Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

What kind of "parish"?

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

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

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

Confusion is not restricted to the typical American reader. The following exchange took place some years ago on the Chadwell St Mary talk page.

" Village or Parish

Until the 20th century, Chadwell (St Mary) was a dispersed settlement. I suggest that in discussing its history, it is better to refer to the parish rather than the village. Rjm at sleepers 09:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not a parish. Thurrock is unparished, and the predecessor Thurrock Urban District consisted of one Thurrock parish rather than being comprised of individual parishes. MRSC • Talk 17:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)"

I think it makes sense to specify either civil or ecclesiastical parish, although the latter is also confusing when boundaries have changed in the 20th century. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I would agree, that it would be useful to specify but I would assume most articles about UK parishes would relate to Civil parish, but will freely admit I don't always put that or link to it. There used to be an article for Ecclesiastical parish which could be used to specify the church related area, however this now appears to redirect to Parish. Potentially confusingly we also have an article Parish (administrative division). When writing about churches I tend to use the format "X parish is part of the benefice of Y", which is within the diocese of Z.— Rod ^talk 08:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know whether the majority of Wikipedia usage was about the modern civil parish or the ancient ecclesiastical parish. In the context of history and genealogy, a reference to a parish almost always means the ecclesiastical parish as it existed in the middle of the 19th century. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 05:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Wiki articles are generally about the modern units, as geography articles are written from "present day" perspective. The only articles which will diverge from that are historical ones. Pre-1866 the civil parishes and ecclesiastical parishes were the same thing. The bit I'd be unsure of is biographical articles for late 19th century people. However that sort of article will generally refer to the village, not the parish.

One thing that might be worth considering: Are ecclesiastical parishes notable?--Nilfanion (talk) 08:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure ecclesiastical parishes are notable. There will be a large number of references to them in the literature. Are wiki articles generally about modern units? I'm not convinced, but I have no data. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not convinced there is a large number of references to ecclesiastical parishes (apart from discussion of CofE churches). What there will be is a large number of references to the ancient parishes as they existed before the civil and ecclesiastical functions were separated. That doesn't mean the modern EPs are the same unit as the ancient parishes of the same name.

If you look at a typical article about a village, the main unit referenced is the modern civil parish. That is the unit used for pretty much all statistical references, like current population data. When you look at lists like Grade II* listed buildings in South Somerset, the locations quoted are the CPs. The buildings in that list also generally mention the CP.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

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

I agree, and I believe in most contexts it is clarified already - either by the addition of a word ("civil parish"), or by its context when used in prose about historical events. What I would say is we should avoid referring to the pre-19th C parishes as "ecclesiastical parishes". Sure they had a religious meaning, but they had many other purposes as well. The term "ecclesiastical parish" should be restricted to the modern religious units with no local government function.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

That seems OK to me - civil parishes, ecclesiastical parishes and traditional (or ancient) parishes. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd use "civil parish" whenever present-day information is being discussed. When discussing historical matters (before the split of EP and CP) I'd just use "parish", instead of inventing another class of units. The modern and ancient parishes are pretty similar in many cases but even when they are not, statements like "This house in the civil parish of X" and "This house was built as the manor of Y parish" can co-exist in one article without complications. That means I don't see any real need to worry.

Whitchurch, Devon is a rare example needing much more careful treatment: The village itself isn't in the civil parish. The date it was added to Tavistock is a key fact not described by the article.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The unqualified use of the word parish does not solve the confusion noted by the OP. Whitchurch is by no means unique - all 17 ancient parishes in Thurrock are similar - and I suspect there are other examples. I posted the example above where MRSC was not comfortable with the unqualified use of parish in the case of Chadwell-St-Mary.

That is not the only Whitchurch to cause confusion Whitchurch, Bristol covers part of Bristol and part of Bath and North East Somerset. The old village is also a civil parish whereas the newer part is a suburb covering two council wards. The EP covers both and has two churches: one old to St Nicholas (which I'm sure we have an article for but I can't find) and St. Augustine's Church, Whitchurch, Bristol which opened in 1972 and closed in 2007. I think the point is that although attempts at standardisation can be useful there will always be "difficult cases".— Rod ^talk 09:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

FYI, when working on Sleaford some years ago, I found it rather difficult to work out what my subject was. In 1974 the civil parish that exists today was formed from the merger of four civil parishes: New Sleaford, Old Sleaford, Quarrington and Holdingham. Each of those are thus notable and all represent former settlements. But they do not correspond to ecclesiastical parishes: Quarrington had long been merged with the benefice of Old Sleaford (although they had been separate and Old Sleaford had its own church in the medieval period), while Holdingham had never been its own benefice and always fell under New Sleaford. New and Old Sleaford were in different hundreds. Sleaford was also a prebendary and the prebend had peculiar jurisdiction over New and Old Sleaford and Holdingham (but not Quarrington) for matters like probate. Now, things become even more complicated when it comes to what 'New' and 'Old' Sleaford were; today, no-one growing up in the town would recognise Old Sleaford as a place: it disappeared years ago. But historically it was very significant, although aspects of its history are debated; New Sleaford, meanwhile, corresponds with today's market town. I tried to do my best, but I remain struck by the complexity of working out what Sleaford the article's subject should be. —Noswall59 (talk) 10:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC).

For me, it's precisely these kind of foibles that make editing and researching for Wikipedia interesting. When I was writing the South Stoneham article I had a similar-ish problem. Over time it has been many things - a parish (of the old type), a private estate, a hundred, a poor law union, a sanitary district and a rural district. Nowadays the manor house still stands in a much reduced estate but there's no administrative or ecclesiastical region carrying the name. My solution was to break the article into sections and deal with each one of those in turn. I'm all for standardisation but each of these places is unique and the articles need to reflect that to a certain extent. WaggersTALK 15:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Historical info in civil parish lists

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

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

I think the reason is because there is no other practical point to go by, I have no objection to dropping it though. Joint parishes or similar might work but could easily be vague as different sources will likely describe different names/partnerships. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to remove them: the parishes were part of those authorities for a century, and for local historians it can be very helpful to have that information (it's also worth adding that historical boundary information is not easy to find online, so having the material gathered in one place helps the researcher). Removing the column also potentially gives "undue weight" to the current local government boundaries. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC).

It feels like cherry-picking to me - simply because its the status as it was in 1973. It excludes any changes within the era of the Urban Districts (if a parish was moved from one to another). With regards to other historical things why not mention not the hundreds or the counties (when it was changed)? Or how about changes within modern district structure? Why should the Cornish list associate Advent to Camelford Rural District but not North Cornwall District?

I agree this information should be recorded but I think it should be on the articles for the places - not the civil parish list.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The List of civil parishes in Somerset includes the former "local authority" (eg RD, UD, MB etc) because it is organised under sub lists related to each current district council (or unitary authority) so this is already shown, As commented above the former name is very helpful when looking for records (see Vision of Britain Through Time). This obviously doesn't apply to the Manchester list which is not sub divided in the same way.— Rod ^talk 16:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd favour either the addition of the more units (the hundreds, possibly sanitary districts and poor law unions), as then the lists could show the full history of the parishes; or the removal of the historical completely. Minor changes could be added via a "notes" column. Its just those that have been more radically changed since 1990 which need more thought. It seems wrong to give the district in 1950 greater prominence than the district in 2000.

I think part of my problem here is the heading "former local authority". In the case of Bathampton: Bathavon RD, Wansdyke and Avon are all "former local authorities". A proper title for the RD-era subdivisions would help.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

My opinion, for what it's worth, is to remove all the historical information so long as it is recorded elsewhere. A possible link to the "elsewhere" might then be provided. The problem is making sure the historical information is recorded somewhere and is not removed by any zealous editors who see it as removing excess information. I have my own copies of Youngs' two volumes which provide the historical information (in a much more reliable way, I find, than the various online sources) on the local administrative divisions of counties in England up to 1974, and this can be used to fill in gaps where needed - I used it with other sources when I wrote Ancient parishes of Cheshire, for example. I have found, however, that in some cases, the historical information I provide from it gets removed by subsequent editors in articles about villages, towns, or civil parishes that I have contributed to, and I find it sad that this has happened.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

One hill or two?

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

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

Thanks that is very useful, I will try to crack on with an article soon Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Coordinates format

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

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

I must say that the format they are changing them to is more difficult to understand/find, the all decimal ones can easily be found from the maps. Keith D (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

That is my concern. Template:Infobox UK place doesn't seem to recommended either form over the other (in fact it lists 3 options), but whenever I've adjusted coords in the past (to make them more accurate), the online maps that I used operated with just the digital format, so I lean toward preferring that also. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Another strong vote for decimal lat/long. Much easier to find, easier to adjust precision, and fewer formatting options to get wrong. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree with all the above. Not an update but personal preference. J3Mrs (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I have alerted the user in question - EJM00 (talk · contribs) - about the existence of this thread. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Images of rivers and streams

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

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

Hi all

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

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

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

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

Merger of Taunton Deane and West Somerset

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

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

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

Proposed changes to guidelines on UK counties

If anyone is interested, there is a discussion taking place here [3]. All comments are welcome.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

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

Move discussion notice - Talk:Willingale,_Essex#Requested_move_20_November_2018

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

Population

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

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

Civil parish in infobox UK place for Scotland

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

Please see Template talk:Infobox UK place/Archive 13#Civil parishes...; Template talk:Infobox UK place/Archive 16#Template-protected edit request on 3 January 2015; Template talk:Infobox UK place/Archive 16#civil parishes outside england; Template talk:Infobox UK place/Archive 17#Scotland again and Template talk:Infobox UK place/Archive 18#Civil Parish link query. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the links. My question seems to be a perennial one, and there is a lot of text in response. Would it be a fair summary to say that there is a consensus to omit the |civil_parish= parameter for places in Scotland? Certes (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

SSSIs - URLs need to be updated?

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

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

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

Probably a template would be useful here as there are 1,218 articles using that URL at the moment. Would help to standardise the information given in the reference as well. Keith D (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Is it a consistent pattern? That is, when converting from old URL to new URL, the above examples show that 1000081.pdf remains unchanged, and so does 1004315.pdf; so is the last portion always unchanged? Also, should all instances of http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/ (plus an identifier) be altered to https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/PDFsForWeb/Citation/ (plus the same identifier)? If the answer to both these is "yes", this is what we do:

1. Create a template (let's call it {{naturalengland}} for now) that upon being fed an identifier (such as 1000081) will emit a URL consisting of that passed-in identifier prefixed with https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/PDFsForWeb/Citation/ and suffixed with .pdf
2. File a request at WP:BOTREQ asking that all URLs matching http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/ plus an identifier plus .pdf should be replaced with {{naturalengland|identifier}}

This sort of task has been handled at BOTREQ before. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Seems like the kind of thing some integration with Wikidata would be good at handling. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I was more thinking of a {{cite web}} type wrapper that allows you to get the same output format for all instances rather than just substituting the URL in the page as that will not get common output. I would personally avoid wikidata like the plague. Keith D (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta

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

"High Street" or "the high street"?

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

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

References

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

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

List of metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom

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

The article was last checked / verified at source on talk page by user Eopsid, 5th of February 2017.[4] Subsequently there have been two or three of us tidying / reverting where people have made changes. The differences I can see between versions are 10,000 population for Derby / Nottingham (which may be an issue of transposed numbers originally) and the recent edit to "The Potteries" on 15th February 2019 which appear to have been missed for reversion. From what I can see, all figures are identical to ESPON source other than those noted above. Koncorde (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I have just repaired it (further comments on the article talk page). -- Dr Greg  talk  21:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Lists of Marilyns

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

Requested move

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

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

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

I agree with your conclusions. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Also agree with this logic. Jellyman (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree as well. Thryduulf (talk) 08:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

It appears that they are still doing this here Keith D (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Country or nationality is the first thing to establish about a place or a person. There is no "logic" involved here, just identification. Names often recur. No page I have seen asserts that "'Foo-shire' contains English towns." Bmcln1 (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

If in doubt, look for a featured article: Sheerness and Weymouth, Dorset confirm that "English" is not used in the lead sentence, but ", England" appears after the county name. PamD 23:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

PamD, I don't see what I'm supposed to be doubting. "England" usually appears, although sometimes it doesn't, I'm afraid. In either case, what I've been doing amounts to putting first things first. Say first which country the place belongs to, if possible, followed by other information that identifies the place. This is what we do with people pages too. In the case of some places, district or borough need not even appear in the lead if the county is there. I see no sense in PaleCloudedWhite's assertion that the lead should have all in rising size order. Leads should be informative and tightly written. We all know that. This discussion is a becoming time-waster, I'm afraid. Bmcln1 (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of discussions is to resolve issues caused by differences of opinion; they are not wastes of time. Wikipedia is based on discussion. The point behind my assertion is that your preferred wording inevitably causes Englishness (or Welshness, Scottishness etc.) to be a subset of towns within a specified county, whereas the reality is the opposite: being within a specified county is a subset of Englishness etc. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, my wording implies that the county etc. is a subset of England/English, not the opposite. Bmcln1 (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with everyone else. "English"ness is not an identical concept to being "in England". Towns should correctly and accurately be described as "in England", not "English". Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

We're in for a busy time. Several thousand pages will need changing. We've been writing that Rouen is a French city and New York an American one for many years. Are you sure it's necessary to change that? Bmcln1 (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The City of New York [...] is the most populous city in the United States.

Rouen is a city on the River Seine in the north of France.Rouen

Both of those articles' leads use the country name, not the demonym. I think current practice (and consensus) are not in your favour, Bmcln1. Rcsprinter¹²³ (articulate) 12:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

It's probably not essential to change every example of "...a French city..." to "... a city in France...", etc., if that wording has been in the article for years without any opposition. If someone changes it from the first wording to the second, that's fine. If someone changes it from the second style - or, for example, "..a city in England..." - to the second - "...an English city..." - that is not an improvement, and should be challenged and, in my view, reverted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Another vote for the consensus, I'm afraid, for the reasons outlined above. I see no advantages to "...an English town in Fooshire" over "...a town in Fooshire, England". The latter has the familiarity of an address; the former falsely implies that not all towns in Fooshire are English (which I think is why it reads rather oddly). I'd feel the same about "an English actor from Fooshire", incidentally, should such a construction ever arise. Bmcln1's contention is that "Country or nationality is the first thing to establish about a place or a person" but I don't think that this has been established – on the contrary, I'd say that for smaller settlements the county is more important to (and less likely to known by) most readers than the country. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

With the consensus.If you have ever had to explain to 30 eleven year olds the etymology of English Bicknor Welsh Bicknor you will understand why I am commenting. If you try to unravel Northern Ireland you will understand too. Saying that a settlement is a Catholic village in County Down explains that it is a village containing Catholics in a Protestant county. If you describe Antwerp as a Flemish town in Belgian you are commenting on the inhabitants origin and traditions. We don't incidently, we use the other form. If you say to me that this is an English town- I expect the same, a town filled with the 'Anglo-Saxons' not Hugenots, Britons or Foos. There is a case in the case of an exclave- Ceuta is a little Spanish town in North Africa- or historically Calais!ClemRutter (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not one for mob rule but I too agree with the prevailing consensus and existing convention. The fact that such a far reaching change wasn't discussed first is a bit of a cause for concern too. WaggersTALK 16:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bmcln1: I didn't think I needed to spell it out. Featured articles are Wikipedia's Gold Standard, so if Sheerness starts off "Sheerness is a town beside the mouth of the River Medway on the north-west corner of the Isle of Sheppey in north Kent, England.", rather than "Sheerness is an English town...", and Weymouth, Dorset starts off "Weymouth is a seaside town in Dorset, England," rather than "Weymouth is an English seaside town...", then I think it is clear that your changes go against the established best practice. PamD 22:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Milton Keynes article has achieved GA

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

Bot created articles

I am currently looking at creating articles for civil parishes lists of listed buildings with a bot, see User:Crouch, Swale/Bot tasks/Civil parishes (current), User:Crouch, Swale/Bot tasks/Listed buildings and User:Crouch, Swale/Bot tasks/Scottish CPs. Feedback and suggestions welcome on the sub pages' talk pages. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the idea is good in principle. It might need a fair amount of tidying up though. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs) has posted similar messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England#Bot created articles and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland#Bot created articles. It is not clear where discussion should be held; and so these messages are against WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Redrose64: As Crouch, Swale says above "Feedback and suggestions welcome on the sub page's talk pages." I don't see your problem. (Except that perhaps the apostrophe is wrong and it should say "Feedback and suggestions welcome on the sub pages' talk pages.) I have commented at User:Crouch, Swale/Bot tasks/Listed buildings. PamD 07:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC) Correct link: User talk:Crouch, Swale/Bot tasks/Listed buildings PamD 09:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Redrose64: yes the comments were indeed supposed to go on the relevant subpage, I posted the comment (with slight modifications) on all 3 projects because some of the articles fall under all 3. Fixed apostrophe. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Redrose64: User talk:Crouch, Swale/Bot tasks would be the best place for general comments. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Creating/refreshing location maps - reminder please.

I want to refresh File:Location map United Kingdom Milton Keynes.png as it is five years out of date, ages ago in MK time. I left a note for future editors at File talk:Location map United Kingdom Milton Keynes.png to say

The map was selected from OpenStreetMap using these parameters:

• name='Milton Keynes'
• top=52.1021
• bottom=51.9663,
• left=-0.8758,
• right=-0.6355

When replaced, use these parameters again or update template: Location map/data/United Kingdom Milton Keynes

I'm sure it made sense at the time but it is no longer obvious [to me!] how to make such a request to Openstreetmap or even (actually better for my purposes) to see what are the top/bottom/left/right data for the map I have selected. Also, template:Location map/data/United Kingdom Milton Keynes appears to have gone walkabout(???) Would someone remind me please? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I see from Template:Location map/Creating a new map definition that the metafile is now module:Location map/data/United Kingdom Milton Keynes. But I still need to know where to find the corner coordinates for the map I have extracted. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

In OpenStreetMap click on "Export" in the top margin, then you can type in the coordinates you want into the boxes in the left margin. Or you can click "Manually select a different area" to select an area by mouse and then read the numbers from the boxes. -- Dr Greg  talk  21:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, evidently I missed a dialog box somewhere because ExportDownload gave me nothing. Will try again tomorrow.− --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The "Export" button seems to vanish if your browser window is too narrow. -- Dr Greg  talk  00:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that was it. I've transferred to a bigger screen and can see it now. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Openstreetmap wants me to use planet.osm

Openstreetmap lets me specify exactly what I want – and then declines to export it as too large, that I should use planet.osm instead. I really don't fancy tackling an xml file for the entire planet. Is there a bot anywhere that will do a specific extract? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Gbmapprim

Template:Gbmaprim, and templates deriving from it like Template:Gbmapping and Template:Infobox UK place, have not been working for some months now. Is anyone tracking this somewhere? This is particularly annoying on pages like Anstey Castle that only use Gbmapping and not american/international coordinates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.83.28 (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

There have been no reports of a problem, but it looks like all of the OS Grid co-ordinate links are not operating as the tool for this is missing from the tool server. Keith D (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Ancient

Throughout very many articles, things are described as ancient. A common example is "ABC is an ancient parish in XYZ that dates back to Anglo-Saxon times. When something becomes ancient is not rigidly defined and is open to opinion. However, in an historical context it seems reasonable to use the word to link to the period known as ancient history. This is also not clearly defined but in the UK a generally accepted start date is around the 6th century or the end of Roman Britain This predates, often by centuries, many of the things described as ancient. The word ancient does appear to have become an overused term for anything from the past, often by editors who do not bother being more specific and give the historic period. Using the example given, should we advise not calling English parishes ancient? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

In the example you give above, use of the word ancient is editorialising and unnecessary - it can be removed and the sentence provides the same information. I suspect this is the case for a lot of "ancient" examples. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Ancient parish is a perfectly acceptable term (see [5]) to describe historic administrative areas. It is used in many sources, they are not the same as modern parishes, they covered more settlements and some were very large. 16:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.31.137.72 (talk)

Bedfordshire and Luton Archives and Records Service (see [6]) defines an Ancient Parish as one created before 1066.JonH (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, "ancient parish" is terminology, so, in the example given above, is neither editorialising nor unnecessary. I believe this usage of "ancient" carries the sense "since time out of mind", which of course is what we mean by "ancient history". However I confess that, until I saw this question asked, I had only a vague idea of a definition for an ancient parish – something along the lines of "clearly pre-dating the modern era", so before Henry VIII, the point being that there is no modern record of its establishment. I notice that this chimes with Youngs, F. A., Guide to the Local Administrative Units of England Volume I: Southern England, RHS, 1979 (ISBN 0901050679), p. ix: "the Guide does not attempt to date [ancient parishes'] medieval origins". Maybe that's where my vague idea originated. The Vision of Britain definition linked above gives the fullest explanation I've seen, in a quick search – the Bedford and Luton Archives definition is too narrow, in using 1066 as a cut-off date. For example, the Guide lists the parish of St Nicholas-at-Wade as an ancient parish (p. 287), and it was established in 1310. Nortonius (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments. Using the references given above and looking elsewhere too, the conclusion I draw is that the term "ancient parish" must be taken as a term, or a noun, in its own right, and not as an adjective describing a noun. The confusion is that the word 'ancient' is not referring to the parish, created in medieval times, but to earlier privileges and concepts carried over from earlier, ancient, times into the later, medieval, parish system. I might be off the mark here but it does explain the frequent use of the term in reputable sources. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Districts and built-up areas - population yet again

I began to revise Northampton only to find that the infobox relies heavily on the {{template:English district aaaaaa}} method. The problem as I see it is that doing this gives an invalid figure because Northampton is bigger than the district of that name. Before I spend any more time on it, I want to be confident that it won't all be reverted.

A perennial argument is around "what is the population of X?" The ONS has sidestepped the problem of "it depends on what you mean by X" by recognising contiguous built-up areas. So now we have what I shall call for convenience, "big X" and "little x", where big X is the larger built-up area and little x is the traditional (?) district. The ONS has not declared that the exclusive answer to the question is one or other of these but rather that are two answers, choose which ever one suits your purpose. As indeed it should. Big X is the BUA (Built-up area), little x is the BUASD (Built-up area sub-division, same as 'district' in our templates).

My opinion, for what it is worth, is that the figure we give as the "headline population" should be for something a distant observer would recognise, which is (usually) the contiguous built-up area figure, big X.

Let's have a look at a few edge conditions.

1. Northampton is easy, the difference between X and x is small, just a little village on the outskirts.
2. Brighton is hard, the BUA goes 24 miles along the coast in a strip no more than a couple of miles wide, see Brighton and Hove built-up area.
3. Milton Keynes is difficult because, for unfathomable reasons, the ONS decided to create an artificial district that it called Milton Keynes but which excludes Bletchley (which has been a fundamental part of MK since it was designated in 1967), see Milton Keynes urban area
4. South Hampshire, previously known as the Southampton-Portsmouth conurbation.
5. Bristol and Leicester

At present, the choice has been

1. The BUASD figures are used
2. The BUASD figures are used. (The BUA figure is probably too contentious?)
3. The BUA is used (the BUASD is wildly misleading).
4. South Hampshire uses BUA, Southampton and Portsmouth use BUASD, not entirely satisfactorily.
5. Both use BUA, again because the BUASD figures are so off-beam. See discussion at Talk:List of urban areas in the United Kingdom#Leicester (a bit of a comedy of errors because of a fault on Nomis but the principles come through).

Is this soluble? Or does it have to be done on a case by case basis, with consensus sought (but rarely achievable since there are a lot of King Canutes in villages that are being assimilated). [Yes, I know Cnut did not in fact expect to hold back the tide but rather was demonstrating the limits to his power]. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I would keep it simple and just add the census 2011 population for the city/town district as the main population figure, but use the infobox urban population field for the BUA. I wouldn't use the BUASD at all as while it ultimately maps a recognisable local urban area, it is not consistent in terms of administrative boundaries, so the measure is of limited interest and hence can be misleading. What further complicates matters is that figures outside census years are used a lot, and are just a glorified guesstimate.

Regards, The Equalizer (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Should add that some settlements aren't a parish/district, but those are mainly the exception than the rule. In which case you could use an extrapolation of populations for wards which are recognised by the local councils as covering the area, and then possibly mention the BUA population on top (if they aren't the same). Again, I wouldn't use the BUASD at all.

Regards 11:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Using Ordnance Survey "Place Type" to define if a location is a Town

Morning all. I have started to see edits that are using the "Place Type" on the Ordnance Survey pages to define what a location is. For instance here and here. In both cases I am not convinced that they are particularly accurate (as I have never heard either location referred to as a "town", and my usual way of sourcing such a claim is via letters patent or a parish council, proclamation or otherwise reliable source). I can't find any background as to the OS definition of "Place Type", and it only seems to be used in the "Get Outside" portion of the website? Any thoughts? Koncorde (talk) 06:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that the OS must surely qualify as probably the best WP:RS. If the OS says the Myton is a town but you can't find a parish council minute saying that it has declared itself such then, since "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", I don't see any alternative to taking word of the OS for it – unless you can find an exception that disproves the rule. Test case might be Kidlington (Oxfordshire), "the largest village in England". --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

...which is described as a Town]. Like I said, I'm not one to question methodology of the OS but that sort of thing has me wondering about their definitions. Huyton with Roby is for instance described as "other settlement". Which is vague enough to make me go "que?". Koncorde (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The Kidlington case alone convinces me that it is not reliable. The PC announced proudly that it is not a town and has no wish to be one. That this OS guide also suggests that Central MK is a suburb (of itself?) puts the tin hat on it. [To be fair, MK is difficult: there is the Borough, the BUA, the 1967 designated area that locals call a city but legally still a town, a BUASD that omits a huge chunk of it, the CBD (parish) which is a town in its own right, a parish (a mile or two from the centre) and the original village, all called Milton Keynes. It would stress-test any system!]

Ceremonial counties

There is an edit war at Milton Keynes as to whether or not the Borough of Milton Keynes is it is not in Buckinghamshire. The position in law is that there are two distinct counties with one Liutenancy. Uninvolved editors are invited to consider how best to resolve. Previous discussions are mainly at user talk:Peter1292 and my talk page. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Where is the unified discussion? Here? OK. I have just been having an amicable discussion over Template:Infobox school, where we had to explain that the concept of CITY could be managed but was clumsy and was breaking up an extension. For a further example, see the article on Chatham, Kent which lost its independence way back and was included in the City of Rochester-upon-Medway, a district council in Kent. The squabble with Rochester goes back to at least AD 882. Still, I was on that council when they both became part of the UA Medway which for ceremonial purposes remains in Kent. In the process both Rochester and Chatham lost the right to have a mayor and Rochester lost its City status. Needless to say the outlying villages still see themselves as independent units and will not accept Medway or Rochester. As the Medway authority covers half of the ME postal area- we have the town of Maidstone entering the game. The River Medway is believed to be the border between the Kingdom of East Kent,(Kentish Men) and the Kingdom of West Kent (Men of Kent) it doesn't. that passes between the old RDC of Rainham, and the Borough of Gillingham.I hope that adds a little context- if not any way forward or comfort. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The answer is the same as Merseyside, see St Helens, Merseyside. In short, MK is in the "County" of MK per 1996 act, but falls within the historic county of Buckinghamshire. It was excised from Buckinghamshire County Council, and created as its own County Council for legislative reasons (I would have to read the full documentation to see what the underpinning reason was, but it appears electoral and devolved control, later change to UA made via Local Government Commission for England (1992) in 1997 resulting in its mixed Borough / UA / County status currently). However this is does not remove it from its geographical region. I would recommend that the intro makes reference to its existence as the smallest county in the UK, in addition to being part of the historic county of Buckinghamshire. Almost all reliable sources continue to use the historic county for MK due to the relative obscurity of the 1996 act. [7][8] Koncorde (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

For clarity, Koncorde's remarks apply to the Borough of Milton Keynes rather than MK itself. I have an impression that BMK was one of the first, if not the first, of the Unitary Authorities. I wonder if HMG realised that, in hoping to save time by just calling it a county, that they had actually generated a pile of work and no later UAs are so designated. The position of Bedfordshire next door is a case in point, Luton is a UA but not a county. Does anybody know about Peterborough or Swindon? Anyway, if the BMK article needs to have the 'smallest county' line attached, it needs a citation, please? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The question that prompted me to raise this is whether the text "Milton Keynes is a large town in Buckinghamshire, England" needs to read "Milton Keynes is a large town in (ceremonial) Buckinghamshire, England" (klutzy and pedantic, IMO) or even "Milton Keynes is a large town in the Borough of Milton Keynes, England" (legally correct but so pedantic that nobody has proposed it - yet). Are there any other examples so that we can go from the general to the particular rather than vice versa? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Finally, I am very conscious of the risk of contradicting a previous consensus on the traditional counties of England, that we should not keep harping back to the past. Is this the modern equivalent? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Regrettably I cannot add anything to what has already been said except to say that I am glad MK is not in my usual area of interest. The sooner some clarity as to terminology is created the better. JMf, I would not be too bothered about contradicting established consensus if you are sure of your position regarding MK. All you are doing is giving yet another example of why the consensus needs changing. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

IMO, that opening sentence should just say "a large town in Buckinghamshire" without further qualification. But I have to accept that the demand to include the word "ceremonial" is legally correct and it should be irrelevant that I think it pedantic. Elsewhere, Dr Greg says that the consensus is that we prefer ceremonial counties and don't get bogged down in come-day-go-day local government reorganisations. Do we have an MOS that days that somewhere? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest rearranging the whole intro to deal with the county element with better context. The common format of intro sentences might work in most instances, but that doesn't mean we need to conform in every instance. Koncorde (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I can see your logic if applied to Borough of Milton Keynes (which is the legal county). Did you really mean that the MK article itself should go into that kind of detail? – the cure would be worse than the disease! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, every unitary authority (UA) (except those in Berkshire) is also a non-metropolitan county, so Milton Keynes is no different from other UAs. While "Milton Keynes is a town in Buckinghamshire..." is fine, I'd have no objection to "... in the ceremonial county of Buckinghamshire..." either.-- Dr Greg  talk  15:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

But the challenge is that the first of these is not fine because in law there are is only one admin county called Buckinghamshire and one ceremonial county – and MK is only in the latter. Therefore we cannot risk implying the former by lack of a qualification. This applies equally to Swindon in (or not) Wiltshire etc etc.

I understood you to say that there was a convention or consensus somewhere that we only give the ceremonial county without qualificatioin these cases, to avoid burying readers in petty detail. Are you now saying that this is not in fact so? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I notice that Swindon begins ... a town in the ceremonial county of Wiltshire... I still think it looks crass and pedantic but I may be on a sticky wicket here... --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

If you write it correctly then it isn't a problem, and I am referring to MK in the same way I would refer to any town or city in the UK. The segregation of MK from MK Borough in terms of the county is irrelevant. Name. General vicinity (south, east, west) of Country. Population. Heart of wider area, discuss borough and county if needed. Koncorde (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah but which county? Bucks or BMK? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break: do we have an MOS

Just to be clear, I'm not looking for dispute resolution at the MK article as I believe we reached a satisfactory compromise. What I hoped to find was a link to an MOS section that advises in general how UAs are to be described. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I see that Luton is mentioned above. It is quite an instructive example. I think that today everyone would agree that Luton is in Bedfordshire, because the reality is that it is served by county organisations such as Bedfordshire Police, Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service, University of Bedfordshire, Bedfordshire Natural History Society, ... and the Flag of Bedfordshire is sometimes seen in the town. But in 1997, when the Borough of Luton was made into a unitary authority, there were people that said "Luton is no longer in Bedfordshire". What has changed is that in 2009 two more unitary authorities were created (Borough of Bedford and Central Bedfordshire Council) and the Bedfordshire County Council ceased to exist. Now nobody is defining a Bedfordshire that does not include Luton, and the name can be taken to refer to the traditional area (which has the ceremonial county as a precise definition). This is an example where it is sensible to talk about a county even though it is not a current administrative unit. JonH (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

There's always cranks when it comes to this sort of regional stuff. Had an argument many moons ago with someone insisting St Helens didn't exist as a town, but only as an administrative centre of 5 townships That just happened to be built around a church, market, town hall, on cross roads surrounded by a larger urban area and shopping district. When asked what that thing was, if not a town, answer came there none. It was a moment of genuine "ey up, this is nuts".

It's all about significance and relevance, and using reliable sources. Interpreting legal acts is synthesis a lot of the time because the underlying reasoning is often not fully transparent or clear from the actual act itself. Koncorde (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

To throw more fuel on your below above and my other point regarding OS maps as reliable sources... this is Milton Keynes Unitary Authority & County according to Get Outside. This is Milton Keynes Village a suburban area. This is Suburban Milton Keynes, but this is Milton Keynes the town. All of them are in Milton Keynes the UA, and available in a set of OS maps called Buckingham & Milton Keynes which, is described as "Map sheet number 192 in the OS Explorer series covers North Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes, including a section of the Forest of Marston Vale.Highlights of the area include: Buckingham, Woburn, Leighton Buzzard and many walks including the Cross Bucks Way, Grand Union Canal Walk, Milton Keynes Boundary Walk and Midshires Way". Good job google maps agrees with all. Koncorde (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

IMO you have demonstrated successfully that the OS (at least in this part of it is not a wp:RS! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Dorset for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Dorset is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Dorset until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Is there a bot writer in the house? Population figures for parishes

The ONS has changed its website such that most of the citations we use for parish populations have ceased to be valid. A typical citation looks like this:

• |population_ref=(2011 Census)<ref>[http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadKeyFigures.do?a=7&b=11124205&c=hanslope&d=16&e=62&g=6399338&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1359936659817&enc=1 Neighbourhood Statistics 2011 census], Accessed 4 February 2013</ref>

This and everything like it is now going to a catch-all page referring visitors to Nomis. They all need replacing with an invocation of template:NOMIS2011 like

• |population_ref=(2011 Census)<ref>{{NOMIS2011|id=E04001256|title=Hanslope CP}}</ref>

which works.

Unless someone else has a better idea? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

(Note that the old BUSA numbers like UK Census (2011). "Local Area Report – Bletchley (1119884613)". Nomis. Office for National Statistics. still work but the equivalent for parishes like UK Census (2011). "Local Area Report – Hanslope (11124205)". Nomis. Office for National Statistics. does not - a pity as it would make a bot a lot more realistic if it could extract the area number from the existing URL).

• Previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography/Archive_17#Neighbourhood_Statistics and Template_talk:NOMIS2011. PamD 22:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • There is also {{NOMIS2001}} template for use with 2001 census statistics - but they appear to have used the 2011 census alignment for the parishes - so the smaller parishes are combined with an adjacent parish and so may not be the same as the original published figures. Keith D (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both, yes I knew that the general issue had come up before. (Nomis is even easier to use nowadays, clearly indicating for a given name and indeed anything like it, whether it is a BUA, BUASD, LA, CP, whatever. I am very happy to use it). My issue is that there are thousands of CP articles, all citing neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk which is effectively a dead link. We really ought to do something about it. Unless there is a stunningly clever algorithmic way to change them on the fly to a live Nomis2011 template link, then surely we ought to change them all to "citation needed" with a pointer to the Nomis page and hope that crowd-sourcing fixes them? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I tend to use the city population website which is pretty good, e.g. although I've noticed that it seems to adjust the 2001 figures to fit present boundaries for wards and parishes etc. G-13114 (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

References