This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Coventry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 14, 2004. |
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
DragonofBatley ( talk · contribs) recently decided to split this article up into Coventry and City of Coventry, without any discussion. I have reverted these changes, as such a drastic change cannot take place without being discussed on the talk page. I for one cannot see any justification for this split, and I would like to point out that similar proposals to split up Birmingham and split up Wolverhampton both failed to get consensus. I propose that this article remains as a singular entity, and City of Coventry gets redirected here. G-13114 ( talk) 15:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The recent split between Coventry and the City of Coventry was made primarily because the city contains civil parishes and has slightly different population figures. I split the City of Worcester and Worcester articles too inline with WP:Towns and WP:Geoland. I hadn't discussed this because it seemed less relevant to and that civil parishes also alter the overall coverage of a borough/district. It helps to bring readers to the main borough and to the main settlement for same reason. City of Peterborough and City of York were created. To differentiate between the main settlement and the settlements in that borough under the same name as the main settlement. Like City of Salford, City of Lichfield and City of Lancaster. Most containing parishes and non civil parishes. The drastic changes are made to reflect the recent splits and the discussion with splitting articles is something I could have done but then a lot of editors would be likely to be against it unless it happens. Feel free to discuss the splits but they are legally recognized and I did ask @Crouch, Swale to also background check them so it was two and not one editor making these changes. DragonofBatley ( talk) 15:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
@ PamD. Requesting your opinion on the change I've made to the infobox caption. Rather than using clockwise, which needs 'working out' and in my view is not entirely appropriate, I prefer the easier to read 'top or upper/middle/bottom or lower' set up. Pinging you because you recently raised this specific issue on Rochdale. Rupples ( talk) 03:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC) Others' opinions, of course, welcome. Rupples ( talk) 03:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I've just set up automatic archiving of this talk page, using the default setting of archiving anything over 90 days old. There seems to have been no previous discussion of archiving (ie the idea hasn't been proposed and rejected), so I think this should be uncontroversial. Nothing will be lost. I was recently pinged to this page, and trying to find the relevant item while scrolling on a mobile phone was painful, having to get past 17 years of conversations.
Nothing has been archived yet, apparently the bot will be along in a few days to take action and populate the first archive file. (I got my information from Help:Archiving (plain and simple)).
I hope this is uncontroversial, but it's reversible if not. Pam D 08:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
The addition of category:Former civil parishes in the West Midlands (county) seems incorrect as it would be in Warwickshire when it was a civil parish, so I would expect it to be in category:Former civil parishes in Warwickshire. Keith D ( talk) 20:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Coventry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 14, 2004. |
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
DragonofBatley ( talk · contribs) recently decided to split this article up into Coventry and City of Coventry, without any discussion. I have reverted these changes, as such a drastic change cannot take place without being discussed on the talk page. I for one cannot see any justification for this split, and I would like to point out that similar proposals to split up Birmingham and split up Wolverhampton both failed to get consensus. I propose that this article remains as a singular entity, and City of Coventry gets redirected here. G-13114 ( talk) 15:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The recent split between Coventry and the City of Coventry was made primarily because the city contains civil parishes and has slightly different population figures. I split the City of Worcester and Worcester articles too inline with WP:Towns and WP:Geoland. I hadn't discussed this because it seemed less relevant to and that civil parishes also alter the overall coverage of a borough/district. It helps to bring readers to the main borough and to the main settlement for same reason. City of Peterborough and City of York were created. To differentiate between the main settlement and the settlements in that borough under the same name as the main settlement. Like City of Salford, City of Lichfield and City of Lancaster. Most containing parishes and non civil parishes. The drastic changes are made to reflect the recent splits and the discussion with splitting articles is something I could have done but then a lot of editors would be likely to be against it unless it happens. Feel free to discuss the splits but they are legally recognized and I did ask @Crouch, Swale to also background check them so it was two and not one editor making these changes. DragonofBatley ( talk) 15:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
@ PamD. Requesting your opinion on the change I've made to the infobox caption. Rather than using clockwise, which needs 'working out' and in my view is not entirely appropriate, I prefer the easier to read 'top or upper/middle/bottom or lower' set up. Pinging you because you recently raised this specific issue on Rochdale. Rupples ( talk) 03:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC) Others' opinions, of course, welcome. Rupples ( talk) 03:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I've just set up automatic archiving of this talk page, using the default setting of archiving anything over 90 days old. There seems to have been no previous discussion of archiving (ie the idea hasn't been proposed and rejected), so I think this should be uncontroversial. Nothing will be lost. I was recently pinged to this page, and trying to find the relevant item while scrolling on a mobile phone was painful, having to get past 17 years of conversations.
Nothing has been archived yet, apparently the bot will be along in a few days to take action and populate the first archive file. (I got my information from Help:Archiving (plain and simple)).
I hope this is uncontroversial, but it's reversible if not. Pam D 08:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
The addition of category:Former civil parishes in the West Midlands (county) seems incorrect as it would be in Warwickshire when it was a civil parish, so I would expect it to be in category:Former civil parishes in Warwickshire. Keith D ( talk) 20:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)