one who might read that has any objections or bright ideas. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Qxz-ad111.gif

The scrolling image at the top of this page - File:Qxz-ad111.gif - contains an irritating error: "Why does this say "the Shetlands" and "the Scillys" [sic]? The usual spelling is Scillies not Scillys - but in any case, and far more importantly, those plural forms are deprecated by all geographers and anyone living in those areas. "The Shetlands" are Shetland, and "The Scillies" are the Isles of Scilly. It would be better, and more correct, to say "From Shetland to Scilly"." Geopersona and I raised this separately at File talk:Qxz-ad111.gif, but the editor we thought was responsible, Magog the Ogre, was not responsible - it was created by WebHamster, who has been indefinitely blocked since 2011. Can we just remove the advert from this page, or do we agree that the file itself, if it can't now be corrected, should be deleted? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I personally dislike auto-animated images so would vote for removal. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah remove it, I've never actually noticed it before, but now that I have I despise it. Eopsid (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

"Historically in" vs "within the boundaries of the historic county" and other formulations

User Roger_3_Roger seems to be moving through a variety of articles changing the generally accepted wording. Are we happy with his change to the formulation? (Before he ends up doing more). Koncorde (talk) 06:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The edits look like improvements to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I prefer the shorter Historically in, so would support reverting Eopsid (talk) 10:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

'Historically in..." is a matter of grammar and style, and cannot be not determined by consensus. It should therefore be used, or not used, on a case by case basis. Just because it is commonly used does not make it correct (see the recent discussion about "Redville is a town located in...") The phrase is awkward and creates more confusion than it clears. It seems to be a clumsy way of trying to avoid addressing the question of whether historic counties do or do not exist, which is not doing the image of this encyclopedia any good. 'Within the boundaries of the historic county...' is less succinct but it is clear and unambiguous which to me makes it better than 'historically in...'. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I have no strong preference and can see both sides (or when the other formulation is more appropriate, such as the start of a paragraph about the historic elements of a town). However I think the new formulations "within the boundaries" bit is redundant, as "In the historic county" conveys the same meaning (you can't be in the historic county without being inside the boundaries of the historic county). Koncorde (talk) 10:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree. 'Within the boundaries of the HC of Lancashire' = 'In the HC of Lancashire', much the same as 'Wigan is located in Lancashre = 'Wigan is in Lancashire'. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

It is not just a question of HCs that no longer exist, like Middlesex. There are places like Slough that was in (historic) Buckinghamshire but is now in (modern) Berkshire. When we use these names, do we have to introduce them with a long-winded explanation of what we mean? It was before I joined but I believe that there was an RFC to de-emphasise HCs, though the that decision is being challenged again. I don't think it is wise to tackle this question in a piecemeal fashion like this, we need to set out sensible parameters. HCs are interesting and worth mentioning in the history of a settlement but IMO should always be given in the past tense: nowhere _is_ in the HC, it _was_ in the HC.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Completely agree with JMF, it can also be very confusing for non-UK readers. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

In the case of Slough the wording we have now is simply confusing. In that case, we should be saying that it *was* in Bucks somewhere in the article, possibly in the lead, depending on the length of the lead etc... The whole historic county doesn't work in *this* case imo - the boundary moved a little. The wording we previously had ("historically in Bucks") is better, although I still don't think it needs to be in the lead sentence and I'm unconvinced about the use of brackets in the lead paragraph, let alone the lead sentence.

There are lots of things that are tricky wrt the image of Wikipedia. Writing clearly for a very broad audience would be a helpful thing to do - and that's not helped in the case of Slough. In other cases (Lancs ones, Metropolitan Kent etc...) there is perhaps more need to worry about the historic county. I might rather prefer a footnote being added on the whole if I'm honest - it's cleaner. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

If the topic of 'counties' is confusing, which it is, then it is our job to explain it better and as succinctly as possible. That does not mean changing facts or using ambiguous terms, which usually involves original research. If the best way to do this is to use a couple more sentences than is desirable then so be it. The alternative is that further discussion and edit wars will happen ad infinitum. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, the Slough article has bigger issues that I alluded to in the Built Up Area discussion. The Historic County in the first sentence is one thing, but the second sentence "It is in the Thames Valley and within the Greater London Urban Area at the intersection of the M4, M40 and M25 motorways." is not great and reflects some of the common issues I find in the lede:

• Overt reference to multiple measures of regions, subregions, of different dimension and legal stature which don't help readers.
• Pluralistic population figures (often dependent on those different dimensions).
• Obsession with size of town.
• Almost no mention of any historic information at all, therefore failing to summarise the article and subject.

If we had more of an agreed standard of how each information bite should be treated it probably wouldn't see as many edit wars. Koncorde (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Slough's not even in London's urban area that part of the article's flat out wrong. Eopsid (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Or at the intersection of the M40. And it's a unitary authority - how complex can we make this? Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't even check whether it was true to be fair. Koncorde (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

In practical terms counties really aren't that complex. You're in a county. Maybe you used to be in another one. We're making it complex. In most cases we don't need to do so. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

This.^^ Historic County for me should always be a second paragraph type thing, and should always be in context of why it's significant we are mentioning the historic county (i.e. changes in governance, status, redistricting / boundary commission, Act of Parliament etc) and we should be avoiding too many, all or mixing Urban Areas / Built Up Areas / Met Areas / City Regions in the first paragraph too. Koncorde (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

FAR for St Kilda

I have nominated St Kilda, Scotland for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKay (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of the Heavy Woollen District

I think this page is unreliable and has no official website to clarify its existence. I would be for merging the page into the Kirklees and Wakefield District pages but the page is not strong enough to stand on its own. Would like to ask for input on the deletion and census RailwayJG (talk) 10:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Heavy Woollen District RailwayJG (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you want to create it as an article for deletion rather than a prod so we can get more input? There's instructions how to do it here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you need help with how to do this let me know. Whether it should be deleted depends on how well sourced it is, I'll have a look through the article's sources. (Copy paste from my talk page) Thats the usual way things get deleted on wikipedia. Eopsid (talk) 11:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Honestly none of the sources in that article look particularly good. Its a mixture of dead links and seemingly irrelevant stuff (might be because the link has rotted) The archived reference seems like its from a local historical society, i'm not sure if Wikipedia considers that a reliable source but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. One of the other sources is a book which I can't check. I've also just googled "heavy woollen district" to see how much of a "thing" it is. There are a good few results mostly radio stations and sports teams using the name. Honestly I think it is notable enough for an article but it just needs better sources. Which probably do exist. Eopsid (talk) 11:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not a municipal district so we will need to be clear and not conflate it with actual political districts; it's a conurbation-like sprawl, like describing it as a "Quarter" or equivalent. It needs paring back to the historical relevance of the term. The Category:Heavy Woollen District appears to be pure OR with no sourcing or definition and at a quick glance where (if at all) it is mentioned in those towns or villages it is in the context or sport or historical reference only. Sourcing for it exists, but what value or detail is more sketchy - it might require going through Marius or similar to see what he said. [2][3][4][5][6] Koncorde (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello editors of this project, I've just found this discussion after removing the deletion proposal on this term. It's not a municipal or political area, never has been, but pre-dates the current designations by many years. I've commented more on the talk page for the article. (Too many different places for discussions!) Cheers! --94.196.81.75 (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I've readded the nomination for deletion. The anon shouldn't have removed until a clear consensus is reached. Could you Eopsid and Koncorde keep tabs on the page as it's wrong to remove a deletion without any form of census. RailwayJG (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Evening JG. The IP was correct to remove the nomination. The PROD includes the statement You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Crouch Swale has now correctly created an AFD here for full discussion. Koncorde (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Salford status

There seems to be conflicting information for Salford with it being referred to as a city, district or town. I think it needs a more reliable source on what Salford city council and Greater Manchester council have taken to calling it. It seems silly to have a city and district or urban area yet Manchester can boast a city status and borough but Salford seems to be conflicted between borough city and urban area. Can a consensus be reached on a new lead for salford as it seems to be a complicated matter. RailwayJG (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I suspect you will never satisfy the purists, despite wp:common name. One possibility would be to just merge Salford into City of Salford? Earlier discussions in this talk:WikiProject have sought to deprecate multiple articles about broadly the same place. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

For me it's a city, within the City of Salford Met Borough, in the Met County of Greater Manchester. Salford (as a County Borough) was granted city status and doesn't lose it when they reorganise in 1974. This edit by Hazhk (not Crouch Swale) seems to be making the argument that the County Borough is not Salford itself (however).

This seems to have fed into whether this City also means the entirety of the City of Salford Met Borough, it does seem very strange to describe Eccles, Greater Manchester as in the "City of Salford" rather than "a town in the City of Salford Met Borough".

The obvious equivalent is the City of Lancaster/Lancaster, Lancashire split per a recent issue I had there. Koncorde (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Turns out I get to blame you RJG for the City of Salford on the Eccles article. :D Koncorde (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Lol Koncorde 😂 RailwayJG (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Collins Dictionary calls the settlement a city rather than just a town however its fine in the Towns in Greater Manchester category since we don't subdivide cities by county. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

One of Railway's edits made me notice that Bradford has a similar issue when compared with City of Bradford, but I didn't get around to doing anything about it. Articles about local government administrative divisions named after cities, and with city status themselves are inevitably going to confuse people. I disagree with Crouch, Swale's edit, Salford is a city, the Met Borough is named after that city, it also has city status. It seems one of us is confused about this. I also would not support merging articles (perhaps if the articles were smaller). One is a geography article about a settlement, the other is a politics article about local government. However I see that Manchester has been dealt with as one article, with the politics stuff in Manchester City Council. This seems to have caused a mess at Wythenshawe, a settlement outside the M60 with a town centre [7] and a football club with town in the name. We open with "Wythenshawe is an area of south Manchester", implying it is part of the city of Manchester not just its local government district.

When I started writing I thought there must be some simple ways to further differentiate the articles in these cases, but in a wider context it now seems like a classic Wiki 'too many cooks' mess. I've no plans to get involved in a nationwide reorganisation, so I'm just going suggest we conform to WP:UKCITIES. Salford should open with "Salford is a city within the metropolitan borough of the City of Salford, in Greater Manchester, England." The infobox should identify it as a city, not an urban area. I would prefer if City of Salford is identified as a metropolitan borough with city status, rather than "city and metropolitan borough" TiB chat 19:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Trappedinburnley: Which edit are you saying you disagree with? If its the one where I fixed the hatnote then change the "about" template to something else. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Crouch, that will almost certainly be my fault. I stated the wrong user and TiB may have taken my word for it. It was actually Hazhk that asserted Thus the local government district is a city, not the settlement of Salford itself, which struck me as WP:OR. Apologies. Koncorde (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Ooops apologies, I was so busy reading several dozen articles I didn't think to check that! Yes it is that statement I disagree with, and I'm moderately sure I'm not confused about that. TiB chat 22:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I've just started reading about Stoke-on-Trent, towns within a polycentric city, rather than former towns that are now areas within a conventional city, who knew!? TiB chat 22:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Lots of the old Boroughs and County Boroughs were "polycentric" before polycentric was cool. Now they're just dormitory towns for Mortal Engines style consumption by the ONS in their BUA's. 16 years until Merseysprawl consumes us all. Koncorde (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a fictional wiki lol RailwayJG (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I've just had a small crack at changing the lead and added some more places nearby. Wondered if it looked okay Salford. RailwayJG (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The first paragraph is a little funky because it's obsessed with location minutiae and the borough status from the off. Some of it needs moving a little later on. Koncorde (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Merging of the article South East Dorset conurbation into the wider Poole Christchurch and Bournemouth Borough article

I think this article doesn't warrant a full lot of notable settlements other then Wimborne. And the urban area could be more covered in the wider Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch article. Maybe a census on this as it pretty much covers the modern day unitary authority. RailwayJG (talk) 10:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Meant merged not delete sorry RailwayJG (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the important thing to consider with separate articles such as this, and Brighton and Hove vs Brighton and Hove built-up area, is that we shouldn't be creating or keeping articles based only on ONS definitions. We need multiple sources describing the characteristics of the area as a distinct entity, beyond simply regurgitating statistics. Even then, WP:PAGEDECIDE let's us decide not to have a separate page if the topic is best dealt with in another article.----Pontificalibus 11:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. The Poole Christchurch and Bournemouth Borough is only a couple years old. They clearly created to try and have an authority to approximately cover the South East Dorset Conurbation but most sources are probably going to be older than the borough. Eopsid (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)