Talk:Kingswood, South Gloucestershire

Bristol Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bristol, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bristol-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BristolWikipedia:WikiProject BristolTemplate:WikiProject BristolBristol

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	At least one photograph is included in this article
	This article needs a map
	This article has an infobox

Gloucestershire Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gloucestershire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gloucestershire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GloucestershireWikipedia:WikiProject GloucestershireTemplate:WikiProject GloucestershireWikiProject Gloucestershire
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tale of Two Kingswoods

I've tried to sort out the tale of two Kingswoods - the result is a bit wordy and I note that things were a bit more succinct a few revisions back. Unfortunately the old words got lost some 6 months back - in addition they didn't explain adequately that Kingswood, Bristol, aka Kingswood, South Gloucestershire, used to be one of two Kingswood, Gloucestershire's - we still have an valid entry for the smaller one, which sometimes gets referred to as if it were the bigger one :-). Thus, some people born prior to 1974 in big Kingswood, can correctly state that they were born in Gloucestershire... HTH Linuxlad 11:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both are within ceremonial Gloucestershire, and if one did a civil registration or census check, anybody from either settlement are from Kingswood, Gloucestershire.... however.... I suggest we disambiguate Kingswood, Gloucestershire to Kingswood, Stroud - this is in-keeping with national approaches (there are two Moorsides in Greater Manchester, but they are disambiguated according to borough/district level to avoid confusion). Jza84 21:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be surprised if this argument would find much favour! - the present Gloucestershire/Avon boundary is taken as a meaningful divide for most Government activities - eg for CRoW, Avon was taken as South, Gloucestershire as Midlands. No significant local political activity (ie not cricket or the county archivist) recognises the ceremonial county as relevant, (probably because it would concede an over-dominant role to Bristol). Using Stroud to disambig. will also bring some kickback from any locals who spot it. 'Kingswood, Wotton' might just about pass muster. But I really suggest you just leave well alone - I don't know enough about the GM area to tell whether your analogy has validity, 'et mutatis mutandis' I suggest. Bob aka Linuxlad 21:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, regardless of favours etc, the key threshold for inclusion on wikipedia is verifiability, certainly not personal preference. Also we have the British county naming convensions which stipulate that we use contemporary counties as the primary geographic frame of reference. It's very much frowned upon by the editting community to use post towns as a means to disambiguate.

I'm a little concerned about "No significant local political activity (ie not cricket or the county archivist) recognises the ceremonial county as relevant" - the ceremonial counties of England (also known as the geographic counties of England) are used by the AA, BBC, ordnance survey, office for national statistics, the boundary commission for England, Royal representation, civil registry, and many other key ways.

Avon was abolished in the late 1990s - that it is continued to be used in some capacities does not warrent that it is a still a legal entity. It is convention to disambiguate identical named places within the same ceremonial county at a local government district level - I hardly see this as unverifiable or unencyclopedic. Jza84 21:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ceremonial counties are certainly NOT used by the boundary commission locally! and have not been during almost all my time in the area (ie post 1974). The last vestige of the 'old order' carried on into 1983 only because implementation of the first post 73/74 boundary review was delayed by a parliamentary term IIRC. The latest review locally was wholly within the 'shadow county' of South Glos. (and similarly for the other ex-Avon LAs I think). Not sure about the relevance of the other examples, but I doubt Radio Bristol goes down well anywhere north of Dursley! Of course, it depends who you expect to use WP - I doubt they care in Pennsylvania USA, but they just might in Pennsylvania, Bath Bob aka Linuxlad 22:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how that helps. I suppose the crux of the matter here is, do you object to Kingswood, South Gloucestershire being described as within Gloucestershire? If so, then that's not what's being proposed. If not, that what is it you do object to? To be honest I've only made a few expansions on article content and tidied up some of the formatting. Jza84 23:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's describe Kingswood, (present day ) Glos, as that and Kingswood (present day) South Glos as that, since both areas have adequate justification as 'counties' within WP guidellines. And clarify early in the text, in both articles, that there were, prior to 1974 two 'Kingswood Glos' communities Bob Linuxlad 17:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - but where was the confusion? I was under the impression that one (or more) of my edits were objectionable? Jza84 01:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Recent additions by 82.46.107.109 appear well intentioned but very POV. If others broadly agree it may be best to revert and invite a more neutral addition! Linuxlad 13:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History & Origin of name

The information at [[1]] looks credible, if lacking citations. William Avery 18:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I grew up there and looks mostly right to me. Will be tricky to get online citations for this tho - maybe would need to be cited to local history books, if anyone can find the time do to such a thing! 86.21.0.89 11:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coal Mining

We appear to have lost most of the entry on this (bad edit?). I had always understood that the mines were the reason for Kingswood's existence! Can someone knowledgeable please re-instate. Bob aka Linuxlad 15:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Population

Hi,

I recently made an edit to this page and I noticed Kingswood is stated as having a population of 62,000 odd. This seems a bit strange, for example, Bradley Stoke and Yate are stated as having populations of around 20,000, Chippenham's population is also around the 20,000 mark. Surely Kingswood can't have a population of 62,000. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisjackson (talk • contribs) 17:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are Kingswood's boundaries? The 2001 census figures are:

Kings Chase (ward): 10,519
Woodstock (ward): 10,731

You need to include neighbouring wards to get up around the 60,000 mark given on the main page and South Gloucestershire. I have consulted the South Gloucestershire website and there is no very obvious clarity there, with "Kingswood" being both a "locality" with a 100,000-plus population, and a "neighbourhood" consisting of the above two wards and the ward of Rodway (population: 9918). As these are the urban, unparished wards of the former borough, I have summed the populations of these three wards, giving a population of 31,168.--ARAJ (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

H.H. & S. Budgett

I have added stuff about H.H. & S. Budgett. I hope that's OK. For verifiability and notability please see H.H. & S. Budgett and Samuel Budgett. Budhen (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Kingswood, Gloucestershire which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]