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. |
Category:Post towns in the United Kingdom, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, along with all its subcategories. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — Richardguk ( talk) 03:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated the article Bristol for featured article. Would you be willing to take a look and leave any comments about whether it meets the featured article criteria on the review page at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bristol/archive1?— Rod talk 17:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I've just made a significant edit to List of English districts by area, adding the area in square miles using {{ convert}} [1]. There is a possibility I've accidentally changed a couple of figures through typos or thinkos along the way, so it would be good if someone could just check the diff above with a fresh set of eyes. Thanks, Thryduulf ( talk) 23:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Alakzi ( talk) 23:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Please see commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/10/Category:Newcastle upon Tyne, which asks what content the Commons category for Newcastle upon Tyne should contain - should it be the metropolitan borough, or something else? If something else, what exactly?
Participation there would be appreciated, as Commons CFDs rarely get enough interest to generate consensus.-- Nilf anion ( talk) 09:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I would be grateful if you could comment on two nominations relevant to this wikiproject:
Any comments would be appreciated.— Rod talk 09:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
On 21 November there will be three editathons on the theme of local history, organised with Victoria County History. The events are in Gloucester, Leicester, and London. You can find more details in the links below:
Come along and join the editing! Richard Nevell (WMUK) ( talk) 11:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I've just created a tracking page with queries to try to take stock of what Wikidata currently knows about administrative subdivisions of England, here on Wikidata.
Things are pretty patchy at the moment, but it shouldn't take too much to fix, going down level by level with a good data extract and semi-automated tools.
One question is what things we should include for England in the main geo-political subdivisions structure, that is defined by items linked together by the property P131, "located in the administrative territorial entity of..."
For one to be able to ask "what <X> am I in" using repeated iteration of P131, or "who was born in <X> or its subdivisions", it is very helpful if the structure nests cleanly. This would seem to weigh against including ceremonial counties, otherwise there's the risk of any place in Lincolnshire effectively being treated (and counted) as if it were in both Yorkshire and the Humber, and the East Midlands.
At the moment, I'd be minded to include everything on en:Subdivisions of England plus civil parishes, wards of the City of London, and NUTS 2 and NUTS 3 areas, with the exception of ceremonial counties, based on the consideration of what geographical structures will nest cleanly.
But it may be that I have misunderstood the intention for P131, and the political aspect should be more dominant, linking each item to the immediately encompassing political area. (So not statistical units without administrative significance, like NUTS2 and NUTS3). I've asked for a steer at Wikidata's Project Chat (the equivalent of Village Pump), but it's not hugely well attended, so I may not get a definitive answer. Any thoughts therefore would be very welcome.
Finally I should mention that if anyone wants to know more about Wikidata, there's a Wikidata training/workshop tomorrow (Saturday) in London. Sorry not to have come and flagged it up sooner, but Wikidata is well worth getting to know about -- so if anyone can make it even at this last minute, it would be great to see you there.
Cheers, Jheald ( talk) 21:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Thanks to everybody for the advice. I have now gone ahead and started trying to systematise some of the relations on the Wikidata items.
It's still work in progress, but the data is now good enough to extract a reasonably good structure with this query (scroll down to the link to load it into the query editor, then hit 'Execute' to run), the results of which can be compared with the page at en:Subdivisions of England. .
In the end I decided to include the ceremonial counties as full-status members of the tree, and to accept them as values for P131 statements.
I appreciate that the ceremonial counties have little administrative function; but equally the exact labels of Wikidata properties should only be taken as a rough guide as to how they are to be used, actual usage may be a little broader. In this case, looking at the P131 talk page, it does seem that people are happy for them to be used a little more inclusively than for purely administrative regions.
In the query I've coped with the nesting anomalies for North and North-East Lincolnshire etc by hard-coding filters at the end of the query to reject an authority being put with the wrong region. Yes, it's a trap for the unwary. But I thought it was worth it to include the counties. Since there are so few examples where the nesting fails, it should usually only take a few lines of query text to explicitly check for and reject incorrect associations. (Though you do have to be aware of the issue).
I have also started creating new "county council area" items, eg d:Q21272241, for parts of counties where the county council doesn't now administer the whole of the ceremonial county of the same name. These areas would be appropriate targets for the P1001 property for the items for county councils, like d:Q5399679. I have only done some so far -- progress summarised in this query (hit 'execute' to run), so I would welcome people's input as to whether they think this is on the right track, and whether it makes sense to introduce the possibility of making this distinction. Jheald ( talk) 18:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Tor (disambiguation). Please see Talk:Tor#Requested_move_10_December_2015 In ictu oculi ( talk) 20:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Two RfCs are ongoing at WikiProject Boxing. The first concerns use of Flag icons in professional boxing record tables here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing#RfC: Flag icons in professional boxing record tables. The second concerns a proposed MOS for boxing articles Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing#MoS:Boxing Final call, in particular whether UK should be added to locations in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Editors are invited to comment. Daicaregos ( talk) 14:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
For info: Talk:Royal_Tunbridge_Wells#RFC -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
WP:UKPLACE states that when there are two localities within an English county, then the district should be used to disambiguate. Generally this is fine, however it produces a few oddities such as:
In these cases, the disambiguation is misleading and gives the impression the place within the town/city, when in fact they are no where near Dover, Harrogate or Carlisle respectively. They are in the district that takes its name from the settlement, and the disambiguator should reflect that. That would mean the above moved to:
Titles of the form Ash, Dover (district) are no good - is Ash or Dover the district? I think there are 100-200 articles with this issue within England. There may be similar problems in Wales, for instance in Wrexham County Borough. I suggest any affected articles are moved as above, and possibly UKPLACE should be amended to encourage this as best practice. Thoughts?-- Nilf anion ( talk) 09:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
It look OK as it is to me. There is a district of Dover and a settlement of Dover. "Dover" is widely used for both. The first line of the lead should make it obvious which one is meant. Mr Stephen ( talk) 19:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I would support the proposal, for the reasons given. Certainly in the case of "Harrogate", locals (and I live in the district) would usually understand the word to refer to the town, not the district, unless the context was local government services.-- Mhockey ( talk) 19:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I sympathise with the proposal. Unqualified titles A, B make it seem A lies within B, within the normal meaning of B. Thus Ash, Dover suggests Ash is within Dover, not the unmentioned Dover District (an unusual meaning of "Dover") and not near Dover (articles aren't titled according to postal towns and sorting offices). It might be a little less clunky, a little less open to error when local authority boundaries change or are restructured, and a little more general-purpose to use a lower-case "district" such as Ash, Dover district, Angram, Harrogate district, Hayton, Carlisle district or even "near" ( Ash, near Dover, Angram, near Harrogate, Hayton, near Carlisle), which links well without piping, but that would be quite a shift from established practice. NebY ( talk) 12:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland has freely released a number of datasets under the OGL. The data is broadly similar to that has been released by OSGB, the vector mapping allows UK-wide maps to be created.
The datasets are available from here. An example of a raster map is shown to right.-- Nilf anion ( talk) 09:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Industrial archaeology has been a topic of interest for many years, but we don't appear to have taken much notice of it in WP. I've started to diffuse Category:Industrial archaeological sites in the United Kingdom into county categories. I've specialised in my interest, Category:Industrial archaeological sites in Devon, but there's plenty of opportunity for adding articles to the appropriate cats throughout the country. For the record, for Devon, I'm using
as a guide to what to include. — SMALL JIM 11:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there is a template for pages about settlements, but many of them have a section titled "Governance". What I find odd is that often this section begins with information about the area's MP, even though that information doesn't have much to do with the governance of the place. This seems to be a (somewhat natural) misunderstanding on the part of users/editors.
As a rule, the Governance section should begin with information about how the settlement is governed. Usually this will be a local government district or county, and there are usually two or three levels of governance (e.g. parish<district<county). Although the MP for the area is not responsible for the governance of the area, I suppose their details can be included at the end of the section.
Is there an appropriate place on Wikipedia to discuss/agree thepolicy on this? Dadge ( talk) 18:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi - there are a few issues at Beyton (in Suffolk - it has some fine geese, as you'll perhaps disc over...) that I'd like a second opinion on if anyone could help. In my mind there's a POV push by a user (using, I think, two accounts at times) to push her particular hobbyhorse. I've tried to re-write neutrally and encourage better refs etc... but am getting undone on a fairly consistent basis.
If someone could take a look at some recent diffs and let me know if I'm on the right lines or not then that'd be appreciated. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 14:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Having reached Good Article status, Portsmouth is at the peer review stage. It's not had any feedback so far, so if any experienced hands could leave some comments I'm sure it would be appreciated. Richard Nevell (WMUK) ( talk) 13:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
It has been proposed that the two articles on Leeds, Leeds and City of Leeds, be merged. This has been brought up several times and it has been 6 years since a discussion resulted in retaining the split. Please share your thoughts here. Keith D ( talk) 20:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Please add also This article is within the scope of Xx236 ( talk) 07:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I have been talking to someone from Exploring Surrey's Past. It is a website that's run by Surrey Heritage. Surrey Heritage brings together the Surrey county archive, archaeology unit, Historic Environment Record, and museum co-ordination service. All of which is part of Surrey County Council.
It has pages on various places in the county. How would people feel about including links to these pages from Wikipedia articles? So for example Pirbright could have an entry in the 'external links' section to the ESP page for the parish. Richard Nevell (WMUK) ( talk) 13:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the input everyone. I'll get back in touch with the person from ESP with the feedback and see where we go from there. The tack we will probably take is including a link in the EL section while leaving a short note on the talk page explaining why, perhaps with reference back to this discussion. Richard Nevell (WMUK) ( talk) 15:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Coming back to this, I've prepared User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)/sandbox7 based on Template:Canmore. The sandbox page has some use cases so you can see how it would work. Would anyone mind if I moved it to Template:Exploring Surrey's Past? Richard Nevell (WMUK) ( talk) 13:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I've initiated a discussion here if anyone would like to offer an opinion on which areas should be classed as part of the town of Clydebank. Jellyman ( talk) 13:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I would appreciate some input on Talk:Redditch#Article for town and an article for the district. About half of the area covered by the district is a rural area outside the town, so I believe the two should not be treated as synonymous. — Dukwon ( talk) 15:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Many participants here create a lot of content, may have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:
You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.
Many thanks and best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 05:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I'm currently trying to get the article on Northern England up to featured article status, and I've opened a peer review to get input. Any comments on it would be very welcome. Thanks, Smurrayinchester 15:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The article Subdivisions of England has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Dr Greg
talk 00:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
By way of a trial use of {{ OSM Location map}} I have made a couple of replacements of the rather spare maps showing districts within the {{ Infobox English county}} with a template that shows the relevant piece of the the Open Street Map, and adds an overlay of the county and district boundaries, along with numbers and a matching list of district names. Having tried Nottinghamshire I have also now done Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, Somerset and Derbyshire, to give at least a bit of a range. Among the benefits is that the maps have a (rough) scale, and a proper context, so you can see the county settlement pattern, roads and landscape (a bit), and it becomes in effect a proper map of the county rather than a diagram of the districts (c/f Lincolnshire as a random example of the existing version). Among the drawbacks it has been suggested that it looks messy.
The scaling limitations of the underlying mapping stuff means you can only step up or down the scale in large chunks, so Somerset, as a wide county, is set to scale 8, to fit within a sensible width. The others, at scale 9 only just fit inside a 300px or so width, but would look rather small at scale 8. (Different levels of detail are included at the different scales). There is a 'full screen' link, which takes you to a more interactive version of the same map data, which also shows the relevant boundaries (or will, once the relevant OSM wikidata links have updated).
I have no experience of consensus-building, so simply ask is this a useful change, and should I carry on with further counties? RobinLeicester ( talk) 23:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I have just come across references to the Ancient Monuments website which combines information from Historic England and user input. It claims to be a companion to the BritishListedBuildings.co.uk website which is used extensively. There are some Welsh uses which indicate a source of Cadw, but unsure what that is.
What do people think about using this or should we just change the English ones to references to the National Heritage List for England directly. There are currently 149 uses so not too much of a task to change them over. Keith D ( talk) 13:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The vast majority of templates in Category:United Kingdom buildings and structures templates have buildings grouped by their heritage status. Template:Buildings in Southampton was one such template until recently, but one user decided to regroup the buildings by function, while keeping separate groups for Grade I buildings and demolished buildings. This causes some confusion as some buildings could be in more than one group (e.g. some religious buildings are also grade I listed or have been demolished) or have changed usage over time (large houses now occupied by schools, churches converted to pubs, etc.). I've so far only found one other template in the above category that tries to group by function ( Template:Brighton and Hove buildings) but the groups used are different, and/or differently named.
There doesn't seem to be any good reason why these templates shouldn't be consistent - my suggestion would be to use heritage status as that's the predominant convention. It would be good to (a) establish a consensus here and (b) consider whether we need to write a guideline to that effect. Waggers TALK 10:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I'll comment on Template:Brighton and Hove buildings, which I designed and which I am the main contributor to. There are two main reasons why this is broader in scope than the others: a greater range of buildings in Brighton and Hove, many of which are not statutorily listed, have articles; and there is an article ( Buildings and architecture of Brighton and Hove) which covers the whole topic, very broadly considered, so it seemed appropriate to have a template with equally broad content. Heritage buildings in the city are covered separately in some depth—eventually there will be 12 separate lists for listed buildings (5 have not been started yet), plus conservation areas and locally listed buildings (in preparation)—but I have just included these at the top of the template rather than separately. Hassocks 5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
The article Thames Valley has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Dissidentplasterer (
talk) 15:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
A question has come up on Commons on the best way to handle categorisation for civil parishes, when they share the same name as the village at their core. This issue has come up, because there is a real need to separate the two concepts. As an example, the Commons category for Ugborough in Devon has 350 files, but only a handful are for the village itself. Splitting the category allows images of the village to be sensibly grouped together.
Please contribute to the discussion there. Thank you.
There is also a second Wikipedia-specific question: If Commons does split the categories, where should the article link to? The village, or the parish, or both?-- Nilf anion ( talk) 13:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi all. Wiki Loves Monuments UK is looking for some volunteers to help with reviewing this year’s entries and identifying a long list of images that are worthy to be submitted to the three judges who will pick the final winners. You don't need to be a top photographer to volunteer for this, but you should have a good understanding of what makes an exceptional photograph and be able to distinguish good from mediocre images. You'd need to be able to commit to something like four or five hours work, mostly during October but perhaps during September as well.
If you are able to help, please leave a note on my talk page, or alternatively contact me using the "email this user" feature. More details can be found here. MichaelMaggs ( talk) 15:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a push to attempt to improve the article South Ayrshire, and input from other editors in-particular those from this project is welcomed. The article is one of a number of similar articles, and it is hoped that this article can act as a standard for others in a similar vein, for being able to improve them all. Is it currently stands the article has a number of big issues, the largest being sourcing were as it stands over 85% of all sources are a primary source. There is also a lot of lists on the page, and a significant amount of over-detail of non-notable information. Thank you for your time. Sport and politics ( talk) 08:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Although WP:FAR says that you should raise problems with an FA article on its talk page, it seems more appropriate to do it here. Basically, Isle of Portland does not deserve its star anymore. There are cn tags on the page, the page does include 2011 census data for its population and there other large quantities of uncited statements. I'm wondering if anyone can see any other problems. Thanks, My name isnotdave ( talk/ contribs) 18:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Talk:Plymouth#Coat of arms, regarding what information (if any) should be included in the infobox of city articles in addition to the coat of arms.-- Nilf anion ( talk) 00:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Comma vs parentheses. Please see Talk:Statue of Margaret Thatcher (London Guildhall)#Requested move 2 October 2017. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.
A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_UK_geography
Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 19:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi folks, the ONS have closed down the Neighbourhood Statistics web site that is used for references on most of the settlement articles as the 2011 & 2001 census population, ethnicity etc. so leaving a large number of dead links. The links just point to this page, the notice for the closure is here. Keith D ( talk) 18:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I contacted them online and have had very helpful responses. You can access parish-level population figures for 2011 census (and vast amounts of other stuff) at NOMIS. Having found the figures you want, you can then create a permanent link to that Excel spreadsheet, if you first register as a user of NOMIS (freely available, no problem in signing up). That permanent link is then available to anyone. Have a look at the population of Preston Patrick here: https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/livelinks/13842.xlsx . Please will someone let me know whether that link works smoothly for you: I get an error message telling me that the filetype and file extension are incompatible but allowing me the option of "yes" to open the file if I trust its source. Not ideal and I've sent a message enquiring about it ... but it might just be the way my computer has Excel configured?
I've added this as a second population link (ref no 4 at present) in Preston Patrick, but we might want to discuss how best to word the reference.
As an example I'll try to set out step-by-step one route to find the parish population for Arnside (having explored various different routes, and complicated by the fact that it remembers previous searches if you've registered!)
So there you are. Please have a go, let us all know if you find a simpler route, and let's discuss how best to format the resulting references ... and then how to set about replacing the 12,029 instances. Aaaaaargh! Pam D 19:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Pam,
We have put together a tool which produces Census data in a similar fashion to NESS. Please feel free to try it out – link below. Any feedback or comments that you have will be appreciated. The tool supports, wards, output areas and parishes. Any problems then give us a ring on 0191 334 2680.
Peter Dodds
And it really seems to work - so https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/sources/census_2011_ks/report?compare=1170215054 is a permanent link to all the parish-level stats for Silverdale, Lancashire. Brilliant, and so much better than the messy situation earlier. Pam D 16:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
|title=
parameter like "Silverdale – 2011 Census Key Statistics" or be part of the |work=
parameter like "NOMIS – 2011 Census Key Statistics"? May be could be used as just the title if not supplied in the former case.
Keith D (
talk) 11:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Keith D ( talk) 22:05, 22 September 2017 (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. |
Category:Post towns in the United Kingdom, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, along with all its subcategories. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — Richardguk ( talk) 03:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated the article Bristol for featured article. Would you be willing to take a look and leave any comments about whether it meets the featured article criteria on the review page at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bristol/archive1?— Rod talk 17:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I've just made a significant edit to List of English districts by area, adding the area in square miles using {{ convert}} [1]. There is a possibility I've accidentally changed a couple of figures through typos or thinkos along the way, so it would be good if someone could just check the diff above with a fresh set of eyes. Thanks, Thryduulf ( talk) 23:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Alakzi ( talk) 23:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Please see commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/10/Category:Newcastle upon Tyne, which asks what content the Commons category for Newcastle upon Tyne should contain - should it be the metropolitan borough, or something else? If something else, what exactly?
Participation there would be appreciated, as Commons CFDs rarely get enough interest to generate consensus.-- Nilf anion ( talk) 09:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I would be grateful if you could comment on two nominations relevant to this wikiproject:
Any comments would be appreciated.— Rod talk 09:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
On 21 November there will be three editathons on the theme of local history, organised with Victoria County History. The events are in Gloucester, Leicester, and London. You can find more details in the links below:
Come along and join the editing! Richard Nevell (WMUK) ( talk) 11:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I've just created a tracking page with queries to try to take stock of what Wikidata currently knows about administrative subdivisions of England, here on Wikidata.
Things are pretty patchy at the moment, but it shouldn't take too much to fix, going down level by level with a good data extract and semi-automated tools.
One question is what things we should include for England in the main geo-political subdivisions structure, that is defined by items linked together by the property P131, "located in the administrative territorial entity of..."
For one to be able to ask "what <X> am I in" using repeated iteration of P131, or "who was born in <X> or its subdivisions", it is very helpful if the structure nests cleanly. This would seem to weigh against including ceremonial counties, otherwise there's the risk of any place in Lincolnshire effectively being treated (and counted) as if it were in both Yorkshire and the Humber, and the East Midlands.
At the moment, I'd be minded to include everything on en:Subdivisions of England plus civil parishes, wards of the City of London, and NUTS 2 and NUTS 3 areas, with the exception of ceremonial counties, based on the consideration of what geographical structures will nest cleanly.
But it may be that I have misunderstood the intention for P131, and the political aspect should be more dominant, linking each item to the immediately encompassing political area. (So not statistical units without administrative significance, like NUTS2 and NUTS3). I've asked for a steer at Wikidata's Project Chat (the equivalent of Village Pump), but it's not hugely well attended, so I may not get a definitive answer. Any thoughts therefore would be very welcome.
Finally I should mention that if anyone wants to know more about Wikidata, there's a Wikidata training/workshop tomorrow (Saturday) in London. Sorry not to have come and flagged it up sooner, but Wikidata is well worth getting to know about -- so if anyone can make it even at this last minute, it would be great to see you there.
Cheers, Jheald ( talk) 21:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Thanks to everybody for the advice. I have now gone ahead and started trying to systematise some of the relations on the Wikidata items.
It's still work in progress, but the data is now good enough to extract a reasonably good structure with this query (scroll down to the link to load it into the query editor, then hit 'Execute' to run), the results of which can be compared with the page at en:Subdivisions of England. .
In the end I decided to include the ceremonial counties as full-status members of the tree, and to accept them as values for P131 statements.
I appreciate that the ceremonial counties have little administrative function; but equally the exact labels of Wikidata properties should only be taken as a rough guide as to how they are to be used, actual usage may be a little broader. In this case, looking at the P131 talk page, it does seem that people are happy for them to be used a little more inclusively than for purely administrative regions.
In the query I've coped with the nesting anomalies for North and North-East Lincolnshire etc by hard-coding filters at the end of the query to reject an authority being put with the wrong region. Yes, it's a trap for the unwary. But I thought it was worth it to include the counties. Since there are so few examples where the nesting fails, it should usually only take a few lines of query text to explicitly check for and reject incorrect associations. (Though you do have to be aware of the issue).
I have also started creating new "county council area" items, eg d:Q21272241, for parts of counties where the county council doesn't now administer the whole of the ceremonial county of the same name. These areas would be appropriate targets for the P1001 property for the items for county councils, like d:Q5399679. I have only done some so far -- progress summarised in this query (hit 'execute' to run), so I would welcome people's input as to whether they think this is on the right track, and whether it makes sense to introduce the possibility of making this distinction. Jheald ( talk) 18:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Tor (disambiguation). Please see Talk:Tor#Requested_move_10_December_2015 In ictu oculi ( talk) 20:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Two RfCs are ongoing at WikiProject Boxing. The first concerns use of Flag icons in professional boxing record tables here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing#RfC: Flag icons in professional boxing record tables. The second concerns a proposed MOS for boxing articles Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing#MoS:Boxing Final call, in particular whether UK should be added to locations in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Editors are invited to comment. Daicaregos ( talk) 14:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
For info: Talk:Royal_Tunbridge_Wells#RFC -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
WP:UKPLACE states that when there are two localities within an English county, then the district should be used to disambiguate. Generally this is fine, however it produces a few oddities such as:
In these cases, the disambiguation is misleading and gives the impression the place within the town/city, when in fact they are no where near Dover, Harrogate or Carlisle respectively. They are in the district that takes its name from the settlement, and the disambiguator should reflect that. That would mean the above moved to:
Titles of the form Ash, Dover (district) are no good - is Ash or Dover the district? I think there are 100-200 articles with this issue within England. There may be similar problems in Wales, for instance in Wrexham County Borough. I suggest any affected articles are moved as above, and possibly UKPLACE should be amended to encourage this as best practice. Thoughts?-- Nilf anion ( talk) 09:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
It look OK as it is to me. There is a district of Dover and a settlement of Dover. "Dover" is widely used for both. The first line of the lead should make it obvious which one is meant. Mr Stephen ( talk) 19:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I would support the proposal, for the reasons given. Certainly in the case of "Harrogate", locals (and I live in the district) would usually understand the word to refer to the town, not the district, unless the context was local government services.-- Mhockey ( talk) 19:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I sympathise with the proposal. Unqualified titles A, B make it seem A lies within B, within the normal meaning of B. Thus Ash, Dover suggests Ash is within Dover, not the unmentioned Dover District (an unusual meaning of "Dover") and not near Dover (articles aren't titled according to postal towns and sorting offices). It might be a little less clunky, a little less open to error when local authority boundaries change or are restructured, and a little more general-purpose to use a lower-case "district" such as Ash, Dover district, Angram, Harrogate district, Hayton, Carlisle district or even "near" ( Ash, near Dover, Angram, near Harrogate, Hayton, near Carlisle), which links well without piping, but that would be quite a shift from established practice. NebY ( talk) 12:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland has freely released a number of datasets under the OGL. The data is broadly similar to that has been released by OSGB, the vector mapping allows UK-wide maps to be created.
The datasets are available from here. An example of a raster map is shown to right.-- Nilf anion ( talk) 09:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Industrial archaeology has been a topic of interest for many years, but we don't appear to have taken much notice of it in WP. I've started to diffuse Category:Industrial archaeological sites in the United Kingdom into county categories. I've specialised in my interest, Category:Industrial archaeological sites in Devon, but there's plenty of opportunity for adding articles to the appropriate cats throughout the country. For the record, for Devon, I'm using
as a guide to what to include. — SMALL JIM 11:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there is a template for pages about settlements, but many of them have a section titled "Governance". What I find odd is that often this section begins with information about the area's MP, even though that information doesn't have much to do with the governance of the place. This seems to be a (somewhat natural) misunderstanding on the part of users/editors.
As a rule, the Governance section should begin with information about how the settlement is governed. Usually this will be a local government district or county, and there are usually two or three levels of governance (e.g. parish<district<county). Although the MP for the area is not responsible for the governance of the area, I suppose their details can be included at the end of the section.
Is there an appropriate place on Wikipedia to discuss/agree thepolicy on this? Dadge ( talk) 18:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi - there are a few issues at Beyton (in Suffolk - it has some fine geese, as you'll perhaps disc over...) that I'd like a second opinion on if anyone could help. In my mind there's a POV push by a user (using, I think, two accounts at times) to push her particular hobbyhorse. I've tried to re-write neutrally and encourage better refs etc... but am getting undone on a fairly consistent basis.
If someone could take a look at some recent diffs and let me know if I'm on the right lines or not then that'd be appreciated. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 14:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Having reached Good Article status, Portsmouth is at the peer review stage. It's not had any feedback so far, so if any experienced hands could leave some comments I'm sure it would be appreciated. Richard Nevell (WMUK) ( talk) 13:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
It has been proposed that the two articles on Leeds, Leeds and City of Leeds, be merged. This has been brought up several times and it has been 6 years since a discussion resulted in retaining the split. Please share your thoughts here. Keith D ( talk) 20:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Please add also This article is within the scope of Xx236 ( talk) 07:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I have been talking to someone from Exploring Surrey's Past. It is a website that's run by Surrey Heritage. Surrey Heritage brings together the Surrey county archive, archaeology unit, Historic Environment Record, and museum co-ordination service. All of which is part of Surrey County Council.
It has pages on various places in the county. How would people feel about including links to these pages from Wikipedia articles? So for example Pirbright could have an entry in the 'external links' section to the ESP page for the parish. Richard Nevell (WMUK) ( talk) 13:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the input everyone. I'll get back in touch with the person from ESP with the feedback and see where we go from there. The tack we will probably take is including a link in the EL section while leaving a short note on the talk page explaining why, perhaps with reference back to this discussion. Richard Nevell (WMUK) ( talk) 15:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Coming back to this, I've prepared User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)/sandbox7 based on Template:Canmore. The sandbox page has some use cases so you can see how it would work. Would anyone mind if I moved it to Template:Exploring Surrey's Past? Richard Nevell (WMUK) ( talk) 13:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I've initiated a discussion here if anyone would like to offer an opinion on which areas should be classed as part of the town of Clydebank. Jellyman ( talk) 13:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I would appreciate some input on Talk:Redditch#Article for town and an article for the district. About half of the area covered by the district is a rural area outside the town, so I believe the two should not be treated as synonymous. — Dukwon ( talk) 15:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Many participants here create a lot of content, may have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:
You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.
Many thanks and best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 05:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I'm currently trying to get the article on Northern England up to featured article status, and I've opened a peer review to get input. Any comments on it would be very welcome. Thanks, Smurrayinchester 15:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The article Subdivisions of England has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Dr Greg
talk 00:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
By way of a trial use of {{ OSM Location map}} I have made a couple of replacements of the rather spare maps showing districts within the {{ Infobox English county}} with a template that shows the relevant piece of the the Open Street Map, and adds an overlay of the county and district boundaries, along with numbers and a matching list of district names. Having tried Nottinghamshire I have also now done Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, Somerset and Derbyshire, to give at least a bit of a range. Among the benefits is that the maps have a (rough) scale, and a proper context, so you can see the county settlement pattern, roads and landscape (a bit), and it becomes in effect a proper map of the county rather than a diagram of the districts (c/f Lincolnshire as a random example of the existing version). Among the drawbacks it has been suggested that it looks messy.
The scaling limitations of the underlying mapping stuff means you can only step up or down the scale in large chunks, so Somerset, as a wide county, is set to scale 8, to fit within a sensible width. The others, at scale 9 only just fit inside a 300px or so width, but would look rather small at scale 8. (Different levels of detail are included at the different scales). There is a 'full screen' link, which takes you to a more interactive version of the same map data, which also shows the relevant boundaries (or will, once the relevant OSM wikidata links have updated).
I have no experience of consensus-building, so simply ask is this a useful change, and should I carry on with further counties? RobinLeicester ( talk) 23:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I have just come across references to the Ancient Monuments website which combines information from Historic England and user input. It claims to be a companion to the BritishListedBuildings.co.uk website which is used extensively. There are some Welsh uses which indicate a source of Cadw, but unsure what that is.
What do people think about using this or should we just change the English ones to references to the National Heritage List for England directly. There are currently 149 uses so not too much of a task to change them over. Keith D ( talk) 13:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The vast majority of templates in Category:United Kingdom buildings and structures templates have buildings grouped by their heritage status. Template:Buildings in Southampton was one such template until recently, but one user decided to regroup the buildings by function, while keeping separate groups for Grade I buildings and demolished buildings. This causes some confusion as some buildings could be in more than one group (e.g. some religious buildings are also grade I listed or have been demolished) or have changed usage over time (large houses now occupied by schools, churches converted to pubs, etc.). I've so far only found one other template in the above category that tries to group by function ( Template:Brighton and Hove buildings) but the groups used are different, and/or differently named.
There doesn't seem to be any good reason why these templates shouldn't be consistent - my suggestion would be to use heritage status as that's the predominant convention. It would be good to (a) establish a consensus here and (b) consider whether we need to write a guideline to that effect. Waggers TALK 10:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I'll comment on Template:Brighton and Hove buildings, which I designed and which I am the main contributor to. There are two main reasons why this is broader in scope than the others: a greater range of buildings in Brighton and Hove, many of which are not statutorily listed, have articles; and there is an article ( Buildings and architecture of Brighton and Hove) which covers the whole topic, very broadly considered, so it seemed appropriate to have a template with equally broad content. Heritage buildings in the city are covered separately in some depth—eventually there will be 12 separate lists for listed buildings (5 have not been started yet), plus conservation areas and locally listed buildings (in preparation)—but I have just included these at the top of the template rather than separately. Hassocks 5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
The article Thames Valley has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Dissidentplasterer (
talk) 15:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
A question has come up on Commons on the best way to handle categorisation for civil parishes, when they share the same name as the village at their core. This issue has come up, because there is a real need to separate the two concepts. As an example, the Commons category for Ugborough in Devon has 350 files, but only a handful are for the village itself. Splitting the category allows images of the village to be sensibly grouped together.
Please contribute to the discussion there. Thank you.
There is also a second Wikipedia-specific question: If Commons does split the categories, where should the article link to? The village, or the parish, or both?-- Nilf anion ( talk) 13:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi all. Wiki Loves Monuments UK is looking for some volunteers to help with reviewing this year’s entries and identifying a long list of images that are worthy to be submitted to the three judges who will pick the final winners. You don't need to be a top photographer to volunteer for this, but you should have a good understanding of what makes an exceptional photograph and be able to distinguish good from mediocre images. You'd need to be able to commit to something like four or five hours work, mostly during October but perhaps during September as well.
If you are able to help, please leave a note on my talk page, or alternatively contact me using the "email this user" feature. More details can be found here. MichaelMaggs ( talk) 15:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a push to attempt to improve the article South Ayrshire, and input from other editors in-particular those from this project is welcomed. The article is one of a number of similar articles, and it is hoped that this article can act as a standard for others in a similar vein, for being able to improve them all. Is it currently stands the article has a number of big issues, the largest being sourcing were as it stands over 85% of all sources are a primary source. There is also a lot of lists on the page, and a significant amount of over-detail of non-notable information. Thank you for your time. Sport and politics ( talk) 08:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Although WP:FAR says that you should raise problems with an FA article on its talk page, it seems more appropriate to do it here. Basically, Isle of Portland does not deserve its star anymore. There are cn tags on the page, the page does include 2011 census data for its population and there other large quantities of uncited statements. I'm wondering if anyone can see any other problems. Thanks, My name isnotdave ( talk/ contribs) 18:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Talk:Plymouth#Coat of arms, regarding what information (if any) should be included in the infobox of city articles in addition to the coat of arms.-- Nilf anion ( talk) 00:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Comma vs parentheses. Please see Talk:Statue of Margaret Thatcher (London Guildhall)#Requested move 2 October 2017. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.
A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_UK_geography
Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 19:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi folks, the ONS have closed down the Neighbourhood Statistics web site that is used for references on most of the settlement articles as the 2011 & 2001 census population, ethnicity etc. so leaving a large number of dead links. The links just point to this page, the notice for the closure is here. Keith D ( talk) 18:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I contacted them online and have had very helpful responses. You can access parish-level population figures for 2011 census (and vast amounts of other stuff) at NOMIS. Having found the figures you want, you can then create a permanent link to that Excel spreadsheet, if you first register as a user of NOMIS (freely available, no problem in signing up). That permanent link is then available to anyone. Have a look at the population of Preston Patrick here: https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/livelinks/13842.xlsx . Please will someone let me know whether that link works smoothly for you: I get an error message telling me that the filetype and file extension are incompatible but allowing me the option of "yes" to open the file if I trust its source. Not ideal and I've sent a message enquiring about it ... but it might just be the way my computer has Excel configured?
I've added this as a second population link (ref no 4 at present) in Preston Patrick, but we might want to discuss how best to word the reference.
As an example I'll try to set out step-by-step one route to find the parish population for Arnside (having explored various different routes, and complicated by the fact that it remembers previous searches if you've registered!)
So there you are. Please have a go, let us all know if you find a simpler route, and let's discuss how best to format the resulting references ... and then how to set about replacing the 12,029 instances. Aaaaaargh! Pam D 19:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Pam,
We have put together a tool which produces Census data in a similar fashion to NESS. Please feel free to try it out – link below. Any feedback or comments that you have will be appreciated. The tool supports, wards, output areas and parishes. Any problems then give us a ring on 0191 334 2680.
Peter Dodds
And it really seems to work - so https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/sources/census_2011_ks/report?compare=1170215054 is a permanent link to all the parish-level stats for Silverdale, Lancashire. Brilliant, and so much better than the messy situation earlier. Pam D 16:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
|title=
parameter like "Silverdale – 2011 Census Key Statistics" or be part of the |work=
parameter like "NOMIS – 2011 Census Key Statistics"? May be could be used as just the title if not supplied in the former case.
Keith D (
talk) 11:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Keith D ( talk) 22:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)