Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 5

Navenby

Hi, I started a page on Navenby, a village in Lincolnshire, last october. I just wondered if someone could give it a rating, and point me in the right direction to keep on improving it. Thanks! Seahamlass 11:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

A lot of work has obviously been done mostly by yourself but also with some others on this article. My immediate thoughts are that as many as possible of the external links in the External Links section should be converted to references (as advised in WP:UKCITIES and WP:EL.) Similarly, the in-text external links given (the ones that yield a number in square brackets in the text) should also be converted into references. That way, the article will immmediately become much more obviously sourced and verified. For help with referencing, you can read WP:References, WP:CITE, and WP:V. I've not read much of it in detail, but this point struck me as the most obvious to begin with. WP:UKCITIES would also be a good document to read and consider if you haven't done so already, as it gives some good advice on how to structure an article such as this so that it fits in well with wikipedia guidelines and hence increases its chance of gaining Good Article or even Featured Article status. Good luck!  DDStretch  (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Design of this project page

Can I suggest that including images within the section headings of this project page, though it looks pretty, isn't such a good idea because it causes problems with links to subheadings and the names that appear in edit summaries. As the images are all identical, they serve no purpose anyway. --Dr Greg (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Navenby

Considering that Navenby was a Bronze Age, Iron Age and Roman settlement, and is also mentioned in the Domesday Book, could it not be given a higher importance level than 'low'? Seahamlass 14:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC) [User:Seahamlass|Seahamlass]]

The importance scale is set up so that settlements are prioritised by the community for development and attention according to their population size. Thus the major urban areas and subdivisions of the UK recieve top priority, whilst hamlets of a 100 people are not as high on the list. The Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/Assessment page gives some pointers on how the assessment system works for UK geography.

However, don't let that fool you or put you off. Wormshill, a village of just 200, is a low priority article with Featured article status - the highest status the community can bestow upon an article. Navenby would benefit from adopting some of the style and layout of Wormshill, and other featured settlement articles like Stretford, Bath, Somerset, Blyth, Northumberland, Weymouth etc etc, all of which follow WP:UKCITIES as a guide.

Does that help? -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes - thanks! Seahamlass 15:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seahamlass (talk • contribs)

Template:England counties

There is discussion at Template talk:England counties about including some major divisions within the template. Wider comment would be apreciated. MRSC • Talk 15:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrexham

Hello,

Wrexham looks as if it needs some serious attention from project members. The material in the article seems to be confused, displaced and in some parts plain sloppy! There are breaches of core principles of Wikipedia, without even thinking of WP:UKCITIES!

Template:WrexhamCounty would benefit from some standardisation, whilst confusion between Wrexham (the town), the Wrexham Urban Area, Wrexham principal area and Wrexham (county borough) has confused me so much that I'm struggling working this out myself.

Help would be greatly appreciated. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Shaw and Crompton

Shaw and Crompton is a civil parish and not a town as stated in the lead. In the absence of a town charter, the LGA 72 s.245(6) refers. A reference has recently been provided, although it has been confirmed by the publisher that this is an obvious error. I am willing to provide copies of my correspondence with the North West Regional Assembly to this effect, but User:Jza84 (who I am beginning to suspect has ownership issues here) seems to have a dogged attachment to the word. This is currently a FA, so I feel accuracy is particularly important.

I would welcome the input of other editors as I am reluctant to refer to FAR if it can be avoided. Chrisieboy (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Lovely stuff! Just a note that I also raised this with the WikiProject Greater Manchester a few hours back, though took a slightly different approach (see diff). Says alot about us I think. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Strange as it may seem, wikipedia is based on the idea of verifiability and reliable sources, not accuracy per se. If you think that taking this article to FAR would change that fact, then you clearly don't understand much about the FA criteria; but if you think that's an appropriate way to try and resolve this impasse, then I suggest you nominate it straight away, so long as you're also prepared to abide any concensus that emerges there. If you're not, then it would be another waste of time. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I honestly find your regard for accuracy worrying. The four sources are hardly reliable. (1) A report discredited for our purposes, (2) A 1998 Oldham Education and Leisure publication, (3) A 1907 publication entitled Shaw Church in By-gone Days and (4) A 1967 Crompton Public Libraries publication. This is against (1) legal citation and (2) confirmation from the North West Regional Assembly to the contrary, both of which you can easily ascertain for yourself. However, I did not intend to continue the discussion here. Chrisieboy (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you ought to keep the discussion in one place? - Talk:Shaw and Crompton. -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The new local authority structures for Cheshire

It would be good to get some feedback on this. At present, two articles have been created that are about the not yet existing local uthorities planned for Cheshire: Cheshire East and Cheshire West and Chester. Already these have had to have their names changed as the names of the new authorities have changed, and I personally thought their creation at this time was slightly premature for that and other reasons. A lot of speculative election information has been added that in other articles would have gone into a separate article solely about the council that administered those areas. Now we have seen this morning two edits by a Historic Counties advocate which adds an extensive quote to both articles that seems to add little to the content other than show that the existing councils used the term "historic county" in their press release. Can I ask for advice about this? My reaction has been to remove this quote because it adds little to the content of the article. I am not sure whether this will provoke a re-insertion of the material.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether it provokes a reinsertion of the material or not, I think that you were right in deciding to remove that irrelevant quote. It added nothing to the article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 10:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Owain, who added it, seems to think it does add to the article. He hasn't (yet) reinstated it, but has commented on its removal on the talk page (and also taken care to add the qualifier "Ceremonial" to the county map which he had added previously and which my reversion had removed.)  DDStretch  (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been assured there is a guideline that states we should avoid linking within quotations - the purpose being that we shouldn't assume the speaker means certain terms we use here. To what "historic" boundaries was the speaker alluding to? Also, I believe half of Tameside was from Lancashire, with a further part from Yorkshire, West Riding.

I have no problem with a fresh wave of boundary reform to historic boundaries, but we should not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries, and we should report on this as and when (though I think it's unlikely to happen for practical reasons - particularly for major conurbations). Also, I'd be mindful of avoiding any soapboxing or adding material which doesn't add context. I'm with you guys - it should go, at least for the time being. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Opinions wanted on a matter that has cropped up regarding the History of Chester article

User:Wetman added some material to the totally inadequately referenced History of Chester article, and I posted a polite message on his talk page inviting him to add the references for it. I did this thinking that it would cause few problems given what he states in general terms on his user page. It provoked, after an appeal to another wikipedia article as a source (which I stated was not really a good idea), what I took to be a rather inappropriate response, both on his talk page and on Talk:History of Chester#Very High Standards. I have replied, but I would welcome comments from other editors, in particular, whether I have been somehow deficient in my actions about this. I was under the impression that to achieve GA or FA status, all articles should be appropriately referenced; that it was appropriate to ask for references for the facts Wetman had entered in this particular case; and that the "mediocre" status of the article with which Wetman labels it is largely because people have not been careful about sourcing or referencing facts when adding material before (there are other problems, too). I also consider the WP:OWN comment to be unsupportable, but would like others' views about this too.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw absolutely nothing wrong with your perfectly polite request for references. On the contary, I think that User:Wetman ought to be reconsidering his response to your request, and owes you an apology. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've also replied at Talk:History_of_Chester with simillar sentiments. -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Navenby - again

Done quite a bit more work on the page - as have other editors. I just wondered if someone would take a look and see if it was worth bumping it up from a Start page assessment? Thanks! Seahamlass 21:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged the article with some concerns. Input from other editors however is most welcome! -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

/How to write about rivers.

I've just written a draft/prototype page to fill the red link in the guidelines. Please let me know if I'm on the right lines.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping someone would get here before me!... It's looking good though! User:Rodw has contacted the UK Waterways project for feedback too ([1]). I think some example sections and the conversion of the infobox to a British river would be good next steps. I like it. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

List of the counties of the United Kingdom

Found this today, though seem to remember something not too dis-simillar was deleted around Christmas time. Had some assertions of "traditional counties" which I've since cleaned up, but would like some more input as to whether this is strictly needed or verifiable please. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it could be useful but needs some clean up/further explanation. eg I can't find any mention of Avon (county) which was a county from 1974-1996.— Rod ^talk 13:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It also describes unitary authorities (such as Luton) as "counties". Is that technically correct? --Dr Greg (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. Unitary Authorities are indeed Administrative Counties in their own right. Fingerpuppet (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think more clarification is needed in the article about that. Also, how does this work with the ceremonial and lieutenancy areas of the UK? I presume too that the metropolitan boroughs are not counties; though effectively UAs, they only had their county councils abolished rather than the statutory county boundaries. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a good point about abolished local government counties (Avon, Humberside etc) as it can be a resource for research and not just a snapshot of the immediate situation. An additional section at the end could be useful, showing when they were abolished and where their areas went (and citing the Orders; I'll have a list in my desk drawer somewhere). I'd not intend to take it back to the brief 1960's changed (there are limits!) I'll have a think about how to do that over the week.

I wrote the headnotes to the various lists. I aimed to give a very brief summary for each, of exactness and clarity but without turning the headnote into a full length article (and there are plenty of good articles on these subjects already).

Briefly, the metropolitan counties & Greater London were not abolished, only their county councils and so each is a county for the purposes of the LGA 1972. (I have noted in the main list whenever there is no county council.) However when unitary boroughs were stripped out in the 1990s', they were actually removed from the county and each became a county of itself (except in Berkshire for some reason). I hope I reflected that properly in the list.

Maybe there would be value in making a distinction between "metropolitan county" and "non-metropolitan county" in column 2. LG02 (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Crawley submitted for Peer Review

Hi everybody; I have submitted a Peer Review request for the Crawley article, which is currently at GA status. Ultimately I would like to submit this for FA consideration. I would be very grateful for any comments and suggestions from members. The rewrite of this ex-stub article was a joint effort between Tafkam and myself; we have tried to follow WP:UKCITIES guidelines at all times. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Guidance needed

I have spent many hours over the past few weeks adding extra touches to Navenby and I wondered if someone could give it a rating please. It has a B at the moment - but that was just given by an anonymous Wiki editor. Many thanks. --Seahamlass 13:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The next rating up from a grade B would be a "Good article" rating. To get this rating the article must go through the good article nomination process which is external from this project. To nominate the article please go to WP:GAC after ensuring you think the article meets all of the criteria set at WP:GACR. If you think it may not meet the criteria you should look on WP:GA to find an article with a similar subject for any guidence although I think the Navenby article looks very good. Good luck. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 16:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Greater Manchester

Greater Manchester is up for Good Article status. Anybody who has not significantly edited the article could you please take a look to see if you feel confident enough to review it? It could be the first metropolitan county to become higher than a grade B. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 20:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

English counties map

I wanted to make a proposal for conversion of the current Image:BlankMap-EnglandAdministrativeCounties.png English counties map from the vile pink one to a nicer one similar to the one currently used for the States of Germany such as Image:Deutschland Lage von Baden-Württemberg.svg. The current pink map is outdated, created when infoboxes used a rather foul pink colour and most have become grey now. Views would be welcome here thanks! _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 20:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The Germany maps look better than ours (which is a minor outrage!), and do believe this could be, or rather is the right way to go. Was there a reason why pink was chosen??

I could help change these maps but there are hundreds of them. I would only be willing to do this with support from other users. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Same colours/style as these ones? Joe D (t) 12:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Anything looks better than pink and red! I do like the German green ones though but the cream map would look ok without the detail. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 13:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

need for UK if country included

Hi all, I noticed from my watchlist that User:Camaeron has been adding United Kingdom to a lots of articles (related to buildings) where England is already included (and presumably this would also apply to Scotland, Wales etc). My own thought is that England is a well enough known country to provide the context, but I would be interested in the thoughts of others.— Rod ^talk 18:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ooh dear, this makes me sound so criminal! I just think that sovereign states are the most important component in an introduction especially in Geography related topics. England may be very well known and is often used as a synonym for the UK but not all that many people know where little Wales is. I am fully prepared to go back and revert every single edit if considered necessary. Sorry for not consulting you all first, I had never heard of you before Rod wrote to me! Sorry : S! --Camaeron (talk) 18:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem is that many people unfamiliar with the UK think the name of the entire country is England: I recall not too long ago a person from USA stating that they were going to spend some time on holiday in England, staying in Edinburgh for the entire time of their stay! One does need to be alert to the possibility of perpetuating a mistaken belief that would be distasteful at the very least to many quite reasonable people living in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. This sole use of England in articles may do this, even though we may think the extra information is not required because we think we are quite familiar with the complexities at work in this issue. I don't know what to suggest, but merely make that point as an issue to consider.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an issue that has been discussed at length in the past, and, I believe the outcome was in favour of the constituent country only for geographic demarcation. So, it is permissible (and what seems to be a very well established convention) to say "X is a place in Wales. However, it is also quite permissable to say "X is a place in Wales. It has been voted the best place to live in the United Kingdom - where citation allows of course. Every other encyclopedia I've seen also takes this stance. -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont mind both being added. I dont even mind it being shortened to UK but I find it very important. I have noticed pages about states of the USA state that they lie in USA. Otherwise people could also think that these states are independent. --Camaeron (talk) 18:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I am with Jza84 on this one in that we only need the country and not the state in articles, otherwise it looks very clumsy. Keith D (talk) 19:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Abbreviations should be spelt out in full on the first occation, so really UK has to be United Kingdom per the manual of style I'm afraid. I do think the UK is important, but the consensus seems to be against it for demarcation in the first sentence. I don't think the inclusion of "United Kingdom" is likely to last on those articles. There is a debate about Scotland's lead section about the United Kingdom, which you may be interested in at Talk:Scotland however. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the addition of United Kingdom in the text starts to look clumsy in some articles. Is there an appropriate category, template, header or footer which can be added to make the geography clearer to people who are not familiar with UK geography? I had a similar experience to ddstretch when touring in Scotland with Canadian friends.i.e. they thought it part of England.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 20:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion (if we're talking about the same one) is archived here. The outcome was that the constituent country must be mentioned, but there was also a significant minority in favour of mentioning the UK too, and I think that in the end we decided that we had to make mentioning the UK optional. Joe D (t) 12:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Maps

For those looking for maps of places in the uk this may be of interest: commons:User:Geni/OS_maps.Geni 18:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

These sound interesting - we could use one of your partial scans on Weston-super-Mare but what is the copyright status?— Rod ^talk 18:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Public domain. Orginal under crown copyright which expires after 50 years.Geni 19:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And the map you requested Image:Weston-super-maremap 1946.jpg in this case the original fell on a fold but other than that reasonable.Geni 20:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - added.— Rod ^talk 21:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

River route (or course) maps.

When making a river route map or diagram (similar to waterways, railways and roads), where would the source be placed, top or bottom ? The lists part of the guidelines for rivers suggests listing settlements starting at the mouth, so, should the mouth be at the top? I'm experimenting with some route maps/diagrams, based on the waterways symbols, and would welcome opinions on their orientation.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I would welcome the opportunity to look at/comment on/use these. I would have thought it would depend on whether the river run south to north eg River Parrett or north to south eg River Exe. Could it be integrated with Template:Geobox River or Template:Infobox River?— Rod ^talk 15:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm still at a very early stage of experimenting with bits of the route maps, putting in spoof information etc. Here are my raw results [[2]].As you can see the geobox fits into the header. Its still a railway template ( not yet thoroughly converted from the German version, I think).--Harkey Lodger (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Having thought a bit more about it ---. It is probably best to have the estuary or mouth at the top so that the left and right banks are in their conventional positions, when looking downstream. Is it?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good start & you are probably right about the mouth at the top. A couple of thoughts: most of the rivers round here have multiple small sources - could this be cxoped with without making the route map too wide. Also some level of detail may have to be lost on long rivers otherwise it will be far longer than the text on the page - I have this problem with Kennet and Avon Canal.— Rod ^talk 17:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion continues at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers‎--Harkey Lodger (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Suburbs of Liverpool

I'm seeking wider input for a debate as to whether Whiston, Huyton and other parts of Metropolitan Boroughs around Liverpool are suburbs of Liverpool.

User:Dmcm2008 has been editting articles to say they are, but without citation, and I subsequently disagree with him. I've offered the compromise that these may effectively be suburbs, but some, like Huyton are towns with town councils and non-contiguous with the city. Please see User_talk:Dmcm2008#Whiston and User_talk:Jza84#Whiston for a little background behind this. Input welcome. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Using a postcode to justify it as a suburb is not a good idea either e.g. Tilbury in Essex has the postcode RM18, RM1 being Romford, a suburb in London. Yet Tilbury is miles away from the London border. Just because they share the same postal area it does not make them in the same area. However, as Huyton and Whiston are just next to the border of Liverpool, it could be considered they are overspill from the city development and be de facto suburbs. Simply south (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say exactly the same as Simply South. The problem with "suburb" is it is a rather broad term to which different groups can ascribe different, possibly contradictory, meanings. With my governance head on, for example, a place with its own council, within its own Met Borough etc., cannot be a true suburb of a nearby larger urban area, although it may be considered a de facto suburb both locally and nationally. With my railway enthusiast head on, though, Whiston, Huyton etc. do appear to be suburbs of Liverpool — they are served by local commuter trains, are within the PTE area and use Liverpool as the base for setting their long-distance fares. With my urban geography head on, places which were originally separate from a city but became absorbed into it through urban growth and infill development — as was the case with Whiston and Huyton, for example — are suburbs more in the US/Canadian sense than in the common UK sense of the term (see here). Having said all of that, something Jza said on Dmcm2008's talk page satisfies me the most at the moment, all things considered: the existence of town councils in these places offers a verifiable source for these places being towns in their own right more than suburbs of the nearby city. Hopefully that makes sense; it's too early in the morning :) Hassocks5489 (talk) 09:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There are term such as dormitory town which may be better than suburb.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with using postcodes, containment within a PTE area, etc is that they are all indirect indicators at best as to whether a place (say X) is a suburb of another place (say Y), and the leap from using them to an assertion that X is a suburb of Y may well step over the bounds of acceptable interpretation into unacceptable extrapolation. The best evidence that a place is a suburb might well be a citation from a suitably appropriate and verified source saying words to the effect of "X is a suburb of Y", and even that may well be subject to error depending on the rigour used by the authors of the source.

Of course, the same thing applies when one is considering whether, say X is not a suburb of Y. We may infer that based on other indirect indicators, but the best might well be evidence stating that "X is not a suburb of Y" or "X is distinct place, separate from Y", which may well be more hard to find, and will be subject to similar kinds of error as in the first case.

If no examples of best evidence is available either way, it may be best to avoid having to make any definitive statement about X in relation to its status as a suburb or not of Y. The same kinds of arguments will apply to using the terms "dormitory towns" and so on. Some things are just not possible to sort out because good evidence either way is absent. In which case, I would suggest using the hard evidence of distance between the respective places' centres, presence or absence of "green space" between them, and so on, all of which can be verified by suitable citations to maps and suchlike, and leave the inferential leap to suburb, dormitory towns, and so on to take place in the minds of people reading the articles, if they choose to make such extrapolations. Doing this will help steer us away from the danger zones of unacceptable Original Research.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Realistically, if they are outside the Liverpool MBC area, and outside the Liverpool Urban Sub-division, then they can probably not be described as a suburb, though dormitory town might fit. Of course, this rule-of-thumb is citation dependant!

PTEs aren't helpful - in no sense are, say, Coventry and Wolverhampton suburbs of Birmingham, yet all three cities share a PTE. Postcodes are equally unhelpful - vast amounts of mid-Wales have SY (Shrewsbury) postcodes, but again those areas cannot be said to be suburbs of that town. Fingerpuppet (talk) 11:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(Added afterwards with edit conflict) The problem of relying on indirect indicators is well-known in many areas that take an evidence-based approach to information and knowledge. The problem is that, because they are indirect, they may have an unacceptable or unknown mis-classification rate (in this instance), so that different indirect indicators will classify X to be a suburb of Y and others will say that X is not a suburb of Y (and we have seen some instances of this in some of the earlier responses to the question). Trying to weigh them up and come to some single decision based on some amalgamation of these different indicators may well constitute Original Research. Furthermore (though related to the first issue), because the indicator is indirect, it may be an indicator of things other than whether X is a suburb of Y, and much more detailed investigation is needed (which will almost certainly be WP:OR in the cases we are concerned with here) to sort them out. That is why I think the best way is to avoid the issue at all if one has to rely on our own interpretations of indirect indicators, rather than published verified and citable sources making direct statements about the two places. Sorry for the slightly more technical explanation here, but it may be of some use to some.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this guys. I had an inclin that this would be the feedback from the team here. I've also had simillar feedback elsewhere. I'll take this back to the user in question and see what can be done as a way forwards. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid User:Dmcm2008 has ignored this feedback and is reinstating his claim. Anybody willing to pass comment on his talk page? He's quite new and I don't think he believes me. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Whist I have not read all feedback, it is sad some of you out there use wikipedia so rigidly. Jza84 states so much bull. I live in the city of Liverpool and around the city we have a number of suburbs, districts, call it what you will, which make up the "wider Liverpool". If someone said people from Huyton or Seaforth are not from Liverpool, you would be laughed at. They represent domitory towns if that is what people call it, but please. Please do not say they are not suburbs of Liverpool, because that is an insult to every person from Liverpool in the boroughs of Knowsley and Sefton. Dmcm2008 (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC) My conflict with Jza84 is because the user has decided to reverse any of my work in connection to the suburbs. The user never did seek compromise or discussion. The words "not a suburb of Liverpool" followed his work. This is utter nonesence. Discussion is not needed about that. However the Liverpool Daily Post newspaper, in connection with Capital of Culture has been doing a poll on what constitues Liverpool. Dmcm2008 (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you cite your sources please? I appear to have contradictory evidence to your point of view: Huyon, for example has a parish council and its own central business district ([3]). People from Huyton or Seaforth are not from Liverpool, they are from Huyton or Seaforth. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A resident of L1 and former resident of L38 writes. Suburb implies far more than part of the Liverpool conurbation. Perhaps you would like to explain what you think makes a suburb at the moment it is just you subjective opinion.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not have to site sources. Every article anywhere would be forever adding citations to prove disprove. That you can dismiss places as not suburbs of Liverpool because they are from another borough is silly. Why must you continue to behave in this manner? Anyone with any knowledge of Liverpool knows that if you are in Seaforth, you are in Liverpool, albiet another borough. So if I was in Croydon, south London, or Wembley North London, I would also be in Surrey or Middlesex. There are similarities. Dmcm2008 (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont seek to set my opinion on others, I am seeking to enhance articles but I am concentrating on Liverpool suburbs. So to me Seaforth, L21., is in Liverpool but because it is in the borough of Sefton you cannot say it is in Liverpool, for wikipedia purposes. Suburb is middle ground if you like. I am open to alternative phrases. However it must have a link to Liverpool, because it is closely linked. If it just said Seaforth Sefton, it might not dawn on someone it is 'in Liverpool' as it is classed as being in Liverpool by local people. Dmcm2008 (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Middlesex doesn't exist anymore; the county has gone. London has statutory boundaries which encompass Croydon and Wembley. Liverpool's statutory boundaries stop at Liverpool. You're point doesn't make sense, how can you be "in Liverpool, albiet another borough"? -- it doesn't make any sense. Also, material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. You have not provided any evidence and thus your contributions are in breach of Wikipedia's principles and policies. Simillarly, the weight of consensus appears to be against you, something you should now respect. "Local knowledge" is not a substitute for verifiability and reliable source material. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to bother discussion. Your insistance in rubbishing my view point on the suburbs of Liverpool, is probably based on no knowledge whatsoever of the city. You quote wikipedia. However each article is open to improvement. I have been doing that that and after other intervention am willing to moderate how it is done to include such words as dormitory town or something along those lines.That in theory should appease. However you are not interested in that, you are clearly only interested in being a funny so and so. What ever your motives you can keep them to yourself. I will continue to edit. Dmcm2008 (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, please note that:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

The above is official policy. Can you please revert your unsourced additions? You're promoting a personal point of view on these place-articles that is not verifiable. As a matter of support now, can you please re-visit the introduction page for more infomation about how the site operates and what its principles are.

For what it's worth, I object to your point of view because:

a) a suburb does not have a central business district - of which these places do, thus your point is nullified.

b) your stating that Liverpool is wider than it actually is, when it has statutory boundaries.

c) your statement is unsupported by citation.

d) Some places are of equal distance to other major settlements, like Warrington, Widnes, Wigan, Southport. Why does Liverpool take preference?

e) postcodes are set with the purpose of facilitating the delivery of post - not as a form of geographic demarcation.

f) Knowsley and Sefton have their own councils and majors seperate to Liverpool.

g) Huyton is no more a suburb of Liverpool than Bolton is of Manchester.

--Jza84 |  Talk  15:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Pevsner gives a list of Liverpool suburbs from Aigburth to Woolton; Whiston & Huyton are not included. Pevsner, Nikolaus (1969). Lancashire. The buildings of England. Harmondsworth: Penguin. pp. pp 126, 207–262, 420–1. ISBN 0-140-71036-1. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)</ref> Mr Stephen (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

moving to location query

What do you do when there are two villages in one county (close enough) but no districts\borough which can be used to define where they are? Simply south (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Are they of equal importance? Fingerpuppet (talk) 11:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you give us the specific examples (if any) which you are concerned with? It may help us understand what it is you want to do.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just strolling through location at Gr looking for another place. I just thought i would look at Groeslon in Gwynedd as i went past it. There do not seem to be any districts or boroughs in Gwynedd and there are two Groeslons in Gwynedd, each a small village. There may be other places with a similar problem out there as well. Simply south (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(and what does requyes mean? :))

The "requyes" nonsense was caused by my fingers being too thick for the keyboard I'm using and some glitch meant I couldn't back out of committing myself to posting the message in time. 8-) As for the main issue: this is a problem that is going to crop up when Cheshire local government is re-organised next year, when there will be two Burton's in the same unitary authority area: Burton, Ellesmere Port and Neston and Burton, Chester as they currently are. It probably needs some discussion to work out how best to proceed. I guess using the nearest large settlement to distinguish them might be a good idea, but this may not work in some cases.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I discovered a similar situation quite a long time ago down my way (West Sussex). There are two very small villages called Nutbourne, with few distinguishing features (other than one having a station). A substub article was created for the one near Pulborough, which turned the redlink on the Nutbourne railway station article blue; unfortunately, the station is in the Nutbourne near Chichester! Luckily West Sussex does have local govt districts, so I disambiguated them using those, but the article titles are not very helpful: the one in Horsham District, in particular, is not very near Horsham (town) at all. Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A relevant example may be Ash, Somerset which is a disamb page to Ash (near Taunton) & Ash (near Yeovil).— Rod ^talk 13:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Those two could be disambiguated to Ash, Taunton Deane and Ash, South Somerset. Simply south (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Just going back to Ash for a mo, see Whatley. Simply south (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There's also the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements) which, I understand, we're already familliar with? I guess what we find here could be an addendum for the convention? --Jza84 |  Talk  14:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So should we draw up a new propsal to fix problems like this? Simply south (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally I don't think so. Although there are several cases where this happens, they're fairly few and far between and best dealt with using good old common sense and a bit of discussion where necessary. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy - we don't need guidelines on every single eventuality. Waggers (talk) 11:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Biographies

I have been looking at geographers recently - just started off Dudley Stamp for example. Should eminent British geographers be tagged as part of this project, or left to the biography mob? Pterre (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Just started Wooldridge and in process of doing Linton. Pterre (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think they're beyond the scope of this project, although obviously there's a fairly close link. Waggers (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a borderline case, but in my opinion UK geographers are relevant enough to a UK geography project. Epbr123 (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Various county-specific projects exist which would count articles of people born or extremely active within their county limits as being within their scope. Some of these projects have a close relationship with the UK geography project, and there clearly are links between them. Perhaps this is another way of viewing such articles if there are county-specific projects that would have these people within their scope.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that geographers should be tagged as part of this project. DDStretch has summed up my view very nicely. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll go with the flow. I had no idea how long each of these three (pretty basic) articles would take - time for a breather on a new topic! There is a Category:British geographers which you will see is lacking many famous names. Pterre (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Rivers - order of presentation.

When writing the How to write about rivers guidelines for this project, I relied heavily on the WikiProject Rivers guidelines(for consistency).However, in trying to write about rivers following the guidelines I have come across the difficulty that the order of presentation of information is inconsistent. Should it be mouth to source or source to mouth? My own instinct is source to mouth as that's the way the river flows. The discussion on the talk page of WikiProject Rivers was inconclusive. Please can I have some guidance from members on writing about rivers in the UK?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 08:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the description of the river's course is source-to-mouth, but everything else is mouth-to-source. Waggers (talk) 11:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Crawley

I have taken Crawley through the Peer Review process (see here), and now intend to submit it as a Featured Article candidate. Before I do so, could I ask that one or two of the project team take a look to see if there are any obvious changes that may be needed, etc? Cheers. Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The article looks nice, but FA is a tough gig. One of the criteria is the article has to comply with the whole of the WP:MOS, and that includes the way that the references are formatted. One apparently trivial example is that image captions shouldn't have full stops after them unless they're complete sentences, and things like using "with" as a linking word are almost guaranteed to get the article marked down on a 1a) objection. It might be an idea to see if Epbr123 would give it a once-over for MoS compliance. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

England, Scottland, NI and Wales, nations or not?

This is all getting rather confusing. Some articles are using nation (S and E), some principality (W) and others constiuent country. Can't we sort something out here and use that for all four of the articles. It would benefit not only us editors but also the readers. Personally I think that eg. The English (as referring to the English people) are a nation but England is not. Therefore I am in favour of constituent country. What are your views. Thanks --Camaeron (t/c) 16:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The legal status of all for is not identical, so describing them differently if better. Agathoclea (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be very unusual to describe NI as a nation and would probably cause a revert war. Principality is a normal and acceptable description for Wales. Many people would want to describe Scotland as a nation, similarly England (although not necessarily the same people). Seems to me that the situation described by Camaeron is fine. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

England, Scotland and Wales are countries ("constituent" or otherwise); NI is a province or part of a province, depending on your point of view. "Principality" is definitely not "a normal" or "acceptable description for Wales" (see Principality of Wales and Wales!). This has all been gone over in the past ad nauseam but I couldn't let the reference to Wales as a principality rather than a country pass: the vast majority of Welsh people don't use term anymore and neither does HM Government or the Welsh Assembly Government. As for nations, the Welsh/Scots/English/Irish are nations, their respective countries are not. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't realised that principality was controversial. Howver, your point was slightly blunted by the fact that the word has been added to the intro to the Wales article. I expect it will be reverted soon. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. The term "principality" is seen by many as very old-fashioned and also as a political statement. It is also historically incorrect (see Principality of Wales). HMG and WAG always refer to Wales as a country. Many people find the description "principality" at best quaint and at worst condescending or even insulting (either that or they'll think you're referring to the building society!). I just didn't want people going on from here to edit Welsh articles thinking "the principality of Wales" is an acceptable description. Nothing personal! Enaidmawr (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe I'm in agreement with you guys too, I.E. ENG/WLS/SCO/NI are countries (constituent or otherwise) within a country (the UK). The term "nation" most definately refers to a group of people, not a territory. However the "Home Nations" for the territories seems (annoyingly) inline with external literature, so have no complaints with that.

Simillarly, I agree with Enaidmawr that Wales should not be described as a principality, and that refering to Northern Ireland as a "province" (though not exclusively so as a blanket substitute for "(constituent) country") seems to be inline with source material external to Wikipedia. Hope that helps --Jza84 |  Talk  00:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Easington, County Durham

I would like to ask if it is possible to divide the article on Easington, County Durham into two articles. The introduction to the article states: "Easington is a town in Easington district in east County Durham, England. It comprises the ancient village of Easington (Easington Village) and the ex-mining town of Easington Colliery." This is not, actually, true. Easington Village and Easington Colliery are two seperate villages - not one town. I would be happy to contribute to, as well as illustrate, both articles, but can't until they are separated. Many thanks. --Seahamlass (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry to be a pest - but haven't had a reply yet. Would it be OK for me to split this article in two?--Seahamlass (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

New daughter projects?

Just a note that there are proposals for Essex and Shropshire WikiProjects. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Something amiss in Scotland

I have noticed that the wrong map is currently being used in the Scotland article. Much like the current map used in this article Location UK EU Europe.png all the other constituent countries in the UK (save Scotland) use a map that highlights its namesake in a dark colour and uses a lighter colour for the rest of the nation. I corrected this changing the name from Europe location SCO 2.png to Europe location SCO.png. Only a few minuets went by and I noticed that it got reverted. instead of re-reverting this action I decided to check out the talk page and noticed that this had been brought up before.

1. Talk:Scotland/Archive14#Fact_Box_Map
2. Talk:Scotland/Archive14#Map_redux
3. Talk:Scotland/Archive14#New_European_vector_maps
4. Talk:Scotland/Archive14#Info_box_map_.2886.141.53.179_19:18.2C_18_July_2007_.28UTC.29.29
5. Talk:Scotland/Archive15#Map
6. Talk:Scotland/Archive15#Infobox_Map
7. Talk:Scotland/Archive_16#The_Map

This seams to be a problem and I would like to get some input on this since it seams to be a rather minor issue that people are willing to war over. I have 2 solutions:

1. We should change the UK templates so that it follows that of the German States like Bavaria, the French region of Bretagne, and many more. Showing only the country and its internal territories.
2. We should continue with what was created before and what the rest of the constituent countries follow. This is also the standard that is currently found in the US articles such as California. By showing the Nation, sub national parts and other neighbouring countries in different colours.

I am placing a notice of this conversation in 6 locations to get the most feedback and to gather all those who might have an interest in the outcome, Talk:Scotland, Talk:England, Talk:Wales, Talk:Northern Ireland, Talk:United Kingdom, Talk:Europe & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps. Thanks for the input. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think a third solution might be required, since the cadre of editors who have Scotland on their watchlist are opposed to these two choices. I think the set of maps at Commons:Category:Locator maps of countries of Europe (aka the "David Liuzzo images") are quite nice and ought to be used on all European nation articles, including replacing the image on the United Kingdom article. The "SCO 2" image was a modified version of the Liuzzo original, so perhaps we should create and use similarly modified images for ENG, WAL and NIR. the end result would be purely geographic locator maps with no political subdivisions. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought of that also but that seams to be a common decision for former countries like Brittany, not sub national entity's. Wikipedia as a whole seams to use one or the other of the above suggestions for sub national territories so why should the UK be any different? This is an Encyclopedia after all and in any encyclopedia you find there is a common standard used. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 04:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just become aware of this after a call for attention was emitted on the Europe talk page. As you might already expect from this I am not highly sensitive to the Scottish question being a special case. Thus, I am surprised that it is treaded in a very special way. Scotland, as an entity, is just below state level. Throughout wikipedia, for all such entities a map is shown that also exhibits, in the one or the other way, which state it is part of. I have no understanding, why we differ from this unwritten law in the case of Scottland. It merely exposes a threat on wikipedia's inter-article consistency. Tomeasy (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats kinda harsh don't you think? I'm sure this is from good intentions not actual malice. I just want to get this sorted out. But I do agree that there is no reason that this article should be treated any differently then any other sub national entity out there, hence my call for comments. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, if you got offended in anyway. There was really no intention to. Actually, I did not address anyone personally. May I ask, what was harsh in my post? Tomeasy (talk) 09:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I took no offense nor did I think it was aimed at myself or any editor in particular. It was aimed at those that had a different point of view then both of us and I just want to try to make sure that those editors that disagree don't believe that this is a hostile action. I guess I took sarcasm to be more then it was meant. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am for one in favour of having a standard solution to a problem found in several articles. The map should follow a standard for subnational entities.Inge (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. That's also my opinion.Tomeasy (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Ideally one with the UK shown. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. Wales and Scotland are technically UK national sub-nationally administrated nations. It would make sense to color them a darker shade in a map with the UK state lighter color. Am I understanding this discussion correctly then?Drachenfyre (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit: However, after more thought for Wales in particular I feel the map in place is better for our use. It shows a darker Wales within a lighter UK and in Europe. Many people do not know where Wales is in reference to Europe so from my perspective this map works better then a map of only the UK state.Drachenfyre (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm discouraged, in that I feel the article Scotland won't fall in with the other 3 articles (England, Wales and Northern Ireland), for the sake of simply being as seperate from the UK as possible. I've exhausted my AGF with that article. I guess many, already know that. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, the discussion regarding the Scotland info-box map seldom concerns improving the Scotland article itself, but instead achieving this mythical consistency between UK constituent country articles. The introduction to the article states quite clearly the status of Scotland as a political, cultural and geographical entity and there is no attempt to portray Scotland as something it is not. "Country article" page formats on Wikipedia are not restricted to independent sovereign nation states. If they were, then I agree a different page format would have to be set for constituent elements of all independent sovereign nation states, whether they be provinces, dependencies, states, kingdoms, principalities, cantons or whatever 'sub-groupings' you wish to choose from. Also, if all maps in Wikipedia were consistent in that they showed only representations of sovereign states, then again I'd agree that the map should be changed. However, there are numerous dependent territories of states which appear on maps without any visual reference to the parent state to which they belong; what they are in terms of status is easily gleaned from the introduction and the same applies to Scotland. The opening sentence of the Scotland article states quite clearly and categorically that Scotland is a constituent country of the UK - where lies the confusion? The map in the info box simply provides a visual reference, for the benefit of the reader, of that which it concerns, i.e. Scotland. (A cultural, political and geographic entity, predating the political unions which created both the EU and UK). The map is there as a simple geographic reference, not a geo-political one. If the reader is able to glean from the map the location of Scotland on the globe, then it has done its job. Does it need to show the UK/EU in order for the reader to be able to achieve this? No, it does not. There is no written Wikipedia "standard" for info-box maps, as a look at the United Kingdom article itself will confirm. Neither is there a written Wikipedia "standard" for UK constituent country articles. The ‘consensus’ reached by Scotland article editors over a fairly long period, consisting of numerous on-line debates, settled upon using a geographic rather than geo-political map for the info-box. Where is the problem, I ask, with that? Rab-k (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"UK national sub-nationally administrated nations". This is what comes of attempting to describe the UK as a nation! Scotland should be simply represented as darker on a uniform lighter European background, including England. NI should not be included at all in close-up UK maps as it looks like some daft wee off-shore island the size of Wales. Sarah777 (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The introduction to the Scotland article explains quite clearly why it is different: it is a separate nation within the same state, exactly as England is.

The Kingdom of Scotland was an independent state until May 1 1707, when the Acts of Union, despite widespread protest across Scotland, resulted in a union with the Kingdom of England to create the Kingdom of Great Britain. Scotland's legal system continues to be separate from those of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland; Scotland still constitutes a distinct jurisdiction in public and in private law. The continued independence of Scots law, the Scottish education system, and the Church of Scotland have all contributed to the continuation of Scottish culture and Scottish national identity since the Union. However, Scotland is no longer a separate sovereign state and does not have independent membership of either the United Nations or the European Union.

The same, less convincingly, could be said of Wales. Northern Ireland, being part of a province of another island, is a whole different kettle of fish and can be relied about to disprove just about every rule that lovers of consistency wish to throw at it. The world is a messy place and it is insanity to expect identical systems everywhere in it. --Red King (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rab. Thank you for the long explanation. What did not come quite through to me is: What is the problem with a map that makes clear that Scotland is part of UK? Why should it be treated differently than Wales or tons of other sub-state entities in the world? You were stating the map has to perform the simple task to show Scotland's location in Europe, why shouldn't it do more than that. You are right in pointing on the text, which does not make bones about the inclusion of Scotland in the UK, but wouldn't you agree that all documents provided should be as consistent as possible. Furthermore, you were mentioning that there are numerous dependent territories which are shown on maps without visual reference to their parent state. (Perhaps you are referring to territories that are way off the parent state.) Please, give us some examples so that we can see how well they compare with the Scottish case we are discussing.

In my opinion we should try to urge for a treatment that is consistent with other similar cases. What makes other cases similar? As Scotland, these entities ought to be on the most superior level below sovereign state and equal among those forming this state. In this sense, I see similar cases (the following list is of course not exhaustive) in the states of the US, India, Germany, the regions of Italy, France, the provinces of the Netherlands and Kenya. Whichever instant I look up from this liston wikipedia, its map will give reference to the parent state. You are right that there is no wikipedia guidline for this--perhaps there should be one--however, it is pervasively employed like this. In my eyes, we would improve wikipedias consistency by doing the same for Scotland. Readers might otherwise imply a certain statement, if they find Scotland being treated in its own very special way. Tomeasy (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Red King. If the case of Scotland is exactly the same as that of England--as you wrote--then why not to follow the same rational with their respective maps? Tomeasy (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree if the text is unequivocal about Scotland's geo-political status, then why does the map not also show this? The text should be reflected by the map right? Surely that is not such a hard task or something incorrect to ask? Also could you link to us the other sub-national entities that are like the current Scottish map. They might be incorrect also, or they might prove a point. If they do prove a point then what does that mean for all the other sub-national maps out there, does that make them wrong? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I too agree. Scotland is still a part of the United Kingdom; it should have a map reflecting that fact. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

A picture is worth a thousand words. The map showing Scotland as part of the UK, in the same way as the England, Wales, and Northern Ireland articles do, is simply better. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I have no problem with England and Scotland being shown alike. The postion of Wales is ambiguous and NI is just too difficult. But what I was trying to convey was that the the status of Scotland is not the same as the Lander of Germany or the Regions of France or Italy, especially not Britany. The States of India and the USA are a closer match. So too would be Latvia and Estonia if the USSR continued to exist. The key message is that Scotland is not a region of the UK, it is a distinct nation. But yes, it is also part of the UK and in turn (though not in the same way) of the EU. I'm arguing that the colouring needs to be tactful. Clearly different from the rest of the UK but not so different that it is unclear what the reader is supposed to see.--Red King (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You wish to make this discussion more ambiguous, but this is very clear question, is Scotland a nation country or a sub national entity subdivision of another country? You yourself have said that the text in the article goes to great lengths to say that Scotland is not an independent nation but only a part of the UK. If that is so then where is the issue? If it is akin to India and the USA then why not do as they do and colour them the same like the rest of the sub-national entities subdivisions of the UK currently do? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm perhaps being pedantic, but please be mindful that the four "parts" of the UK are not "nations". A nation is a group of people, not a division of land. :-)

I have a question. Should a consensus be formed to have a "UK-Scotland" map in the infobox, does that map already exist somewhere? --Jza84 |  Talk  01:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, nations are a 'group of people', but a significant part of that defination is also "Almost all nations are associated with a specific territory, the national homeland." Drachenfyre (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, that's why the English people are a nation, whereas England should never be described as such. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok corrected that now, also there is an interesting read called Definition of Country, State, Nation that ironically led me to another article called Scotland Is Not a Country. Kinda off topic but interesting none the less. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a map of Wales available specifically within Northwestern Europe? I think that would be appropriate to give a good sense of location. Drachenfyre (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of, here or elsewhere online. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

So is there any thought on what should be done? Proposal 1 or Proposal 2? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If I understand Andrwsc's contribution (above), the consensus on the Scotland article has been against both proposal 1 and proposal 2. In the absence of a new consensus on the Scotland article, surely the status quo stands. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

When if ever does the status quo in one article trump the status quo in all the other articles combined? Is the Scotland article inerrant? Every article out there can be improved, can they not? Why have the two proposals been rejected? How many have discussed this before only to be trumped by a vocal few? Why does the text of the article saying its a subdivision of the UK not reflected the map? Why does this article get special dispensation compared to others in wikipedia? If the consensus is against why don't other articles follow this precedent? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 07:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Red King. Sure, you can point out the individual differences between German, French, and UK sub divisions. Nobody, says that they all follow the same juridical pattern. Clearly, the French regions are less distinct than the UK's and the German states are in many ways more powerful than the UK's. And if we iterate through the remainder 200 countries on this planet we will find that they all follow somewhat different rationals. Following your argumentation, we would actually need 200 different kinds of color shadings to reflect those individual nuances. As someone mentioned before. This way it is of course impossible to find a consistent solution. Therefore, let's not make it more difficult than it is. The map for a superior-level sub-state entity should tone reference to its parent state, as is currently done for England, Wales, NI, and the sub-national entities of all states I have found on wikipedia. Tomeasy (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that most of us, would prefer the map be changed at Scotland, to match the maps at Wales, Northern Ireland and England. When are we gonna take our arguements to that article? GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Scotland has been compared by some as the equivalent to US States, e.g. Alaska (see map!), German Länder, etc. These on the surface are all well and good, however, dig a little deeper and you may discover that Scotland differs from her ‘equivalents’:

Unlike Scotland, the State of Washington, for example, was never an independent, sovereign nation state, whose legislature entered into a treaty of union with another similarly independent, sovereign nation state, in order to create an entirely new independent sovereign nation state similar to, in this case, the USA.

Unlike Scotland, the Faeroe Islands, for example, do not have a Head of State and Heir Apparent who use unique styles and titles separate from, in this case, Denmark.

Unlike Scotland, Catalonia, for example, is not specifically represented in the European Commission when legislation concerning matters of law are discussed by representatives of EU member states including, in this case, Spain.

Unlike Scotland, Bavaria, for example, does not have a banking system in which notes can be issued and circulated in the form of currency which differ from those used in the remainder of, in this case, Germany.

Unlike Scotland, Maharashtra, for example, does not have a branch of religion unique to it in comparison with, in this case, India.

Unlike Scotland, South Holland, for example, does not have a primary, secondary and tertiary education system which differs in structure from, in this case, the Netherlands.

Unlike Scotland, Bretagne, for example, does not have a unicameral legislature with tax varying powers devolved from the principal central legislatures of, in this case, France.

Unlike Scotland, Victoria, for example, does not have a tick-box on government statistical/census forms to indicate a person's nationality as being 'Victorian' as opposed to, in this case, Australian.

Unlike Scotland, British Columbia, for example, does not send sports teams to participate in, for example, the Football World Cup, Rugby World Cup or Cricket World Cup, in place of a team representing, in this case, Canada.

Unlike Scotland, many of its ‘equivalent’ historic states, for example Livonia and Pomerania, have been absorbed into other neighbouring states and consigned to the history books.

Unlike Scotland, many of its ‘equivalents’ do not have minority languages whose status is enshrined in domestic and international (European) law.

Unlike Scotland, many of its ‘equivalents’ do not have a distinctive military contingent forming part of the state’s overall armed forces.

Unlike Scotland, many of its ‘equivalents’ do not have domestic legislatures, domestic governments and departments of central government which are specific to it.

Unlike Scotland, many of its ‘equivalents’ do not have long histories as sovereign and independent nation states predating, in this case, the three most recent centuries during which the current state has existed.

Unlike Scotland, many Wikipedia articles have editors who, through a process of consensus, choose to show maps of a different kind, and in doing so discourage tendentious editing practices of certain editors who insist upon consistency.

Wikipedia is not a democracy. If the consensus arrived at in an article runs contrary to the consensus found on other articles, so be it. Scotland article editors have through a process of discussion reached a consensus whereby a map of a geographic nature be used rather than one of a geo-political nature. This is the consensus. This is what the Wikipedia community is about. Rab-k (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by all those Unlike examples. But, that's just my opinon. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Also (I forgot to add), Scotland is not independant; it hasn't been since 1707 & that's a fact. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I'm not getting into this with you GoodDay (talk), my talk page is already crammed with your thoughts on this subject, for anyone who is interested. Rab-k (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out, the map in question is currently being correctly used at the Kingdom of Scotland article, as it's a historical map. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rab-K. Sure, you can point out the individual differences between German, French, and UK sub divisions. Nobody, says that they all follow the same juridical pattern. Clearly, the French regions are less distinct than the UK's and the German states are in many ways more powerful than the UK's. And if we iterate through the remainder 200 countries on this planet we will find that they all follow somewhat different rationals. Following your argumentation, we would actually need 200 different kinds of color shadings to reflect those individual nuances. As someone mentioned before. This way it is of course impossible to find a consistent solution. Therefore, let's not make it more difficult than it is. The map for a superior-level sub-state entity should tone reference to its parent state, as is currently done for England, Wales, NI, and the sub-national entities of all states I have found on wikipedia. The list of unlikes you've made is not as special as it may look. Actually, you can make a list like this for many other sub-national entities. Then on different criteria. I mean, it's nice to see that Scotland is a quite special case, but it is part of the UK and should therefore show the remainder of the UK in a lighter shading.

Hi GoodDay. I agree with you. The map in question is correctly used for the historical kingdom. Tomeasy (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Tomeasy (talk), nobody disputes Scotland's status, not even I, which may surprise you. However, this whole issue does not revolve around Scotland's status, which is not in dispute, but the consistency, or lack of, between the E/W/NI and S article info-box maps - nothing more. The editors of the E/W/NI articles chose, I assume through consensus, to use the David Liuzzo maps showing the UK in camel, against the orange of the constituent country relative to the article. All well and good. The Scotland article editors chose to use a different map. (One which I adapted, with permission, from a David Liuzzo map, which was far superior to the geographic map in the info-box which preceded it). Consensus that a geographic map was preferred to geo-political map for the info-box map was reached long before I adapted the Liuzzo map. (I also adapted a Liuzzo map for the Kingdom of Scotland article, which shows no national boundaries across Europe as I'd have to have made umpteen versions of the same). Again, it doesn't come back to Scotland, but consistency. For whatever reason the consensus of the editors of the Scotland article was for geographic rather than geo-political. This consensus has until recently been maintained and a stable article created. However, a few individuals, some of whome will go to the extraordinary lengths of undertaking bad faith edits on info-box maps on other articles, ie. Alaska, just to prove a point with regard to the Scotland article, (No names - GoodDay), have sought to make this a 'Cause célèbre' in bringing consistency throughout Wikipedia articles. Others adopt a McCarthyist 'Nats under the bed' approach and assume that anything which does not wrap Scotland in a Union Flag is a subversive Nationalist plot. Whatever the reason, consistency is not a requirement of Wikipedia - discussion and concensus most certainly is! Until such time as that changes, I will support the status quo. Rab-k (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

..extraordinary lenghts of undertaking bad faith edits on info-box maps on other articles, ie. Alaska, just to prove a point...?? This is getting boring. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I would add that "consistency" is very much a part of Wikipedia. As the Manual of Style says, "Consistency promotes professionalism, simplicity and greater cohesion in Wikipedia articles. An overriding principle is that style and formatting should be applied consistently". --Jza84 |  Talk  17:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't see "content" anywhere in that list, just "style and formatting". Rab-k (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it was Rab-k & another editor (a few days ago), who pointed out the situation at Alaska (which I've since fixed & which led me to the situation at Hawaii). I thank both of them, for pointing out those mistakes. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Section break #1

I feel this discussion has gotten off on a tangent somewhat. Instead of focusing on the definition of a "nation" and comparing Scotland to other subnational entities, I think it's a lot simpler to focus on the very specific issue at hand. Which map style is more beneficial to the anonymous readers of this encyclopedia:

1. The alternative currently used on Scotland (Image:Europe location SCO 2.png) uses two colors to only show Scotland within the European continent (not European Union)
2. The alternative currently used on England (Image:Europe location ENG.png) uses three colors, to show England both within the United Kingdom and within the European continent

So why is it better for Scotland to show less information in the infobox map than England? What positive reason is there for the removal of information? I have yet to see a reasonable answer to this question. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Good call here Andrwsc. I think you raise valid points, ones that I too would like to see input about. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In agreement, Scotland should use the 'current map' instead of a 'historical map'. Scotland should not be treated differently from England, Northern Ireland & Wales. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Just curious. If it's decided to change the map at Scotland? How can it be done? I mean, we might have a struggle or something there. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

For someone who "left" this discussion some time ago, GoodDay, I see you've added Hawaii to the list of articles whose info-box map you've changed, without any consultation, in order to try to make your point. "Good call here Andrwsc (talk · contribs)", thanks for pointing out that the Scotland article has actually used a map in the info-box which shows, well,..... Scotland, would you believe! Outrageous! The article in question is entitled "Scotland", the map in the info-box shows, "Scotland". If the article were etitled Scotland (United Kingdom), or United Kingdom:Scotland, then it would be entirely logical to show Scotland within the UK. If consistency is going carry over consensus, then you'd better change the United Kingdom article map to a David Liuzzo one. But hang on, the UK Liuzzo map doesn't show the UK within the EU! Can't have that, the reader might get confused and think that the UK was not an EU Member State, despite the fact that it clearly states such in the introduction. (sic). Again, this boils down to consistency versus consensus. The map of the Faeroe Islands could quite easily include a shade of colouring for Denmark, but I see no clamour for that to change for sake of the reader. (That is until GoodDay changes it, of course). The "removal" of information was, and as I wasn't there at the time I can only speculate, a case of keeping things simple. If someone who locates the Scotland article wishes to see what part of the globe that place occupies, they can simply refer to a map which plainly and simply shows Scotland's geographic position. If other editors wish to use maps which display other geo-political entities then that is entirely up to them. What happens on a particular article cannot, and must not, be dictated to by the content of other articles or the opinions of their editors. Again, my understanding of the policy of Wikipedia is that consensus is a requirement, consistency is not. Correct me if I'm wrong, please. But again, what I find amazing is the fact that this whole issue surrounds the fact that the Scotland article actually shows a map of the geographic location of Scotland! Incredible... Rab-k (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, somewhere on one of the half dozen pages that this discussion has taken place I advocated the Liuzzo map be put onto United Kingdom, so it's not like I have an issue with Scotland alone. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Another thought: your whole argument about Scotland (United Kingdom) is a bit of a red herring, isn't it? The article isn't called Scotland (Europe) either, and you seem to have no problem with the locator map showing the European continent. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that addresses the issue in had Rab. On what grounds do you object to Scotland being shown within the UK? It's quite a verifiable claim. Is surely adds more value to the article than take anything away? --Jza84 |  Talk  18:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to Scotland in the UK being shown on the map. If you trawl through the history of that article you'll see I placed the map to which you refer into the info box, in order to replace the inferior map which was there (geographic as opposed to geo-political), and my edit was promptly undone and I was informed of the consensus for a geographic map. I then took it upon myself to alter the Liuzzo map and despite it again being removed at the first attempt, on pointing out that it maintained the consensus, the map stayed. I regard the current map as fit for purpose. (So too that upon which it is based). However, the consensus is for the current map to stay. Simple. Nothing more straightforward than that. Consensus. Rab-k (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

And if that consensus changed Rab-K? you'd support it. Jolly good. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Rab-k, you seem to think that consensus is permanent. By definition, since we are debating this issue, there is no consensus. Also read WP:Consensus can change. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Quote – I don't object to Scotland in the UK being shown on the map. Hang on Rab-k, let's get this straight, one bit at a time: you don't object to the use of Image:Europe location SCO.png in the infobox in the Scotland article? Mr Stephen (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoa there - one at a time. If the consensus changes, I'll respect it, and I have no objection per-se to the 'other' map, but I do have a preference, which concurs with the current concensus. I do however object to those who for no other reason than enforcing this idea of consistency between articles, take it upon themselves to go around Wikipedia editing articles without following the guidelines for achieving consensus. I am not persuaded that the Scotland+UK map does a better job of informing the reader of the geographic location than the Scotland map. I prefer to keep things simple. I like simplicity, it is a preference, nothing more. 'Busy' maps with variations of colour for a variety of things do nothing for me. Rab-k (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Another essay you might want to read is WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I see absolutely nothing wrong with GoodDay's edits on those articles — they were the WP:BOLD part. Now if he reinstated them without discussion if the regular editors of those two articles reverted him, then that would be a problem. But that hasn't happened. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes Andrwsc (talk · contribs), I see you've also been busy elsewhere. I suggest you give it time before making any claims relating to you and GoodDay's edits re. Hawaii article maps. Again, did you improve anything for the reader, or just enforce your collective ideas for consistency? Rab-k (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What edits are you talking about? And if this sub-thread continues, take it to my talk page as it is irrelevant to this WikiProject talk page. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If you agree that the article's text goes to great lengths to show that Scotland is not an independent State, then isn't it keep[ing] things simple by reflecting that on the map? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the current map. The article is about Scotland, the map shows Scotland. I fail to see how anyone can be under the impression that Scotland is an independent sovereign state on the basis of the map. Look at the map of New South Wales. Does that give you the impression that it is independent? If there is a potential for confusion lets go belt and braces here and re-style the article's title to ensure no possibility of confusion exists: "Scotland (United Kingdom)". There is as much chance of the article's title giving an impresion of "Independence" as the map. Even the rider under the title states This article is about the country. How much genuine 'confusion' is there out there, and how much is invented? Rab-k (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That's correct, you don't see a problem with it; But we do. PS- I've fixed a date error at Kingdom of Scotland, hope you approve. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I do see how someone could "be under the impression that Scotland is an independent sovereign state on the basis of the map", and that is because it uses the same style Liuzzo map as many articles on European nations that are sovereigh states. In the presense of consistency, people make assumptions and implications, and people also notice when something stands out as different. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

New South Wales is a bit of a red herring since it shows the whole country of Australia that also happens to be located on a continent. Did you notice that the map did not show any other land masses near it? It's following the same line of thought as Bavaria. Also California & Texas were independent at one time and they are treated the same as any other state on the map... Why is Scotland so unique, are you claiming now that it is not a sub-country entity? If it is why are we discussing this? The whole reason this has been brought up is because it is obvious that people out there believe that this is a problem that needs some resolution. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that the California Republic lasted less than a month and the Republic of Texas less than a decade, I'd say "red herring" season was well and truly open. I think I give more credit to readers of this site than some do. I disagree that the map implies any degree of Independence. There is no political aspect to the map, simply a geographic aspect. If this is indeed the case that without any visual reference to the UK that Independence is falsly implied, then every map on the planet which shows any facsimile of Scotland not in relation to the UK will have to be changed accordingly. On that note, I must make my humble excuses else my dinner guests this evening will be sitting down to a bowl of corn flakes. I have posted a note on the Talk: Scotland page inviting any other supporter of the status quo to champion their cause here. I hope you are able to continue this discussion to an amicable conclusion. Regards. Rab-k (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

When sall we move this discussion to the Scotland article? With the exception of Rab-k, we all seem to agree about the map's misrepresentation. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Can everyone (no names, no pack drill) stop namecalling and trolling, and concentrate on the image? Mr Stephen (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll keep my passions in check. Now, shall we go to the article-in-question & try to get the map fixed? GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Rab-k, cute little addition with California and Texas, then how do you explain Sicily. It is shown as a part of Italy is it not? This is not a continent so the red herring you proposed last time is not misleading this time. How about Bavaria with its long and proud history? You agree that Scotland is not independent and say that the text covers that then why does the map not reflect that? It is a rather simple request. If you say that it is purely geographical then let compare other sub-country entities by their TOC

Scotland	Bavaria	Sicily	California	New South Wales
1 Etymology 2 History 3 Government and politics 4 Law 5 Geography and natural history 6 Economy and Infrastructure 7 Demography 8 Military 9 Culture 10 See also 11 References 12 Further reading 13 External links	1 History 2 Geography 3 Politics 4 Economy 5 Culture 6 Administrative divisions 7 Historical buildings 8 Miscellaneous 9 Population and area 10 See also 11 External links 12 References	1 History 2 Geography 3 Transport 4 Culture 5 People 6 World Heritage Sites 7 References 8 See also 9 External links	1 Etymology 2 Geography and environment 3 History 4 Demographics 5 Economy 6 Energy 7 Transportation 8 Government & Politics 9 California state law 10 Cities, towns and counties 11 Education 12 Sports 13 See also 14 References 15 Further reading 16 External links	1 History 2 Government 3 Administrative divisions 4 People 5 Education 6 Geography 7 Economy 8 Sport 9 The Arts 10 References 11 See also 12 External links

From what I can tell Scotland talks about more than its geographical location, and if you check all the other sub-country entities out there you will find that they do the same. Heck each article has at least one unique thing in the TOC that no other one does. I only chose from sub-country entities that were discussed before in this exact article. So why is Scotland treated different if it is actually the same as any other modern day State with a LOT of history behind it? Sicily can date its initial inhabitance to 8,000 BCE when Scotland and most of England were only just getting defrosted. The reason for the difference is what exactly? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems, we have a strong consensus here that Scotlands map should be treated as all other maps. Even Rab-K, the only one we are arguing with, declared once that he could live with it. So, I think we should carry this discussion to Scotland's talk page since this is the place where ultimately a change could be agreed on. Probably, we will meet much more opposition there. So let's concentrate our efforts to this. Tomeasy (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

By my reading Red King, Sarah and Rab indicated their dissent. Not a very strong consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think only Sarah is against its use. Mr Stephen (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Simillarly consensus is generally built more on so strength of argument rather than numbers. I think the primary point found here is that Scotland shown within the UK adds more value, which is a very strong arguement and one that hasn't really been countered. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sarah (I assume) is more concerned with the 'map' at Northern Ireland. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)