Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography

WT:UKGEO

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject UK geography and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43: 30 days

What's new

Good article nominees

09 Nov 2024 – Draughton, North Yorkshire (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Cremastra (t · c); start discussion

Did you know? articles

Wellesbourne, Brighton (2024-07-01) • Rosal, Sutherland (2024-05-25) • Newlyn Tidal Observatory (2023-11-20) • Godalming (2023-09-20) • Reigate (2023-09-10)

Reached maximum of 5 out of 308

Featured pictures

A591 road, Lake District - June 2009 Edit 1
Aerial View of Edinburgh, by Alfred Buckham, from about 1920
Canary Wharf from Limehouse London June 2016 HDR
City of London skyline from London City Hall - Oct 2008
Lancashire 1610 Speed Hondius - Restoration

In the News articles

Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City (2021-07-22) • 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods (2009-11-21) • February 2009 British Isles snowfall (2009-02-06)

Main page featured articles

Coventry ring road (2023-07-23) • Combe Hill, East Sussex (2023-01-11) • Brownhills (2022-03-03) • Abberton Reservoir (2021-09-05) • Shaw and Crompton (2021-08-15)

Reached maximum of 5 out of 71

Main page featured lists

List of scheduled monuments in South Somerset (2023-12-22) • List of castles in Greater Manchester (2023-04-07) • List of Shetland islands (2022-05-20) • List of freshwater islands in Scotland (2020-04-24) • List of scheduled monuments in Taunton Deane (2018-10-26)

Reached maximum of 5 out of 7

This is a list of recognized content, updated weekly by JL-Bot (talk · contribs) (typically on Saturdays). There is no need to edit the list yourself. If an article is missing from the list, make sure it is tagged (e.g. {{WikiProject UK geography}}) or categorized correctly and wait for the next update. See WP:RECOG for configuration options.

Watch

Disagreement on Christchurch article re:settlement definition

There is a dispute at the article for Christchurch, Dorset over whether, how, and in how much detail, the article should cover Bournemouth Airport – a major employer which was in the now defunct borough of Christchurch, but some distance outside the built-up area in a neighbouring parish. This is essentially a difference of opinion on how to handle the ambiguity around defining settlements. If you think you can help resolve this, join the discussion at Talk:Christchurch,_Dorset#Bournemouth_airport. Thanks, Joe D (t) 10:38, 3 April 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]

British Isles vs. Great Britain & Ireland?

IP editor seems a bit WP:POINTY in his/her edits, e.g. here and associated talk page edit, plus other contributions. Is there consensus on the naming? 10mmsocket (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@10mmsocket, hmn technically under MOS:GEO we should use the title as used in its article British Isles but many significant articles like Castles in Great Britain and Ireland do ignore it. So appears due to the controversial nature, there is apparently a case-by-case approach? Unless they should be made consistent as British Isles or at least until local consensus decides otherwise at each?

May be there’s an old discussion somewhere. Dank Jae 16:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thanks. In that case I'll leave this IP to his one man/woman crusade. There's bigger problems to solve! 10mmsocket (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many discussions (such as Talk:British Isles/Archive 41 that go nowhere because two traditions hold diametric opposing views. See also MOS:ERA, MOS:ENGVAR and there must be one about SI units v US Customary. And lots of WP:SOAPBOX edit wars such as that one. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really good of you to look that up. It reinforces my thought to stay well away. If anyone else wants to start black pudding wars then fill your boots! 10mmsocket (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pre 1974 (and similar) districts

Perhaps we should have some guidence added to WP:UKDISTRICTS about pre 1974 districts (and similar for Scotland and Northern Ireland). See older discussion with User:Stortford at User talk:Stortford#Hertfordshire former parishes

In terms of separate articles or not.

Any district whether rural or urban (including MBs and CBs) that was reformed with the same (or similar) boundaries should follow the "Reconstituted districts" on the current districts part and be covered and use the current title such as Blaby Rural District>Blaby District and Fareham Urban District>Borough of Fareham. For many urban districts like County Borough of Leicester there is no separate article so is covered in the settlement. For those like County Borough of Brighton>Borough of Brighton that were reformed in 1974 but later abolished they should also use the title when abolished though many like County Borough of Bath don't have separate articles similar to Leicester.

Rural districts that contain more than 1 parish like Eastry Rural District should always have separate articles from the settlement/parish of the same name Eastry. Those that formerly included multiple parishes but only contained 1 when abolished like Tintwistle Rural District normally have separate articles though I'm not sure if there are any other examples.

Urban district (including MBs and CBs) like Ware Urban District and County Borough of Huddersfield that have the same name as a settlement are normally covered in the settlement but may have separate articles if there is enough content to have separate articles like Municipal Borough of Buckingham and County Borough of Carlisle. Other factors that support having separate articles though it may still be best not to include;
- The boundaries of the settlement compared to the district, we can also factor in today's boundaries so we might think it doesn't make sense to split when a district included a settlement that was distinct at the time the district was abolished but has since become part of the settlement.
- The district contained multiple parishes, I would give less weight if all the parishes in X district were called things like X St Peter or X All Saints (especially if they were later merged to form a single parish called X like Maldon) than if they are names of other settlements like Exning in Newmarket Urban District or there are parishes in addition to the parish of X.
- The district had boundary changes, I'd give more weight to significant ones like the whole of a large part of a parish (and especially a whole or large part of a district being abolished and merged to it) than small changes.
- The current parish/unparished area has different boundaries to the former district. For example Witham was later divided into Rivenhall and Silver End, Lancaster unparished area no longer includes Aldcliffe-with-Stodday, Saffron Walden parish no longer includes Sewards End and Northampton parish excludes areas the county borough included. Obviously I'd put more weight on Witham because those other places are clearly distinct settlements than Northampton which was probably split mainly because of its large size.

Urban districts (including MBs) that only existed as districts should have articles like Queensbury and Shelf Urban District and Spenborough unless they are the same or similar to something else like Queenborough-in-Sheppey should probably be merged with Isle of Sheppey.

Rural districts that only ever contained 1 parish should normally be covered in the settlement/parish but may have separate articles similar to urban districts/MBs/CBs with the same name as settlements and can use the same tests (obviously the 2nd test won't apply).

On a different note how should such districts be titled when they only existed as a district and disambiguation isn't needed. For example we have Queensbury and Shelf Urban District with Queensbury and Shelf redirecting to it but we have the reverse for Spenborough with Municipal Borough of Spenborough redirecting to it. Should we title without "Urban District" or "Municipal Borough of" if disambiguation isn't needed? I don't think there are any CBs with separate articles that don't need disambiguation but there are probably also rural districts. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about districts#Naming convention which User:Mhockey and User:MRSC talked about. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. None of this. We should follow basic wiki practice and write articles on an individual basis that have potential for substantive content rather than try to come up with complex rules that cannot possibly apply to hundreds of places. MRSC (talk) 07:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. While much of the above describes the general pattern that will fall out of following project-wide policies, guidelines and conventions anyway, spelling it out in this much detail feels like instruction creep. Nobody's going to want to read that much detail when creating or editing an article, and in general it isn't necessary. Waggers TALK 10:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree this is excessive for instructions. For pre-1974 urban districts and boroughs I wouldn't want to encourage a proliferation of stub pages - the topic is usually quite capable of being briefly summarised on the page for the settlement. That way you can also set it in the context of what came before and after, on a page where it is helpful for understanding the overall history of the settlement. For those handful of urban districts which covered something other than a single settlement, and for rural districts (and perhaps those cases where an editor has amassed so much material that it would be disproportionate for the settlement page) separate pages can be created under normal rules of notability etc.

One point to flag for rural districts is that quite a number of those created in 1894 were effectively accounting fictions, always being administered as part of a rural district in a neighbouring county, but they had to keep separate accounts for the parts in each county. I'd argue that such rural districts, although listed in sources such as Vision of Britain and Youngs' Guide to the Local Administrative Units of England, would be better covered on the page for the rural district which actually administered them. I therefore wouldn't want to have policies effectively inviting the creation of lots of pages for rural districts which, on a proper understanding of their actual functioning, weren't really that notable. Stortford (talk) 07:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prestolee

Dear folks, please source this stub. Thanks in advance. Bearian (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unref since 2009! At first I wondered if it was a long-standing hoax, but it's on OS maps and the church is grade II liste. It's now only "needs more refs", as I've added the NHLE listing. That's one small contribution for now. Scope for other editors to chip in. PamD 09:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could do with a cleanup project: a listing of UK Geography articles unsourced pre-2010 would be an interesting start. PamD 09:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for parishes

Do we really need a category for each parish, especially when the parish hasn't even got its own article or redirect, as was the case when Category:Hadley and Leegomery was created? There is going to be nothing in the category which is not already mentioned and linked in the article on the parish, when created, or on one of the component villages. PamD 21:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think if there are enough articles then it is appropriate to have them. Parishes are legally recognized and its surprising we don't already have more categories for them though I agree they are probably less useful when they form part of urban areas like Hadley and Leegomery but still appropaite. I mentioned this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 21#Category for every parish?. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree. To take your Shropshire example, there are 208 individual parishes listed in Category:Civil parishes in Shropshire and 19 parish subcategories. That's 19 too many. Looking at some of the categories they have so little in them they are pointless and should be deleted. 10mmsocket (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]