This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Greater Bristol 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 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Do we need this article? The difference between Bristol as a Unitary Authority and Bristol as an urban area is covered in the main Bristol article; and I'm not sure this article adds anything of value. If the population figures are considered relevant, perhaps they could go in the main Bristol article. Not sure if I'm suggesting a deletion or a merge, but what does everyone think? Cheers, Duncshine 10:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Greater Bristol is not a much used concept, I suggest. More relevant was the old Avon area which was essentially the same as the 'Travel to Work Area' - this was about 1 million strong. Putting this entry into Bristol will cause a lot of feathers to get ruffled (expanding Bristol's boundaries is a very sensitive subject, however 'sensible' it may appear from afar). And in a wikified system, merger does not bring large benefits. So, a) oppose merge, suggest b) clarify planning role if any of GB concept. Bob aka Linuxlad 11:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
As another local(ish) contributor I understand that feathers will get ruffled. However for me merging this article into the Bristol article as a section would do no harm. If it expands much it can always be split again, but as you say "Greater Bristol" is not a much used term, so there is not huge amounts more than can be said about it. Support merge'. Thryduulf 11:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
(+++) An html-linked set of fragments is NOT, I suggest, much harder to read than a single unified article. So breaking down the Bristol topics doesn't have many disadvantges; whilst producing a Grand Unified Bristol and all things fr 50 miles around, can just produce an ill-managed wodge! I rarely find very large articles on WP worth the effort. Focussed topics usually have more coherence. Bob aka Linuxlad
You may also like to note that there is a Greater Nottingham article. (I wasn't so keen on that one (being from 'Lesser Derby'), but consistency was always a mark of fossilisation of thought in my book). Let's see what some others say :-) Linuxlad 15:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The article as it currently stands is about the ONS-defined place Bristol Urban Area. Rename, I say. 212.219.56.214
Since nobody went ahead and merged in two months I removed the notice. I have also added info and references to prove that the term is officially used. Joe D (t) 13:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
A Google for "Bristol" returns 175,000,000 hits. A Google for "Greater Bristol" returns a mere 55,600; while "Bristol Urban Area" returns a pathetic 551. Even "SilkTork" with return hits of 29,000 (well, I am a busy internet person!) makes me more notable than the Bristol Urban Area, and nearly as notable as Greater Bristol. A one or two paragraph section within the main Bristol article would be more useful to people than this orphan stub. Clicking on a link to find a mere stub with information that could have beeen read at a glance or skimmed over by choice is not likely to generate happy campers. I would say go for the merge. SilkTork 22:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Greater Bristol is meaningless. This is simply a copy of the abolished County of Avon. Radstock for example is not locally considered part of "Greater Bristol". Nor are many of the villages in the outer parts of this map for example near the Somerset or Gloucestershire borders. Here people consider themselves more a part of their traditional counties than Bristol and quite understandably since I live in the area. This should not be merged with the Bristol article. This article almost justifies the County of Avon when no local knowledge accompanies it. If anything it should be merged with the County of Avon page as it is an identical map based on the same flawed reasoning. I urge anyone who thinks this really is the shape of Greater Bristol to come out here to northern Somerset and the unitary authorities and see for yourselves how meaningless this representation is. Jsommer 15:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC) (not logged in though)
Wasn't here for the original discussion. Has anybody actually read the article? Jsommer: this isn't about what any of us think Greater Bristol is. The use of it as a synonym for Avon was by the Joint Local Transport Plan -- the local councils -- not by any of us. You and I may not consider Weston, Bath or Radstock to be in Greater Bristol, but it's fact that that's how the councils used it. I think this article should be kept: it has a well referenced series of facts which I think are encyclopaedic. As the article shows, we can't simply redirect this to Bristol Urban Area or County of Avon because "Greater Bristol" has been used to mean both, and others beside. Joe D (t) 22:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Please stop telling people to "read the article" because they disagree with you. Do you have a source showing that Greater Bristol is coterminous with the Bristol Urban Area? Marky-Son 17:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I have moved this page to Bristol Urban Area as most of the stats quoted are for the ONS-defined region named as such. please see [1], line 2107. L.J.Skinner wot| I did 03:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted changes made today by User:Joshii to this page on the grounds that (1) they have not recently been discussed here, and so far as I'm aware not at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography either; (2) the previous discussions on this point (see above) reached no agreement that there were grounds for changing to Bristol Urban Area; (3) the only grounds suggested for the change is that "Bristol Urban Area" is the only "official" term used, which is untrue. It is the term used by ONS to define the contiguous built-up area, as the article makes clear, but it is not the term used in other "official" documents such as the Greater Bristol Transport Study, which covers a wider area. The article explains these different definitions. The naming of the area is a complex issue, and the article sets out different names and their definitions in a neutral way. Happy to discuss further if new thinking can be brought to bear. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 22:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I've brought up the subject of the title of this article here, as part of a wider discussion about consistency and clarity in the naming and content of articles on UK urban areas. JimmyGuano ( talk) 20:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Greater Bristol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I propose we merge this article Greater Bristol with the Bristol Built-up Area article. The latter is basically just one definition of Greater Bristol. Eopsid ( talk) 22:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Greater Bristol 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 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Do we need this article? The difference between Bristol as a Unitary Authority and Bristol as an urban area is covered in the main Bristol article; and I'm not sure this article adds anything of value. If the population figures are considered relevant, perhaps they could go in the main Bristol article. Not sure if I'm suggesting a deletion or a merge, but what does everyone think? Cheers, Duncshine 10:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Greater Bristol is not a much used concept, I suggest. More relevant was the old Avon area which was essentially the same as the 'Travel to Work Area' - this was about 1 million strong. Putting this entry into Bristol will cause a lot of feathers to get ruffled (expanding Bristol's boundaries is a very sensitive subject, however 'sensible' it may appear from afar). And in a wikified system, merger does not bring large benefits. So, a) oppose merge, suggest b) clarify planning role if any of GB concept. Bob aka Linuxlad 11:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
As another local(ish) contributor I understand that feathers will get ruffled. However for me merging this article into the Bristol article as a section would do no harm. If it expands much it can always be split again, but as you say "Greater Bristol" is not a much used term, so there is not huge amounts more than can be said about it. Support merge'. Thryduulf 11:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
(+++) An html-linked set of fragments is NOT, I suggest, much harder to read than a single unified article. So breaking down the Bristol topics doesn't have many disadvantges; whilst producing a Grand Unified Bristol and all things fr 50 miles around, can just produce an ill-managed wodge! I rarely find very large articles on WP worth the effort. Focussed topics usually have more coherence. Bob aka Linuxlad
You may also like to note that there is a Greater Nottingham article. (I wasn't so keen on that one (being from 'Lesser Derby'), but consistency was always a mark of fossilisation of thought in my book). Let's see what some others say :-) Linuxlad 15:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The article as it currently stands is about the ONS-defined place Bristol Urban Area. Rename, I say. 212.219.56.214
Since nobody went ahead and merged in two months I removed the notice. I have also added info and references to prove that the term is officially used. Joe D (t) 13:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
A Google for "Bristol" returns 175,000,000 hits. A Google for "Greater Bristol" returns a mere 55,600; while "Bristol Urban Area" returns a pathetic 551. Even "SilkTork" with return hits of 29,000 (well, I am a busy internet person!) makes me more notable than the Bristol Urban Area, and nearly as notable as Greater Bristol. A one or two paragraph section within the main Bristol article would be more useful to people than this orphan stub. Clicking on a link to find a mere stub with information that could have beeen read at a glance or skimmed over by choice is not likely to generate happy campers. I would say go for the merge. SilkTork 22:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Greater Bristol is meaningless. This is simply a copy of the abolished County of Avon. Radstock for example is not locally considered part of "Greater Bristol". Nor are many of the villages in the outer parts of this map for example near the Somerset or Gloucestershire borders. Here people consider themselves more a part of their traditional counties than Bristol and quite understandably since I live in the area. This should not be merged with the Bristol article. This article almost justifies the County of Avon when no local knowledge accompanies it. If anything it should be merged with the County of Avon page as it is an identical map based on the same flawed reasoning. I urge anyone who thinks this really is the shape of Greater Bristol to come out here to northern Somerset and the unitary authorities and see for yourselves how meaningless this representation is. Jsommer 15:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC) (not logged in though)
Wasn't here for the original discussion. Has anybody actually read the article? Jsommer: this isn't about what any of us think Greater Bristol is. The use of it as a synonym for Avon was by the Joint Local Transport Plan -- the local councils -- not by any of us. You and I may not consider Weston, Bath or Radstock to be in Greater Bristol, but it's fact that that's how the councils used it. I think this article should be kept: it has a well referenced series of facts which I think are encyclopaedic. As the article shows, we can't simply redirect this to Bristol Urban Area or County of Avon because "Greater Bristol" has been used to mean both, and others beside. Joe D (t) 22:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Please stop telling people to "read the article" because they disagree with you. Do you have a source showing that Greater Bristol is coterminous with the Bristol Urban Area? Marky-Son 17:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I have moved this page to Bristol Urban Area as most of the stats quoted are for the ONS-defined region named as such. please see [1], line 2107. L.J.Skinner wot| I did 03:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted changes made today by User:Joshii to this page on the grounds that (1) they have not recently been discussed here, and so far as I'm aware not at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography either; (2) the previous discussions on this point (see above) reached no agreement that there were grounds for changing to Bristol Urban Area; (3) the only grounds suggested for the change is that "Bristol Urban Area" is the only "official" term used, which is untrue. It is the term used by ONS to define the contiguous built-up area, as the article makes clear, but it is not the term used in other "official" documents such as the Greater Bristol Transport Study, which covers a wider area. The article explains these different definitions. The naming of the area is a complex issue, and the article sets out different names and their definitions in a neutral way. Happy to discuss further if new thinking can be brought to bear. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 22:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I've brought up the subject of the title of this article here, as part of a wider discussion about consistency and clarity in the naming and content of articles on UK urban areas. JimmyGuano ( talk) 20:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Greater Bristol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I propose we merge this article Greater Bristol with the Bristol Built-up Area article. The latter is basically just one definition of Greater Bristol. Eopsid ( talk) 22:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)