![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I recently created an article for the planned town of South East Faversham. Any help with the article would be appreciated! Thank you, Thriley ( talk) 16:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I have now started a project to manually create the missing 431 civil parishes in England, see User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 20:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the project above, its been pointed out at User talk:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes#Infobox by User:Keith D that all parishes should use "Infobox UK place" rather than the "Infobox settlement" (with settlement_type = Civil parish) for CPs like Ingatestone and Fryerning that only exist as CPs as opposed to Rivington that is also a village as per Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Infobox. By "footer information" I'm assuming you mean things like post town and dialing code etc? With the likes of Hatfield, East Riding of Yorkshire the "type = Civil parish" has been used which seems to work though it doesn't have "established_date", "established_title" and the parts parameters like with Greenstead Green and Halstead Rural to add the settlements the parish contains. Perhaps these should be added to the UK place template? The civil parish infobox was merged at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 16#Template:Infobox England and Wales civil parish and there was another for Newport at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 28#Template:Infobox Newport parish. I'd also point out that information such as when the CP was formed and what name it was is highly relevant to CPs that are only CPs as opposed to Bulkington, Wiltshire that is also a village that existed prior to it becoming a CP so when Bulkington became a CP while relevant isn't highly relevant. I'd also note with CPs that are only CPs information like dialing codes and post towns etc may be more difficult to add/verify etc because a CP that only exists as a CP may have several different parts in different codes/post towns etc and adding them all may be difficult in contrast to those that are based on a settlement where the settlement's location its self would likely only be used. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 17:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I have noticed a lot of Warwickshire articles are in need of a lot of attention, ones which I can say are the likes of Baddesley Clinton (village), Kingswood and Chadwick End to name a few. They lack notability, use only advertising references or none at all. They could really do with attention. There might be others too in that county area of articles. Might be worth raising this to any projects to do with Warwickshire. I think these easily fail WP:Notability, WP:Geography and WP:Importance. @ Eopsid:, @ Crouch, Swale:, @ PamD:, @ GhostInTheMachine: DragonofBatley ( talk) 15:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
This @ Zynthetik: editor has changed nearly all Greater Manchester articles to suburbs and areas of Manchester when these are their own towns villages and in different unitary authority boroughs of the county. This user seems hell-bent on trashing Wikipedia with non constructive and silly edits. DragonofBatley ( talk) 19:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
User_talk:Zynthetik#Your_edits DragonofBatley ( talk) 20:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I recently tried to correct the name of the River of my birthplace in the UK, Bedford. I am a 4th generation Bedfordian and the name of the River that runs through the Town and beyond has always been known by local residents, by the name that I edited to. The river concerned is the Great Ouse, note there is no The, in the name neither is it prefixed by the term River. The Wiki page refers to it as The River Great Ouse which is incorrect. When I changed all references to just Great Ouse it was reedited back by a moderator. In doing this they are changing Centuries of History and readers unfamiliar with the river will adopt the wrong name.
Naming conventions are all very well but there are occasions, like the one I mention, when a degree of flexibility has to be shown. The Avon is another case, the Wiki has to be River Avon which again is incorrect. I'm sure there will be other examples, not least any River with the name Ouse in it potentially has the same issue. Ouse mean River so you don't call a river, River River, well not unless that is the known name by those who familiar with it.
There is ambiguity because on Wiki The Nile is called so, not the River Nile. So if it the river naming convention doesn't apply to The Nile, the second longest river in the world, why does it apply to the Great Ouse, the 5th longest River in the UK
Greens Peace ( talk) 19:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Similarly the source for the naming is not given in the current Wikipedia page for the Great Ouse. I can understand the complexities of allowing an oral history of a name but sometimes that should be sufficient. The problem now is that Wikipedia in being the authority to which many will turn to get information, and in my opinion the incorrect name has already become so common in use that the correct name is lost. The Ivel Drainage Board refer to the the Great Ouse https://www.idbs.org.uk/ https://www.visitanglianwaterways.org/ part of the Environment Agency mainly refer to the Great Ouse, but they do also use the incorrect term River Great Ouse and some of their data is copied into the Wikipedia entry.
Greens Peace ( talk) 22:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I really don't think the lead for Carlisle works. While I get it's a city and is near to Scotland border. I feel the term Border city doesn't work for two reasons.
1. It's geography to the actual border with Scotland is quite a distance away. Aside from that other towns like Berwick upon Tweed and Hexham are close to the border. The only other notable city close to Scotland is Newcastle upon Tyne. But that's a distance too from it.
2. The city was given city status by its cathedral and was a city long before the Scottish borders were established which post-date the city status therefore it would render a border city for the article as being very confusing and misleading. I think also we need to be careful using border in lead titles because other examples of border towns could include Berwick upon Tweed Oswestry Saltney Chester Bristol and Hereford because of their proximity to Wales and Scotland.
So I would propose to either switch the lead to either a cathedral city and the county town of Cumbria or a city and the county town of Cumbria.
There might be sources clarifying the border term but would be better placed in either the geography tab or further down in the lead.
Thoughts?
DragonofBatley ( talk) 15:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Would members put a watch on Northampton as I have reached my 3RR. An IP editor keeps trying to declare that Northampton is a "large town", ignoring talk:Northampton#"Large" town. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 13:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
But doesn't it also reflect the borough too?, John. It has 224,000 I'd say large qualifies but I'll leave it to other editors to discuss DragonofBatley ( talk) 14:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Chadderton for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 03:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I was just reading some of the south west articles and feel some of the leads really do not make sense.
I will point two out:
"Stoke Gifford is a village, and parish in South Gloucestershire, England, in the northern suburbs of Bristol." and "Little Stoke is a suburb of north Bristol, situated in South Gloucestershire, England. It is surrounded by Patchway, Stoke Gifford and Bradley Stoke."
as well as the suburban town articles for Patchway and Filton.
I really think these article leads need tweaking to make sense. Something like "Little Stoke is an area of South Gloucestershire, England. It forms a part of Bristol" or "Patchway is a town in South Gloucestershire, England. It is contiguous with the city of Bristol".
They read really badly at the moment. Especially Little Stoke saying its a suburb of North Bristol in South Gloucestershire. Bristol is not in Gloucestershire and Little Stoke comes under the unitary authority of South Gloucestershire.
What do you all think? DragonofBatley ( talk) 04:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Given that the modern boroughs and districts are being abolished soon. Should these UA articles be made for Cumberland and Lakeland and Furness so once they are officially abolished (the modern districts). Then the cities towns and villages affected can be then easily linked to the UA's automatically? If they remain in a proposed UA article. Then once officially confirmed and implemented. Only then have to link the Unitary Authority articles to each settlement article in Cumbria? DragonofBatley ( talk) 21:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
This article uses the term "town", however some of these mentioned (Polesworth, Kingsbury, Bidford) are not towns. It should be renamed List of settlements in Warwickshire by population. Calling villages towns without official town status is misleading. I won't implement changes without a concensus as I reverted my one. DragonofBatley ( talk) 10:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
without official town status- there is no such thing. The only "official" term is city, a status that is in the gift of the Crown; and all other UK settlements are not cities, each of which may decide for itself whether it should be described as a "town", "village" or "hamlet". Polesworth, Kingsbury and Bidford are not cities, that's for sure. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 21:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I have just created New Towns Act 1965 to resolve a red link. But standing back a little, I wonder if that is just a band-aid solution. There were New Towns Acts in 1948, 1959, 1963, 1965 and 1981. The current New Towns Act 1946 article already has most of what needs to be said about the legislation side of things – including a lot of material that was not governed by the 1946 Act.
I think it useful to keep the legislation article separate from the more general New towns in the United Kingdom article, but could be persuaded otherwise.
Comments at talk:New Towns Act 1946, please. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 21:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
If you're interested in Major Churches Network or the C of E's "Major Parish Churches", please see Talk:Major_Churches_Network#Major_Parish_Churches. Thanks. Pam D 18:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I started a discussion here about removing the second exception for infobox selection for UK settlements, but response has been limited, possibly because there are not so many watchers of that page. If you are interested then please chime in on the discussion. Keith D ( talk) 21:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Borough of Oswestry, Shrewsbury and Atcham and Ellesmere and Neston articles among other ones need a lot of editing doing to them. They lack citations, sources or premise. They existed and maybe no longer around but these articles are really badly written and don't have sources. Perhaps a wide editing of these articles and others is needed. I could list more but be here all day. DragonofBatley ( talk) 08:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Sorry Neston and Ellesmere. DragonofBatley ( talk) 08:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Ellesmere Port and Neston forgot port DragonofBatley ( talk) 08:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Weymouth, Dorset/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped save this featured article from demotion. Z1720 ( talk) 17:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi all hope your enjoying your Christmas so far.
Could I ask for a concensus going forward on Doncaster.
I ask because it is constantly getting changed between minster and market town by certain users. I find some articles saying market town and others saying minster town.
Now the main parish church of Doncaster was granted official minster church status in 2004. That status usually adds the word "minster" to the town. As is the case with Rotherham, Dewsbury, Halifax, Howden and Beverley.
While these have markets or market charters. They use minster town, Doncaster seems to be caught between both due to it having a market charter but also a minster.
So I'm thinking going forward something like "Doncaster is a large market and minster town in South Yorkshire, England". Or "Doncaster is a large minster and market town in South Yorkshire, England".
I know large is questionable but given its size, it is the second largest town in South Yorkshire after Sheffield.
If a thorough concensus could be reached for Doncaster, that be great. I have used sources which use minster town for Donny, even BBC have. But others use market. So a thorough concensus would be appreciated.
Maybe down the line the use of minster town might want to be debated too.
Happy Christmas
DragonofBatley ( talk) 07:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
The only issue is that when minster status is awarded. Towns take to using minster town. For towns like Rotherham (also in South Yorkshire), Dewsbury and Halifax (West Yorkshire) and Howden and Beverley (East Riding) they have minsters or minster churches. Commonly minster implies a kind of cathedral town a bit like [Southwell]] (Nottinghamshire) and Wimborne (Dorset). They use minster but those churches had the term ages ago. York is interesting in how it has always been a city but used York Minster (not York Cathedral). Maybe a simpler summary could say "The town's main parish church was awarded minster status" and it has the term "minster town" because of it." Then insert source a and b or an official source which clarifies it?
I mention those aforementioned as it is widely used on certain town articles in Yorkshire Nottinghamshire and other parts of UK even Ilminster and Leominster. DragonofBatley ( talk) 11:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm thinking with why not just use towns in every single town UK article I say for two reasons really.
1: a town is not really defined sometimes town comes from the market charter it had, sometimes from its growth from a village or from a council parish or district being granted town status. Market town really is just to say it became a town through a market. Bit like some towns became towns because of their mills, factories or coal mining. Not really a designated town unless granted the status. Or being a port or seaside town that grew from fishing ship making etc.
2: a town to a market town to a Cathedral town or minster town or industrial town doesn't like Neby said "characterize a town". Also USA French German etc town articles avoid using terms like market or minster.
I'm confused on how one could call Rotherham Dewsbury Halifax minster towns when they were little more then mill towns until their main parish churches (which are equally lovely in architecture and importantance to their history) even Doncaster as we are discussing become by default a minster town. Some towns use minster in their names like Ilminster Leominster Kidderminster and Littleminster but they don't have minster churches or do but those are nicknames.
Maybe we need to avoid those terms and just use towns or large towns. Some towns have lost their markets but still maintain market town which is a contradiction if a market is no longer there at all.
Those are what I'm thinking DragonofBatley ( talk) 15:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
As mentioned in the above discussion, "Minster town" is not a well-known term. I suggest that it has no place in a Short description, which aims to convey enough information about the article to help the reader know whether they have reached the right one (rather like the annotation on a disambiguation page), and aims to be under 40 characters. So "and civil parish" is worth including, as it indicates the scope of the article, but "Minster town" is better just as "Town". See Pam D 11:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Rcsprinter123:That's a good question. The relevant bits of of MOS:LEADSENTENCE seem to be:
I guess the premise underlying my argument is that almost all settlements are notable for more than one reason, and often the reasons for their notability changes over time. Are there circumstances where one single element of a settlement's notability is so much more significant than all of the others as to be worth pulling out in the first sentence as a settlement's defining feature? Capital city status would seem an obvious one. More tentatively perhaps where a settlement is the administrative centre or largest settlement of a significant non-national territory? Maybe where a settlement is a subsidiary part of a larger urban area? Maybe where there is something about a settlement that is many times better known than the settlement itself? (I was going to suggest Pilton, Somerset's role as the venue for the Glastonbury Festival, but that doesn't even seem to be mentioned in the lead of the current article, as if it is a trivial detail). To be clear I don't have an issue with any of the descriptions in the discussion above being used in lead sections, I just think pulling a single one of them out and presenting it as the settlement's definitive characteristic in the opening sentence is very often going to be a case of WP:UNDUE. It feels like a similar situation to musicians and their genres - we should give a rounded description in the lead, not attempt a definition in the first sentence that is over-precise to the point of potentially being misleading. JimmyGuano ( talk) 10:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I happened upon some misinformation on both Talk:Sutton-in-Ashfield & Talk:Kirkby-in-Ashfield. They were both placed under WikiProject Derbyshire and WikiProject Nottinghamshire. Now yes they are close to the border with Derbyshire but I find it misinforming to readers to be adding Nottinghamshire towns to a project dedicated to Derbyshire when both counties have their own geographical and ceremonial own identies. Maybe it was a crossproject for a Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire project but these two pages are not about Derbyshire. They are about the towns and their Nottinghamshire history. It is misleading to add other towns to other counties wikiprojects without validation. It is a bit like adding Grimsby and Scunthorpe to Yorkshire Wikiprojects and Lincolnshire Wikiprojects which while are in Yorkshire and Humber. Those towns are under Lincolnshire for ceremonial and unitary authority purposes. Could someone maybe clarify who is on Wikiproject Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire why this was overlooked when even Hucknall and Mansfield don't have connections to Wikiproject Derbyshire? Thanks DragonofBatley ( talk) 20:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
As established in previous discussions if a civil parish has an alternative name of a settlement it should generally redirect to the settlement rather than having a separate article like Aston upon Trent (name of parish) redirects to Aston-on-Trent (name of village). What do we do with the "Civil parishes in X" or "Former civil parishes in X" categories? I've been wandering about the a bit lately but just this morning I decided to move Category:Former civil parishes in Cumbria from the Kirkandrews-on-Eden article to the Kirkandrews upon Eden redirect. Shortly after PamD reverted this but then unreverted. There are several cases I can think of:
In favour of putting the category in the article is that readers and editors can find the category in the article and per WP:COMMONNAME we often don't take a strict view on what something is named, in favour of putting in the redirect is that it correctly shows the name of settlement compared with parish and per WP:WIAN we normally accept the Ordnance Survey as being the authority on the name of places.
If you look at Warwick-on-Eden v Warwick, Cumbria, Plumpton, Cumbria v Plumpton Wall and Holland-on-Sea v Little Holland you can see that plain " Warwick" was the name of the village and most readers will probably understand they're interchangeable, " Plumpton Wall" was also the name of the village but I wouldn't be surprised if many readers don't realize that and " Little Holland" (select 19th century map) was a long time ago the name of "Holland-on-Sea" but most readers probably wouldn't know that. With Warwick and Kirkandrews it probably wouldn't cause confusion to put the category in the article but with Plumpton and Holland it probably would. Thoughts? Crouch, Swale ( talk) 20:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I've added population figures for townships in Cumbria. I'm assuming townships would be considered legally recognized for the purpose of WP:GEOLAND but even if not its some useful coverage of the places. See Brunstock for example but in some like Boustead Hill the population isn't mentioned but is mentioned here. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 20:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Could someone with a little more time (and patience) than me keep an eye on Bucksburn please - seems all sorts of cruft has been added. I reverted to an edit from December as it seemed the last one that seemed vaguely reasonable. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 09:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Is that the market village swallowed up part? DragonofBatley ( talk) 10:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
It seems an anon is challenging the authenticity of the wider city of Salford article without realising it includes key towns like Eccles, Swinton and Pendlebury. But when even mentioning the whole thing in a revert they don't get it. And I thought removing long standing work was deemed vandalism? Anyone mind looking at this. Anon unfortunately so not an established user... DragonofBatley ( talk) 06:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
City of Salford DragonofBatley ( talk) 06:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@ PamD:, @ Eopsid:, @ Crouch, Swale:, @ Redrose64:, @ Keith D:, @ TiB:, @ NebY:, - Those pinged, just asking for you to please see about this as the Anon claims it is misleading and has no place the use of City of Salford to describe the wider metro area and the city of the same name? Appreciate anyone of you commenting on this. DragonofBatley ( talk) 16:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Also the anon changed the lead of Salford main page so I have reverted it. They seem to not know the difference between the two. The main settlement is the city and the borough is the main areas and towns of the city. Is this another Salford debate by an anon? I wonder...? DragonofBatley ( talk) 16:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
But which came first? Salford (the main settlement) or the borough (Swinton etc?)? Both Salford and the borough have city status but the anon made a huge mistake calling the main Salford article a metropolitan borough is both misleading and wrong. The city applies to all the borough but also Salford itself. If it's being challenged and a good cause to. Then the anon should have done the correct thing and that's challenged it on talk page. Instead of making major changes which if I did so myself. I'd have been reverted and accused of breaking Wikipedia? Anons can't just remove things on the basis they find it wrong and not first seek a concensus on it. At the end of the day if that's the case then anyone can make changed without first seeking input by other editors. I always been told that's not how wiki works? Salford is a city and so is the main borough. Changing the meaning of them doesn't take away facts which can't be made on opinions. DragonofBatley ( talk) 20:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
If we are now going to start using Salford instead. Maybe a distinction between the city itself and the wider metropolitan area needs to be made. Might I suggest moving the City of Salford to Salford and Salford (settlement) to Salford (city)? Or Salford to Salford Metropolitan Borough and Salford (settlement) as kept? DragonofBatley ( talk) 13:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I think this article needs some looking at uses really only one university study and reads like an advertisement DragonofBatley ( talk) 18:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
publisher=
not author=
– no doubt someone here has one put in the oven earlier that they can use to improve on the citation. --
John Maynard Friedman (
talk)
20:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Thanks John I'll have a little look at making some thorough adjustments to the article and others like it. I did so with other towns and village articles before like Stretton-on-Fosse and Oakenshaw. I'll take the source you mention as credible and find others DragonofBatley ( talk) 20:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
A Vision of Britain through Time brings together historical surveys of Britain to create a record of how the country and its localities have changed.
It was created by Humphrey Southall and the Great Britain Historical GIS Project ("GIS" stands for "Geographical Information System"). We are based in the Department of Geography of the University of Portsmouth. More information about the project, and about historical applications of GIS technology, is available from our other web site at: www.gbhgis.org [1]
-- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 17:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)How to reference this page:
GB Historical GIS / University of Portsmouth, History of Harraton, in Sunderland and County Durham | Map and description, A Vision of Britain through Time.
URL: http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/place/4208
Date accessed: 22nd January 2022 [2]
|month=
and |ref=harv
have been (in turn) questioned, frowned upon, deprecated and obsoleted. Hence bot edits such as
this one (to amend |month=
) and
this one (to remove |ref=harv
). Might I ask what inspired you to look at such an old version of the article? --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
23:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
References
I've noticed that @ Buttons13: has changed the entire layout infobox and it's crammed with a council lead instead of one like at Metropolitan Borough of Sandwell or Metropolitan Borough of Solihull. It looks a mess, totally informal on it not really covering the outlying towns of Dudley like Brierley Hill, Halesowen, Stourbridge and Kingswinford. It's a mess of boring text then a nice photo of Dudley and it's ethnicity, geography etc... Was it agreed on to change the entire article or made by one editor who felt it should look boring?
DragonofBatley ( talk) 14:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I can't rollback edit anything on a phone to its previous article use as it has had way too many intermediate edits DragonofBatley ( talk) 14:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't matter, I have reinstated the removed original layout box which Button13 removed. It is better placed and more formal then their edit. Discard any interest. DragonofBatley ( talk) 16:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Exactly Crouch, Swale thanks. I always find it a brilliant read on articles like Borough of Chesterfield and Blackburn with Darwen among other articles to see the names, councils, motto, ethnicity, grid reference, it's unitary or borough status etc in the tables and then the information about the boroughs settlements councils geography etc further below. I find it neat interesting and very formal. Then a clogged up council lead article which would be better placed at the bottom in a table or on a separate article. Dudley's till now looked like a let down of an article with that council dominant table and the removal of its towns and areas made it to me look like a council article then a geographical Unitary authority article covering the wider area. DragonofBatley ( talk) 19:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
When district articles become large enough, details about the local authority (council) often get moved to a separate article. This should be avoided until there is enough content to support two articles as they can easily become forks or mirrors of each other.I would have expected that Dudley would qualify for two such articles. Personally I find articles clogged with trivia about the results of past local elections and the current state of the parties to be really annoying cruft and a serious failure to wp:think of the reader to satisfy a compulsive need to file everything into neat boxes. Having an article for the Council provides a home for that obsession, leaving the main article to tell readers something useful about the area. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 20:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
totally informal on it" mean, in the wording, above, "
It looks a mess, totally informal on it not really covering the outlying towns ..."? I literally cannot understand what is intended. Is "informal" supposed to mean "uninformative"? Pam D 20:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I recently created an article for the planned town of South East Faversham. Any help with the article would be appreciated! Thank you, Thriley ( talk) 16:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I have now started a project to manually create the missing 431 civil parishes in England, see User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 20:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the project above, its been pointed out at User talk:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes#Infobox by User:Keith D that all parishes should use "Infobox UK place" rather than the "Infobox settlement" (with settlement_type = Civil parish) for CPs like Ingatestone and Fryerning that only exist as CPs as opposed to Rivington that is also a village as per Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Infobox. By "footer information" I'm assuming you mean things like post town and dialing code etc? With the likes of Hatfield, East Riding of Yorkshire the "type = Civil parish" has been used which seems to work though it doesn't have "established_date", "established_title" and the parts parameters like with Greenstead Green and Halstead Rural to add the settlements the parish contains. Perhaps these should be added to the UK place template? The civil parish infobox was merged at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 16#Template:Infobox England and Wales civil parish and there was another for Newport at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 28#Template:Infobox Newport parish. I'd also point out that information such as when the CP was formed and what name it was is highly relevant to CPs that are only CPs as opposed to Bulkington, Wiltshire that is also a village that existed prior to it becoming a CP so when Bulkington became a CP while relevant isn't highly relevant. I'd also note with CPs that are only CPs information like dialing codes and post towns etc may be more difficult to add/verify etc because a CP that only exists as a CP may have several different parts in different codes/post towns etc and adding them all may be difficult in contrast to those that are based on a settlement where the settlement's location its self would likely only be used. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 17:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I have noticed a lot of Warwickshire articles are in need of a lot of attention, ones which I can say are the likes of Baddesley Clinton (village), Kingswood and Chadwick End to name a few. They lack notability, use only advertising references or none at all. They could really do with attention. There might be others too in that county area of articles. Might be worth raising this to any projects to do with Warwickshire. I think these easily fail WP:Notability, WP:Geography and WP:Importance. @ Eopsid:, @ Crouch, Swale:, @ PamD:, @ GhostInTheMachine: DragonofBatley ( talk) 15:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
This @ Zynthetik: editor has changed nearly all Greater Manchester articles to suburbs and areas of Manchester when these are their own towns villages and in different unitary authority boroughs of the county. This user seems hell-bent on trashing Wikipedia with non constructive and silly edits. DragonofBatley ( talk) 19:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
User_talk:Zynthetik#Your_edits DragonofBatley ( talk) 20:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I recently tried to correct the name of the River of my birthplace in the UK, Bedford. I am a 4th generation Bedfordian and the name of the River that runs through the Town and beyond has always been known by local residents, by the name that I edited to. The river concerned is the Great Ouse, note there is no The, in the name neither is it prefixed by the term River. The Wiki page refers to it as The River Great Ouse which is incorrect. When I changed all references to just Great Ouse it was reedited back by a moderator. In doing this they are changing Centuries of History and readers unfamiliar with the river will adopt the wrong name.
Naming conventions are all very well but there are occasions, like the one I mention, when a degree of flexibility has to be shown. The Avon is another case, the Wiki has to be River Avon which again is incorrect. I'm sure there will be other examples, not least any River with the name Ouse in it potentially has the same issue. Ouse mean River so you don't call a river, River River, well not unless that is the known name by those who familiar with it.
There is ambiguity because on Wiki The Nile is called so, not the River Nile. So if it the river naming convention doesn't apply to The Nile, the second longest river in the world, why does it apply to the Great Ouse, the 5th longest River in the UK
Greens Peace ( talk) 19:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Similarly the source for the naming is not given in the current Wikipedia page for the Great Ouse. I can understand the complexities of allowing an oral history of a name but sometimes that should be sufficient. The problem now is that Wikipedia in being the authority to which many will turn to get information, and in my opinion the incorrect name has already become so common in use that the correct name is lost. The Ivel Drainage Board refer to the the Great Ouse https://www.idbs.org.uk/ https://www.visitanglianwaterways.org/ part of the Environment Agency mainly refer to the Great Ouse, but they do also use the incorrect term River Great Ouse and some of their data is copied into the Wikipedia entry.
Greens Peace ( talk) 22:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I really don't think the lead for Carlisle works. While I get it's a city and is near to Scotland border. I feel the term Border city doesn't work for two reasons.
1. It's geography to the actual border with Scotland is quite a distance away. Aside from that other towns like Berwick upon Tweed and Hexham are close to the border. The only other notable city close to Scotland is Newcastle upon Tyne. But that's a distance too from it.
2. The city was given city status by its cathedral and was a city long before the Scottish borders were established which post-date the city status therefore it would render a border city for the article as being very confusing and misleading. I think also we need to be careful using border in lead titles because other examples of border towns could include Berwick upon Tweed Oswestry Saltney Chester Bristol and Hereford because of their proximity to Wales and Scotland.
So I would propose to either switch the lead to either a cathedral city and the county town of Cumbria or a city and the county town of Cumbria.
There might be sources clarifying the border term but would be better placed in either the geography tab or further down in the lead.
Thoughts?
DragonofBatley ( talk) 15:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Would members put a watch on Northampton as I have reached my 3RR. An IP editor keeps trying to declare that Northampton is a "large town", ignoring talk:Northampton#"Large" town. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 13:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
But doesn't it also reflect the borough too?, John. It has 224,000 I'd say large qualifies but I'll leave it to other editors to discuss DragonofBatley ( talk) 14:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Chadderton for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 03:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I was just reading some of the south west articles and feel some of the leads really do not make sense.
I will point two out:
"Stoke Gifford is a village, and parish in South Gloucestershire, England, in the northern suburbs of Bristol." and "Little Stoke is a suburb of north Bristol, situated in South Gloucestershire, England. It is surrounded by Patchway, Stoke Gifford and Bradley Stoke."
as well as the suburban town articles for Patchway and Filton.
I really think these article leads need tweaking to make sense. Something like "Little Stoke is an area of South Gloucestershire, England. It forms a part of Bristol" or "Patchway is a town in South Gloucestershire, England. It is contiguous with the city of Bristol".
They read really badly at the moment. Especially Little Stoke saying its a suburb of North Bristol in South Gloucestershire. Bristol is not in Gloucestershire and Little Stoke comes under the unitary authority of South Gloucestershire.
What do you all think? DragonofBatley ( talk) 04:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Given that the modern boroughs and districts are being abolished soon. Should these UA articles be made for Cumberland and Lakeland and Furness so once they are officially abolished (the modern districts). Then the cities towns and villages affected can be then easily linked to the UA's automatically? If they remain in a proposed UA article. Then once officially confirmed and implemented. Only then have to link the Unitary Authority articles to each settlement article in Cumbria? DragonofBatley ( talk) 21:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
This article uses the term "town", however some of these mentioned (Polesworth, Kingsbury, Bidford) are not towns. It should be renamed List of settlements in Warwickshire by population. Calling villages towns without official town status is misleading. I won't implement changes without a concensus as I reverted my one. DragonofBatley ( talk) 10:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
without official town status- there is no such thing. The only "official" term is city, a status that is in the gift of the Crown; and all other UK settlements are not cities, each of which may decide for itself whether it should be described as a "town", "village" or "hamlet". Polesworth, Kingsbury and Bidford are not cities, that's for sure. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 21:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I have just created New Towns Act 1965 to resolve a red link. But standing back a little, I wonder if that is just a band-aid solution. There were New Towns Acts in 1948, 1959, 1963, 1965 and 1981. The current New Towns Act 1946 article already has most of what needs to be said about the legislation side of things – including a lot of material that was not governed by the 1946 Act.
I think it useful to keep the legislation article separate from the more general New towns in the United Kingdom article, but could be persuaded otherwise.
Comments at talk:New Towns Act 1946, please. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 21:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
If you're interested in Major Churches Network or the C of E's "Major Parish Churches", please see Talk:Major_Churches_Network#Major_Parish_Churches. Thanks. Pam D 18:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I started a discussion here about removing the second exception for infobox selection for UK settlements, but response has been limited, possibly because there are not so many watchers of that page. If you are interested then please chime in on the discussion. Keith D ( talk) 21:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Borough of Oswestry, Shrewsbury and Atcham and Ellesmere and Neston articles among other ones need a lot of editing doing to them. They lack citations, sources or premise. They existed and maybe no longer around but these articles are really badly written and don't have sources. Perhaps a wide editing of these articles and others is needed. I could list more but be here all day. DragonofBatley ( talk) 08:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Sorry Neston and Ellesmere. DragonofBatley ( talk) 08:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Ellesmere Port and Neston forgot port DragonofBatley ( talk) 08:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Weymouth, Dorset/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped save this featured article from demotion. Z1720 ( talk) 17:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi all hope your enjoying your Christmas so far.
Could I ask for a concensus going forward on Doncaster.
I ask because it is constantly getting changed between minster and market town by certain users. I find some articles saying market town and others saying minster town.
Now the main parish church of Doncaster was granted official minster church status in 2004. That status usually adds the word "minster" to the town. As is the case with Rotherham, Dewsbury, Halifax, Howden and Beverley.
While these have markets or market charters. They use minster town, Doncaster seems to be caught between both due to it having a market charter but also a minster.
So I'm thinking going forward something like "Doncaster is a large market and minster town in South Yorkshire, England". Or "Doncaster is a large minster and market town in South Yorkshire, England".
I know large is questionable but given its size, it is the second largest town in South Yorkshire after Sheffield.
If a thorough concensus could be reached for Doncaster, that be great. I have used sources which use minster town for Donny, even BBC have. But others use market. So a thorough concensus would be appreciated.
Maybe down the line the use of minster town might want to be debated too.
Happy Christmas
DragonofBatley ( talk) 07:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
The only issue is that when minster status is awarded. Towns take to using minster town. For towns like Rotherham (also in South Yorkshire), Dewsbury and Halifax (West Yorkshire) and Howden and Beverley (East Riding) they have minsters or minster churches. Commonly minster implies a kind of cathedral town a bit like [Southwell]] (Nottinghamshire) and Wimborne (Dorset). They use minster but those churches had the term ages ago. York is interesting in how it has always been a city but used York Minster (not York Cathedral). Maybe a simpler summary could say "The town's main parish church was awarded minster status" and it has the term "minster town" because of it." Then insert source a and b or an official source which clarifies it?
I mention those aforementioned as it is widely used on certain town articles in Yorkshire Nottinghamshire and other parts of UK even Ilminster and Leominster. DragonofBatley ( talk) 11:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm thinking with why not just use towns in every single town UK article I say for two reasons really.
1: a town is not really defined sometimes town comes from the market charter it had, sometimes from its growth from a village or from a council parish or district being granted town status. Market town really is just to say it became a town through a market. Bit like some towns became towns because of their mills, factories or coal mining. Not really a designated town unless granted the status. Or being a port or seaside town that grew from fishing ship making etc.
2: a town to a market town to a Cathedral town or minster town or industrial town doesn't like Neby said "characterize a town". Also USA French German etc town articles avoid using terms like market or minster.
I'm confused on how one could call Rotherham Dewsbury Halifax minster towns when they were little more then mill towns until their main parish churches (which are equally lovely in architecture and importantance to their history) even Doncaster as we are discussing become by default a minster town. Some towns use minster in their names like Ilminster Leominster Kidderminster and Littleminster but they don't have minster churches or do but those are nicknames.
Maybe we need to avoid those terms and just use towns or large towns. Some towns have lost their markets but still maintain market town which is a contradiction if a market is no longer there at all.
Those are what I'm thinking DragonofBatley ( talk) 15:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
As mentioned in the above discussion, "Minster town" is not a well-known term. I suggest that it has no place in a Short description, which aims to convey enough information about the article to help the reader know whether they have reached the right one (rather like the annotation on a disambiguation page), and aims to be under 40 characters. So "and civil parish" is worth including, as it indicates the scope of the article, but "Minster town" is better just as "Town". See Pam D 11:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Rcsprinter123:That's a good question. The relevant bits of of MOS:LEADSENTENCE seem to be:
I guess the premise underlying my argument is that almost all settlements are notable for more than one reason, and often the reasons for their notability changes over time. Are there circumstances where one single element of a settlement's notability is so much more significant than all of the others as to be worth pulling out in the first sentence as a settlement's defining feature? Capital city status would seem an obvious one. More tentatively perhaps where a settlement is the administrative centre or largest settlement of a significant non-national territory? Maybe where a settlement is a subsidiary part of a larger urban area? Maybe where there is something about a settlement that is many times better known than the settlement itself? (I was going to suggest Pilton, Somerset's role as the venue for the Glastonbury Festival, but that doesn't even seem to be mentioned in the lead of the current article, as if it is a trivial detail). To be clear I don't have an issue with any of the descriptions in the discussion above being used in lead sections, I just think pulling a single one of them out and presenting it as the settlement's definitive characteristic in the opening sentence is very often going to be a case of WP:UNDUE. It feels like a similar situation to musicians and their genres - we should give a rounded description in the lead, not attempt a definition in the first sentence that is over-precise to the point of potentially being misleading. JimmyGuano ( talk) 10:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I happened upon some misinformation on both Talk:Sutton-in-Ashfield & Talk:Kirkby-in-Ashfield. They were both placed under WikiProject Derbyshire and WikiProject Nottinghamshire. Now yes they are close to the border with Derbyshire but I find it misinforming to readers to be adding Nottinghamshire towns to a project dedicated to Derbyshire when both counties have their own geographical and ceremonial own identies. Maybe it was a crossproject for a Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire project but these two pages are not about Derbyshire. They are about the towns and their Nottinghamshire history. It is misleading to add other towns to other counties wikiprojects without validation. It is a bit like adding Grimsby and Scunthorpe to Yorkshire Wikiprojects and Lincolnshire Wikiprojects which while are in Yorkshire and Humber. Those towns are under Lincolnshire for ceremonial and unitary authority purposes. Could someone maybe clarify who is on Wikiproject Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire why this was overlooked when even Hucknall and Mansfield don't have connections to Wikiproject Derbyshire? Thanks DragonofBatley ( talk) 20:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
As established in previous discussions if a civil parish has an alternative name of a settlement it should generally redirect to the settlement rather than having a separate article like Aston upon Trent (name of parish) redirects to Aston-on-Trent (name of village). What do we do with the "Civil parishes in X" or "Former civil parishes in X" categories? I've been wandering about the a bit lately but just this morning I decided to move Category:Former civil parishes in Cumbria from the Kirkandrews-on-Eden article to the Kirkandrews upon Eden redirect. Shortly after PamD reverted this but then unreverted. There are several cases I can think of:
In favour of putting the category in the article is that readers and editors can find the category in the article and per WP:COMMONNAME we often don't take a strict view on what something is named, in favour of putting in the redirect is that it correctly shows the name of settlement compared with parish and per WP:WIAN we normally accept the Ordnance Survey as being the authority on the name of places.
If you look at Warwick-on-Eden v Warwick, Cumbria, Plumpton, Cumbria v Plumpton Wall and Holland-on-Sea v Little Holland you can see that plain " Warwick" was the name of the village and most readers will probably understand they're interchangeable, " Plumpton Wall" was also the name of the village but I wouldn't be surprised if many readers don't realize that and " Little Holland" (select 19th century map) was a long time ago the name of "Holland-on-Sea" but most readers probably wouldn't know that. With Warwick and Kirkandrews it probably wouldn't cause confusion to put the category in the article but with Plumpton and Holland it probably would. Thoughts? Crouch, Swale ( talk) 20:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I've added population figures for townships in Cumbria. I'm assuming townships would be considered legally recognized for the purpose of WP:GEOLAND but even if not its some useful coverage of the places. See Brunstock for example but in some like Boustead Hill the population isn't mentioned but is mentioned here. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 20:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Could someone with a little more time (and patience) than me keep an eye on Bucksburn please - seems all sorts of cruft has been added. I reverted to an edit from December as it seemed the last one that seemed vaguely reasonable. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 09:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Is that the market village swallowed up part? DragonofBatley ( talk) 10:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
It seems an anon is challenging the authenticity of the wider city of Salford article without realising it includes key towns like Eccles, Swinton and Pendlebury. But when even mentioning the whole thing in a revert they don't get it. And I thought removing long standing work was deemed vandalism? Anyone mind looking at this. Anon unfortunately so not an established user... DragonofBatley ( talk) 06:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
City of Salford DragonofBatley ( talk) 06:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@ PamD:, @ Eopsid:, @ Crouch, Swale:, @ Redrose64:, @ Keith D:, @ TiB:, @ NebY:, - Those pinged, just asking for you to please see about this as the Anon claims it is misleading and has no place the use of City of Salford to describe the wider metro area and the city of the same name? Appreciate anyone of you commenting on this. DragonofBatley ( talk) 16:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Also the anon changed the lead of Salford main page so I have reverted it. They seem to not know the difference between the two. The main settlement is the city and the borough is the main areas and towns of the city. Is this another Salford debate by an anon? I wonder...? DragonofBatley ( talk) 16:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
But which came first? Salford (the main settlement) or the borough (Swinton etc?)? Both Salford and the borough have city status but the anon made a huge mistake calling the main Salford article a metropolitan borough is both misleading and wrong. The city applies to all the borough but also Salford itself. If it's being challenged and a good cause to. Then the anon should have done the correct thing and that's challenged it on talk page. Instead of making major changes which if I did so myself. I'd have been reverted and accused of breaking Wikipedia? Anons can't just remove things on the basis they find it wrong and not first seek a concensus on it. At the end of the day if that's the case then anyone can make changed without first seeking input by other editors. I always been told that's not how wiki works? Salford is a city and so is the main borough. Changing the meaning of them doesn't take away facts which can't be made on opinions. DragonofBatley ( talk) 20:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
If we are now going to start using Salford instead. Maybe a distinction between the city itself and the wider metropolitan area needs to be made. Might I suggest moving the City of Salford to Salford and Salford (settlement) to Salford (city)? Or Salford to Salford Metropolitan Borough and Salford (settlement) as kept? DragonofBatley ( talk) 13:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I think this article needs some looking at uses really only one university study and reads like an advertisement DragonofBatley ( talk) 18:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
publisher=
not author=
– no doubt someone here has one put in the oven earlier that they can use to improve on the citation. --
John Maynard Friedman (
talk)
20:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Thanks John I'll have a little look at making some thorough adjustments to the article and others like it. I did so with other towns and village articles before like Stretton-on-Fosse and Oakenshaw. I'll take the source you mention as credible and find others DragonofBatley ( talk) 20:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
A Vision of Britain through Time brings together historical surveys of Britain to create a record of how the country and its localities have changed.
It was created by Humphrey Southall and the Great Britain Historical GIS Project ("GIS" stands for "Geographical Information System"). We are based in the Department of Geography of the University of Portsmouth. More information about the project, and about historical applications of GIS technology, is available from our other web site at: www.gbhgis.org [1]
-- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 17:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)How to reference this page:
GB Historical GIS / University of Portsmouth, History of Harraton, in Sunderland and County Durham | Map and description, A Vision of Britain through Time.
URL: http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/place/4208
Date accessed: 22nd January 2022 [2]
|month=
and |ref=harv
have been (in turn) questioned, frowned upon, deprecated and obsoleted. Hence bot edits such as
this one (to amend |month=
) and
this one (to remove |ref=harv
). Might I ask what inspired you to look at such an old version of the article? --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
23:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
References
I've noticed that @ Buttons13: has changed the entire layout infobox and it's crammed with a council lead instead of one like at Metropolitan Borough of Sandwell or Metropolitan Borough of Solihull. It looks a mess, totally informal on it not really covering the outlying towns of Dudley like Brierley Hill, Halesowen, Stourbridge and Kingswinford. It's a mess of boring text then a nice photo of Dudley and it's ethnicity, geography etc... Was it agreed on to change the entire article or made by one editor who felt it should look boring?
DragonofBatley ( talk) 14:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I can't rollback edit anything on a phone to its previous article use as it has had way too many intermediate edits DragonofBatley ( talk) 14:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't matter, I have reinstated the removed original layout box which Button13 removed. It is better placed and more formal then their edit. Discard any interest. DragonofBatley ( talk) 16:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Exactly Crouch, Swale thanks. I always find it a brilliant read on articles like Borough of Chesterfield and Blackburn with Darwen among other articles to see the names, councils, motto, ethnicity, grid reference, it's unitary or borough status etc in the tables and then the information about the boroughs settlements councils geography etc further below. I find it neat interesting and very formal. Then a clogged up council lead article which would be better placed at the bottom in a table or on a separate article. Dudley's till now looked like a let down of an article with that council dominant table and the removal of its towns and areas made it to me look like a council article then a geographical Unitary authority article covering the wider area. DragonofBatley ( talk) 19:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
When district articles become large enough, details about the local authority (council) often get moved to a separate article. This should be avoided until there is enough content to support two articles as they can easily become forks or mirrors of each other.I would have expected that Dudley would qualify for two such articles. Personally I find articles clogged with trivia about the results of past local elections and the current state of the parties to be really annoying cruft and a serious failure to wp:think of the reader to satisfy a compulsive need to file everything into neat boxes. Having an article for the Council provides a home for that obsession, leaving the main article to tell readers something useful about the area. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 20:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
totally informal on it" mean, in the wording, above, "
It looks a mess, totally informal on it not really covering the outlying towns ..."? I literally cannot understand what is intended. Is "informal" supposed to mean "uninformative"? Pam D 20:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)