Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Ceremonial county infobox images

West Yorkshire OPTION A
Metropolitan and ceremonial county
Leeds, the main economic centre and largest settlement of West Yorkshire
Sovereign state	United Kingdom
Constituent country	England
Time zone	UTC+0 (GMT)
• Summer (DST)	UTC+1 (BST)
Ceremonial county
Area	2,029 km2 (783 sq mi)
• Rank	29th of 48
Population  (2022)	2,378,148
• Rank	4th of 48
Density	1,172/km2 (3,040/sq mi)
Metropolitan county

West Yorkshire OPTION B
Metropolitan and ceremonial county
Bradford Huddersfield Leeds Wakefield Halifax
Sovereign state	United Kingdom
Constituent country	England
Time zone	UTC+0 (GMT)
• Summer (DST)	UTC+1 (BST)
Ceremonial county
Area	2,029 km2 (783 sq mi)
• Rank	29th of 48
Population  (2022)	2,378,148
• Rank	4th of 48
Density	1,172/km2 (3,040/sq mi)
Metropolitan county

Hello!

Poor West Yorkshire has had its infobox images changed quite a lot recently, with several styles used. This presents a good opportunity to discuss ceremonial county infobox images with a view to consistency, specifically where the ceremonial county is also a metropolitan county. The main options are:

• OPTION A: a single image.
• OPTION B: a collage of the largest settlements
• OPTION C: a 'thematic' collage
• OPTION D: a collage of all the boroughs
• OPTION E: other (please elaborate)

The infoboxes to the right are all taken from the West Yorkshire article, just shortened. If you'd like to give your thoughts on them below, that would be great. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Chocolateediter you're big on collages, it'd be nice to have your thoughts A.D.Hope (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

West Yorkshire OPTION C
Metropolitan and ceremonial county
Top: The city of Leeds Middle: Yorkshire Sculpture Park and Leeds and Liverpool Canal at Bingley Bottom: Hebden Bridge in Calderdale
Sovereign state	United Kingdom
Constituent country	England
Time zone	UTC+0 (GMT)
• Summer (DST)	UTC+1 (BST)
Ceremonial county
Area	2,029 km2 (783 sq mi)
• Rank	29th of 48
Population  (2022)	2,378,148
• Rank	4th of 48
Density	1,172/km2 (3,040/sq mi)
Metropolitan county

West Yorkshire OPTION D
Metropolitan and ceremonial county
Top: Leeds and Bradford Upper: Huddersfield and Wakefield Lower: Halifax and Batley Bottom: Dewsbury and Keighley
Sovereign state	United Kingdom
Constituent country	England
Time zone	UTC+0 (GMT)
• Summer (DST)	UTC+1 (BST)
Ceremonial county
Area	2,029 km2 (783 sq mi)
• Rank	29th of 48
Population  (2022)	2,378,148
• Rank	4th of 48
Density	1,172/km2 (3,040/sq mi)
Metropolitan county

A.D.Hope (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I like option B, but don't forget the West Yorkshire flag as well. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Personally I'd make all five images flags A.D.Hope (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I like the collages but think it should be restricted to three images, probably Leeds, the Canal at Bingley and one other settlement. Thryduulf (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Prefer the set up of Option B, although if a county has multiple sub-divisions effort should be made to represent them with at least one image IMO, even if it contains none of the largest settlements, for fair representation, unless like Greater London which has more than 6. Could be applied to all ceremonial counties in England (only), but we shouldn't be strictly consistent if a county like Rutland (quite small), Greater London (too big) or Isle of Wight (an island, better keep that image first IMO) needs an exception. But in the end, each collage will be somewhat subjective, so best discussed at each article talk. If we are to restrict the number of images to less than the sub-divisions I would prefer just one image to be less subjective, ofc unless there was a discussion at their talk. No opinion on the flag debate, as long as the flag itself is verified. DankJae 10:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Although the selection of images for Option B for West Yorkshire are quite repetitive, just any image of the place is fine IMO than necessarily a cityscape. DankJae 21:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

To give my own opinion, I prefer OPTION C, although I did create it so I'm hardly impartial.

While it is inherently more subjective than the other collages, I believe it gives greater scope to reflect the nature of a county rather than simply being a display of its boroughs or largest settlements; the ceremonial counties aren't directly linked to local government, so there is room to take this approach.

In this case I chose Leeds, as the largest city and an example of urban West Yorkshire; the Yorkshire Sculpture Park, to give an example of the county's culture; the Leeds and Liverpool Canal, as an example of its industrial heritage; and Hebden Bridge, to represent the smaller mill towns in the county's valleys. This approach also allowed me to select good-quality images, whereas the settlement/borough approach can sometimes lead to poor images being used if they're the only ones available.

While I created the collage from scratch (as none existed when I arrived), I would generally expect some talk page discussion about what to include. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Answer depends on what the infobox images are seeking to achieve. Is it a rote depiction of the major settlements, and/or more of a flavour of the county/area, and/or to draw readers interest in the article?

Either a single picture or a collage could be effective; both have merit and what suits one area may not be appropriate for another. Depends on the specific county. Not in favour of placing restrictions on layout; either prescribing a particular one or proscribing others. Preferable to use editorial judgement based on consensus.

Commenting on the images in the examples given: -

A. a poor representation of the county. Beware of letting such a weak portrayal influence the validity of having a single image, which as I said above, may be appropriate in some cases.

B. sound rationale using the main settlements but again image selection is poor. Wouldn't generally recommend aerial shots in a collage of small images, as there's insufficient detail to distinguish the various places. Also, some of the images used are bland and boring and do little to encourage reading the article.

C. a valid rationale to include cultural elements. Subjective, yes, but it strives to give the flavour of the county and that may encourage readership.

D. jumbly. Perhaps an over use of images. Rupples (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I prefer something like C: a range of images covering different aspects of a county, though I'd prefer a bit of wide open spaces such as this of Stoodley Pike, perhaps instead of the less instanly comprehensible YSP image. Our counties are more than their main cities. Five tiny urban skylines tells us what: that the county has five cities. Better to show the diversity of the county.

How we add the captions is a second issue - I've seen some confusing versions of "clockwise" etc, but interposed captions as in B seem a bit cumbersome: C & D do better.

Another consideration is that for users in mobile view the initial view of an article shows the first image of a collage as the main banner photo, so we need to take that into account and ensure that the first image is suitable for this role, given that an increasing number of our readers will presumably be using mobiles.

I'm not a great fan of collages at all, and favour the A format for cities, but can see rather more justification for using them for counties than for cities, as there is so much diversity to illustrate. PamD 23:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I like the idea of showing different aspects rather than all city views, but think three images might be enough for the infobox as it is already quite long and there is enough space to include more images throughout the rest of the article. I think that when using multiple images these should have strong colours and simple shapes to make up for the reduced size - the Leeds skyline (in option B) works well for this whereas I find the view of Halifax hard to see. Other good images to include could be the one of Saltaire (currently used later in the article) and/or the Stoodley Pike image. EdwardUK (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I think three very different images is enough for a collage. I'd suggest the Cow and Calf rocks on Ilkley Moor or Stoodley Pike, Saltaire or the Piece Hall and the Leeds image from option A. There's much more to the county than cities and please, no flags. Esemgee (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Option C. I agree very much with PamD in that counties are more than their main cities, and using thematic collages is – to the best of my knowledge – a well-established practice not just on Wikipedia but also in print encyclopaedias and gazetteers, and, as Rupples notes, they serve admirably as a "hook" for readers. Additionally, they help avoid needing to decide on a single definitive image.

The question of what to actually include will always be subjective and require a bit of editorial discretion – for myself, looking at West Yorkshire in particular, I'd be tempted to include a photo of Emley Moor transmitting station as it's not only a prominent landmark but also the tallest freestanding structure in the UK – but I don't see that as detracting from the value of the approach. XAM2175 ^(T) 11:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the thematic (option C) selection of images is the best way to try and summarise the character of the place, but I prefer the inline captions in option B. As a viewer, I see an interesting picture and ask "where's that?" - and trying to wade through a list of captions that's often in an odd order is much harder than just seeing the relevant caption close to the image I'm interested in. WaggersTALK 13:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Confession: I usually move on without wanting to read the caption, and images with inline captions are often so small, indistinct and undistinguished that I've even less interest. NebY (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

My preference is this order:

• Hebden Bridge - Flickr 2019.jpg
• Dewsbury Market Place.jpg
• Bradford city centre from the Hilton Hotel - geograph.org.uk - 2686726.jpg
• Millennium Square 24 June 2018 3.jpg
• Ilkley Moor (28853850504).jpg

The latter can be a single picture but can be a good single bottom picture if it’s decided to have one, feel free to find another wide but not too long picture. The flag died with the county council. Chocolateediter (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

and you felt it appropriate to blank the whole page based on your own preference. If anything, your edits come across as a ownership of all the geographic pages and making changes that you feel you have the right to do by WP:Owning of a page and then proceed talk down anyone who disagrees with a photo or edit you make. As well as assuming you have the right to make the discussion a relevant reason to remove the existing photos. Your far from allowing fair collaboration on photos in all honesty: @Chocolateediter. You seem to feel you hold a slightly higher form of authority of all infoboxes and counties/districts/settlement articles. Maybe you should engage more in discussing your edits then just assuming your edits are the correct one. Just saying from what I've seen lately on many articles. Your recent edits of West Yorkshire is a great example and City of Sunderland. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

And btw, I respect that you (@Chocolateediter) are making changes joining more on subjects etc not knocking you personally but you have to understand that sometimes your edits and claims can come across as if you own a certain part of or the whole page. It make more sense to let others make changes and maybe discuss the images you may not agree with them instead of quickly reverting or changing it based on minor preferences. If your offended by my posts or annoyed or so. Then understandable but your last edits on West Yorkshire and other articles I've been involved appear to be under an "I own the collage or infobox way of thinking" from my own observations from my watchlist. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted West Yorkshire back to the version with the five images and captions under them. Chocolateediter isn't being deliberately antagonistic, I don't think, they just like to be bold (I know the feeling) and have a tendency to make a lot of changes at once. I change their edits a fair bit without them being reverted, so I think saying that they have a sense of ownership over the articles is a bit strong.

Having said all that, I do understand how that style of editing can be frustrating, and a discussion about West Yorkshire infobox would definitely be the best way to resolve the matter. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect @A.D.Hope, I'm just saying what I've observed as I have a lot of the pages of counties and borough's etc on my watchlist. I've been reverted a lot by them and thanked. I'm just trying to make it clear he doesn't own the pages and his edits aren't final. While still retaining his contributions are welcomed where appropriate. The edit to west Yorkshire was uncalled for until the discussion is agreed not before. DragonofBatley (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

You DofB come off as owning, we all do, think about it a revert or two (which we have all had) means we did creep into owning.

I was in a back and forth with AD the other day saying about that little red dot. Knowing a revert, comment or thank is there is daunting and puts us in a bad mood if we see a revert or negative comment.

To me you seem to do a we’ll discuss this (which is what we should to) but while we do I’d like my idea front and centre then the conversation dies away and you are left with your version of an edit. My edit was to start the conversation off again with a blank slate in the image field rather than your idea left because everybody that didn’t like it just gave up and accepted the new norm or forgot about it. An unorthodox approach rather than reverting me fully is to do a half revert (full notification but half the landscapes) that is what I would do because neither got their way and both then need to resolve it because we both don’t want what is there, equal footing.

The image field on this article and Greater Manchester have been very active over a year or so, many counties now follow a slight template thanks to AD and these are some of the last not to. As I have seen in the article talk which was then brought to here, it is may balance each borough but it is too urban. Balancing each admin centre and not bothering to show anything specific we are stuck with distant urban landscapes which you need a zoom to see anything in them and without looking at the caption you wouldn’t be able to say which is which. A landmark (easily made out in small photos such as the collage), urban landscape (if they is too many big cities chose a town because we all know the cities get most of the article) and a rural landscape is quite good as you can see it’s a hill, body of water, tree, etc.

Ikley Moor (notable landscape), The Piece Hall (notable landmark that doesn’t evoke city-ism) and Hebden Bridge (a clear example of the sandstone buildings throughout the county). These three are what I propose to put in. What do yous suggest? exception to the rule of thumb compared to other similar articles, change to the three approach, one image or remove with note to come back in a number of years and try again.

I spent a lot of time typing and always seem to, while I was a new feature to me popped up saying a new comment was posted. Way better than doing all this to not see your comment come through til I sent mine or have it pointed out to me later. Chocolateediter (talk) 09:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, I admit I can at times appear to own but I try to allow in some edit summaries a chance for discussion on a talk page. My removing of things tends to be original research or blatant claims/advertising which wiki distinguish as not appropriate or notable. I've had a slight back and forth on articles with Esemgee, PamD and anons. One on Rotherham who was vile and chose to intentionally ignore the warnings/discussions. Despite being guided to them. I'm happy to leave edits alone or content if it reads right. If I see intentional km instead mi in UK articles for distance. I change because we in UK use miles not kilometres for distance. But unfortunately some articles are so poorly written or have lack of notability but they still stay due to a geo guideline. Same with splitting borough and settlement articles. Like I did with Worcester and Coventry (now redirected) but still I feel discussion of big changes especially image concerning should be discussed. Unless it's one town or village and one lead image. Some articles warrant collages and others a single image is enough. But like I said before I'm just going off my own observations of the edits and the appropriate ways it should have been approached. Blanking an article can warrant a revert or discussion on it because like Greater Manchester. It should be discussed especially for an article on the fourth largest county in UK. DragonofBatley (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The thing to learn from this, I think, is that we're all working toward the common goal of improving the county articles and that none of us is deliberately trying to offend the others (and we may even quite like each other).

Where we need to be better is in discussing major issues properly on talk pages rather than through edit summaries. It's not yet an issue from what I've seen, but we should also be careful not to exert 'group ownership' of the articles and make any other editors feel unwelcome — not everyone just wades in with a bold edit, after all!

Perhaps the best thing in this case is to discuss the infobox images on the West Yorkshire page, under the existing 'Infobox images' topic. I did indend this discussion to be about the collages in general, after all. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Making changes when you know there's an ongoing discussion about said changes is bad form and I'm pretty sure everyone here knows that. Let's skip the personal criticism and try and get back to finding a consensus - and hold off making changes until we're satisfied such a consensus exists. WaggersTALK 09:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly DragonofBatley (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Making changes when you know there's an ongoing discussion about said changes is bad form, then I agree wholeheartedly: so it might be better not to spend time and energy adding 6-image collages such as those which you have just added to Northamptonshire and Lincolnshire while this is still under discussion. Thanks. PamD 13:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion: Phase 2

The above discussion seems to have produced a numerical consensus in favour of a thematic approach, although not a unanimous one. There is no consensus about the number of images which should be used or the format of the captions, so further discussion of those aspects would be useful.

(I'm aware that a thematic approach was my proposal, so if I've been unconsciously biased in assessing it as the consensus please say) Pinging: @Chocolateediter, 10mmsocket, Thryduulf, Rupples, PamD, EdwardUK, Esemgee, XAM2175, Waggers, NebY, and DragonofBatley:

A.D.Hope (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• My own position on the number of images in county articles would be to use three as the default, as I believe this offers enough flexibility to show several aspects of a county without becoming cumbersome. It's the format I've used as I've updated the county leads, for example Staffordshire. Nevertheless, if the local consensus is to use more than three images this should be allowed — Tyne and Wear may work well as a three-image collage, for example, but I'm not sure Merseyside is as successful.

On captions, while I see the benefits of the Option B format in terms of precision I don't think it looks as good as a single caption beneath the collage. I'm not too fussed either way, though. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with @A.D.Hope: that the consensus is for a thematic approach. I think three images will usually be best: perhaps Urban, Rural/coastal and Heritage/cultural, broadly. The first image is the one a mobile reader will see as the banner for the article, so needs careful choice. With only 3 images, a simple caption, identifying each of the three, below the trio will be clear, no need for complexity. PamD 13:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) My preference is no more than three images without an active consensus on the talk page, and to allow either caption format but if there is more than one infobox on an article for any reason then all of them should use the same style. Unless to enforce consistency on a single article, caption format should not be changed without a consensus to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Having seen some of the other comments I realise that the number of rows is equally important as the number of images. I would set a recommendation for 1 or 2 rows, and a hard limit of four. Beyond 3-4 images and/or four rows it's getting firmly into WP:NOTGALLERY territory. Thryduulf (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Yep three-ish

  Chocolateediter (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• I'd also go for three with different themes and that should only need a single caption.Esemgee (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• The more variety the better. Five-Six images. Maybe 10. DragonofBatley (talk) 13:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Far to many for the infobox, additional images should be used to illustrate various parts of the main body of the article. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Three or four images over two rows should allow for a good enough thematic and geographic mix, and more can be added to the rest of the article. I added the individual captions to reduce issues of the below caption becoming incorrect when the images were being moved around, but I have no particular preference for this style, and think the below caption often looks better, especially if there are narrow images with longer captions. EdwardUK (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• I do think it is preferable to limit the number of images within an infobox, but I'm not in favour of tight restrictions. Up to 6 images seems reasonable, and 4 or less works well in the majority of cases — it depends on how they are set out and the particular images shown. I'd go for 3 rows max. Any more starts to make the infobox look like a pic fest. Rupples (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  As to captions, no preference either way. Rupples (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  To clarify, if the objective here is to set a formal rule and guidance then I think something along the lines of: "No more than six images should be used in infoboxes. Normally, a maximum of four images is preferable; exceptions should be discussed on the article talk page and/or the Wikipedia UK Geography talk page to reach a consensus". Rupples (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  No wish to go against consensus here but would like a bit more explanation as to why most think 3 'is the magic number', when many infoboxes I've seen have a collage of 4. Rupples (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Three is a convenient number of images as it lends itself to a square-ish 1/2 arrangement. Four can work, as I think 'Option C' above shows, but a 1/2/1 arrangement or similar can look a bit long if we're not careful. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  I take it then that it's considered preferable to have a larger image and 2 smaller ones rather than 4 of equal size? Rupples (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'd say so, as the infobox isn't particularly wide and so small images can be very indistinct. My preference is to have two horizontal images and a vertical one, which allows for a 1/2 wide/tall/wide arrangement such as at Devon. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for explaining. Fine with that. Rupples (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I would consider three or four images (preferably thematic) to be the 'natural' number and very definitely the guideline, though I would permit a small degree of flexibility depending on how the images are arranged so long as they don't unreasonably extend the height of the infobox or end up being too small to see and understand properly. As to captions, my preference is for them to be grouped as per Option C, but I'm not averse to the individual style as in Option B. XAM2175 ^(T) 09:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm with @Rupples on this, I don't think we should be specifying an exact number. 3-6 seems reasonable to me and it seems most of us are in that ballpark, but in the spirit of WP:BURO I don't think we should be codifying this to that level of detail.

Re format of captions I prefer them below each image so it's easy to see which relates to which. I think this would also make it easier for people with screen readers etc. But I know the current convention is to put all the captions below the group of images and that status quo is ok, just not as good as inline captions in my opinion. WaggersTALK 09:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Six images is generally too many, in my opinion. Northamptonshire, Leicestershire, and Nottinghamshire currently have six-image collages and all contain images which are too small to properly see (to be clear, this is an aesthetic opinion rather than a personal one about the editor who added the collages). I don't think a hard limit on the number of images is helpful, however, so I'd favour a guideline worded something like: 'The infobox will typically contain no more than four images, but more may be used if local consensus is gained. The images used should be legible even at small size.' A.D.Hope (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

What I see from the examples given above is that 4 rows is too many, and that 3 rows perhaps should be a maximum. Rupples (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Even so, six images over three rows is usually too many — the most spacious arrangement is 2/2/2, and even that is cramped. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Tend to agree that 3 or 4 images are preferable, but 5 or 6 are not so bad as to require a guideline that in essence prohibits that many. For example, I don't see a problem with the layout of Option B above. Rupples (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I do have a problem with option B, as it produces four small images above and below the larger one. It's the kind of layout which should ideally be subject to scrutiny to ensure all five images are legible. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I've looked into the West Yorkshire article history, as you said this triggered the discussion, and believe I now have a clearer understanding why you raised this issue. I also checked the three other counties you listed. I was under the impression the collages were long established, when in fact they are recent additions. Up until the last couple of years, infobox images seem restricted to an outline county map plus flag/coat of arms images - no photos were included. Firstly, a single photo was added and now half a dozen. Putting it diplomatically, less than careful selection of images poses a viewing problem, the more images there are in the infobox. Can we rely on everyone's editorial judgement to see this, or do we need formal guidance? Rupples (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't think we can rely on every editor's judgement: if we could, we would not have collages of 6 or 8 images (I think I saw one with 8). An agreed guideline, suggesting a normal max of 3 or 4, would be helpful. (TBH I don't really think collages are a good idea at all, would prefer one single image ... perhaps that's another discussion to have later). PamD 22:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The latest states of Derbyshire and East Riding of Yorkshire illustrate this. PamD 18:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I am the editor who added those six image collages. May I bring to the sites attention that a collage is defined as being between "2 to 100 images. That make a collage?". Now I would find that adding six images if correctly formatted size wise and quality wise. Offer a newer and more diverse look of a county. If it was just for example a bunch of hills or a coastline. For a county like North Yorkshire or Lincolnshire. It would not do the article any justice and if people want readers to read an article. Picking the right ones or attractive ones adds more interest into it. I made six for Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Northamptonshire, East Riding and Leicestershire because places like Lincoln Cathedral, Nottingham City Centre, Towcester Racecourse, Howden Minster and Ashby Castle offer diverse historical signifance and are examples of the landmarks around that county. I feel my edits are far from cluttering the lead, I agree the sizes need some adjusting but these photos I add which are six give more diversity to the wide array of the counties then a forest (which not many people would be interested in) or a coastline (where some don't likely visit the coast?). All the images I have added are inclusive to a wide array of readers and cover many aspects. If editors disagree with me then thats fine but I am thinking of different readers and editors with a wide array of interests. As said, some like certain pictures and some dont but a few forests and coast lines are not as interesting as cathedrals castles town halls ruins etc to some readers. DragonofBatley (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

As ever I appreciate your valuable contributions, DragonofBatley. When it comes to infoboxes I do think six images is generally too many, as it lengthens the infobox considerably and it's almost always the case that some images are too small to see clearly. When it comes to the type of images I'd say you've had mixed success — Lincolnshire is pretty good, with clear images of the cathedral, Crowland Abbey, and Mablethorpe Beach, but do you see how the images of the fens and Stamford become unclear at such a small scale? If we go to Lancashire, can you see a difference between the more vibrant upper images which I chose and the three beneath which you selected?

I know you're perfectly capable of producing a great collage, but it's worth considering things like size and colour as well as overall breadth of coverage. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion: round 3, guideline

Guideline proposal

Having read the above discussion I believe the consensus is for infobox collages to typically contain no more than 4 images in no more than 3 rows, and for those images to be thematic. The consensus on captions seems to be to keep them below the image/collage. On that basis I propose adding the following guideline to WP:UKCOUNTIES:

Infobox images

Infoboxes may contain image collages, but they should consist of no more than four images in no more than three rows. These limits may be exceeded only if there is a compelling reason to do so, subject to local consensus. The images should be captioned beneath the collage.

The images selected for the collage should represent the county thematically, for example by including prominent cultural, historic, or natural landmarks. It is desirable for at least one major settlement to be represented. Images should be carefully selected to ensure they are legible at small size, and where possible they should form a coherent whole.

The example on the left is taken from Devon. It shows two natural features, a landmark in a major city, and a distinctive breed of pony, therefore giving an overview of the of the county. The images are arranged so that they can be seen clearly and their colours complement each other.

As ever, please challenge my assessment of the consensus if you feel it is incorrect.

Discussion (infobox picture guideline round 3)

Pinging: @Chocolateediter, 10mmsocket, Thryduulf, Rupples, PamD, EdwardUK, Esemgee, XAM2175, Waggers, NebY, DragonofBatley, Waggers, and Murgatroyd49:A.D.Hope (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Question Does anyone know how Mobile View selects the image to show as a full-width banner above the article, far more prominently than the infobox collage which is only seen if the reader opts to expand the infobox? For Lancashire it shows Clitheroe from row 2; for Cumbria, Derwentwater from the top; for Bedfordshire, Bedford, the 2nd image on top row; Surrey, Guildford from top; Leicestershire, National Forest from 2nd row. This seems random but there must be a rule somewhere which the display follows. That single displayed image is what creates an impression for a reader in mobile view, as an increasing number of readers will be. If we can understand which image becomes the banner, then we can choose it appropriately.

That apart, I think 2 rows is enough for an infobox collage; max 2 rows, max 4 images, unless consensus agrees an exceptional override. PamD 22:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I've asked the same question at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Which image is displayed in Mobile View?, as it seems more likely that someone there will be able to tell us the answer. (With apologies to any technical wizzard here who is about to reply that of course they can explain this apparent randomness ...!) PamD 22:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I can't answer the banner question, so thank you for asking it at the village pump. On rows, restricting to two rows and four images could lead to 2/2 arrangements of small square images, which isn't ideal. Allowing three rows permits 1/2/1 arrangements, as in option C way back up the thread, which are more spacious. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that 2x2 isn't pretty. Perhaps the answer is to go for 3 images as the norm, subject to exceptions only after consensus. PamD 07:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Odd numbers generally work better for this kind of thing, so I reckon 3 or 5 is probably about right. WaggersTALK 09:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@PamD, are they the same images as (desktop) page previews? If so they may be connected and relate to the PageImages extension which favours images of a certain size (long rectangular images are not preferred for example), and certain images can be excluded in some scenarios. Although I'm not an expert in this, and opinions at TECHPUMP would hold greater weight. DankJae 23:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@DankJae Thanks. Another account of the same rules is here (info provided by @Izno: at VPTECH).

The rule summarises, I think, as: the image selected will be the first image in the infobox or rest of lead which is displayed as at least 120px wide (so excludes portrait-format images within infoboxes) and is not a "panorama" shape, wide and shallow ("a ratio of 0.4 to 3.1 is allowed, with 0.6 to 2.1 preferred"). I think this explains the choices I saw above. We need to be aware of this in choosing our images.

These images are used in "Page Previews", though I can't quite work out when "Page Previews" are displayed, apart from on mobile. They are not the images which I see on a mouse hover over a link, which seems to show maps for the counties above. PamD 07:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding mouse hover on desktop, I believe WP:POPUPS always uses the first image reading from the top of the wikitext. Looking at the code in the infoboxes at Cumbria and Bedfordshire, the districts images are the first instance of the [[File:Image file.ext]] code (the collages use image 1 = File:Image file.ext) so I'm guessing the code for popups is looking explicitly for the string [[File:. Thryduulf (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@PamD, have you got WP:POPUPS enabled? or another gadget, as @Thryduulf says POPUPS only uses images, with [[File:, with the first image of Cumbria in that code being this one, is this the one you see?

Note, POPUPS is not the same as page previews which is what all logged-out users would see (I think?), so we have to take their preferences first. The images you stated in WP:TECHPUMP are the ones I see in page previews, both logged-in with it enabled and logged-out as a reader, although that's just me. DankJae 16:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

If POPUPs is seeing a useful preview of an article when I hover my mouse, then yes, I've got it. How interesting that the coding for POPUPS, which you explain here, fails to pick up any of our carefully-selected images if they're in a collage, but goes for the next thing down, the map. Not very clever. PamD 16:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@PamD, um I'm not sure you understand, although if you do, be free to tell me otherwise , there are (at least) two types of "hover over" "popups", see the 2nd and 3rd images on WP:POPUPS for guidance. The second one on Encyclopedia is an account opt-in navigation pop-up which would exclude the collage images, but the one of George Orwell below is a "page preview" which would show images in a collage.

For Cumbria I (logged-in and out) see Derwentwater lake with boats as my page preview, not sure why you've got a map. And if you do have POPUPS enabled, most readers would not and they would see a collage image. Basically, I'm assuming few would see a map pop-up in a preview? Not sure why you do. (Unless my PC is special) DankJae 17:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

For clarity I do have WP:POPUPS installed (and have had since before it was a gadget, which long predates page previews), and the image I see for Cumbria is indeed File:Cumbria numbered districts 2023.svg.

If we want users of POPUPS to see a different image, then we just need to put a different file call somewhere above the map parameter. It doesn't even have to display anything or be a real parameter, see my sandbox. Thryduulf (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Three images over two rows and others illustrating the text works for me. I always thought that Wikipedia isn't a picture book. Esemgee (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Nitpicky point on the draft guideline text: "example on the left" is on the right in this display, and probably "above" or "below" for someone on a small device. Just "example shown" might be safer. PamD 16:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well-spotted, I'll change that if the guideline draft gains consensus. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• @Chocolateediter, 10mmsocket, Thryduulf, Rupples, PamD, EdwardUK, Esemgee, XAM2175, Waggers, NebY, DragonofBatley, Waggers, and Murgatroyd49: It's been over a week and no serious objections have been raised to this draft guideline. There's been some comment on the exact number of rows and images which should be allowed, but I believe the maximum of three rows and four images is a compromise which will be acceptable to a majority of editors.

I'm happy to leave this discussion another week, after which I'll add the draft to the guidelines if there are no outstanding issues. I'm keen to come to a conclusion as this discussion has been open for nearly a month and, coupled with the infobox template discussion above, I can feel the fatigue setting in! A.D.Hope (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I have no problems with the draft guidelines. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

North Yorks images

Sorry to raise another collage thing, but would anyone uninvolved mind quicky jumping into this discussion between myself and @Chocolateediter and giving some opinions on potenial North Yorkshire images? We can't agree, but as it's just the two of us we've got no way of 'tiebreaking' the issue. Ta, A.D.Hope (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Wendover and Great Missenden

So I went through both these articles the other day and found them using "affluent, small town" and "market town". Upon closer looks online, there are no town councils for either place and after making the changes. An anon decides the first talk page post is reliable based on asking someone at a study group? From 2004? And two books. So I find no town council, no town status or town charter/hall. So which is right? @Crouch, Swale @JMF @KeithD @Chocolateediter thoughts? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

On your edit summary when reverting market town to village for Wendover here: [[1]] you say It cannot be called a town without official town status or a town council - are you able to provide an official reliable source for this assertion? Rupples (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

[2] DragonofBatley (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

That doesn’t support the point because it comes up with a classification based on population size, not whether it’s called “town council”. Rcsprinter123 (quip) 00:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

This source supports my counter argument as residents and the parish council refer to Wendover as a village but it's randomly called a town despite no official status adopted. [[3]] DragonofBatley (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Quote from article, "Despite being formally named a town, the inhabitants of Wendover still refer to their home as a village, as does the Parish Council." DragonofBatley (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The related spreadsheet to this source shows Wendover under Aylesbury Vale District Council as a small town. Rupples (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I would advise that the UK makes no official definitions of settlement types except city ("town" is just something you can call a parish council), so it's really down to how the place is locally regarded, perhaps combined with population figures etc. But there are no rules and we've had the debates before about the line between a large village and small town (clue: it's a very blurred one). But yes, as usual Reliable Sources help the most, not our opinions. Rcsprinter123 (note) 00:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The main problem is an editor from 2004 claimed they asked a person in a Buckinghamshire Study's and mentioned Genuki and two random books saying towns. The thing is articles then become confusing seeing the lead say town and then village history then town market and then village centre etc... Nowadays the only way somewhere becomes a town is by town council or town status being granted. Neither Great Missenden or Wendover are towns by official standards. Like Long Buckby has a market charter but isn't a town or Whitwick has a market place and charter but not town status. Nothing online suggests either are a town and one talk page post doesn't make it factual. The parish councils don't even mention town status. DragonofBatley (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree consistency within an article is needed, but I think you are labouring under the delusion that charters and whatever have anything to do with it these days. Nothing can “grant” a town status. How do the reliable sources available as of 2023 refer to Wendover and Great Missenden? Rcsprinter123 (reason) 00:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the one news article says "Despite being formally named a town, the inhabitants of Wendover still refer to their home as a village, as does the Parish Council.". That's for Wendover. For Great Missenden, it's not really a town by definition just one of those commuter articles used the term town despite it being a village by Visit Buckinghamshire [[4]] and yet MyLondon and Daily Express called it a town. And that was used instead of Visit Buckinghamshire which is probably one of the counties most.reliable sites. DragonofBatley (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Visit Buckinghamshire will use terms that encourage people to visit Buckinghamshire. "Village" is a term many affluent residents prefer for their local retail centre, especially while averting high-density development and tall buildings, eg Hampstead, Highgate, Dulwich, Bramhall. NebY (talk) 01:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I thought it well established that a place becomes a town in two ways: an ancient market charter or the parish council declares itself to be a town council. So if they haven't done that, they are large villages. See also Kidlington beside Oxford which is adamant that it is a village, despite it size. So if the PC website says village, then that is what it is. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that calls them a town? If not use village. I've used the sign welcoming you into a town before as a source for whether a place is a town or not because I couldn't find a better one. But from a quick google streetview I can't see a sign we can use for these two towns. Eopsid (talk) 09:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The Chilterns Conservation Board's page of Market Towns includes both Wendover and Great Missenden, but the linked page for Great Missenden says it is a village. I offer no opinion as to whether the board is a reliable source. JonH (talk) 12:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Could we just state on the article that opinion is divided on whether these places are towns or villages. And then quote sources which say its a village and ones for town to back up the divide of opinion. Eopsid (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

• From what I can see it appears to be a town but its commonly referred to as a village by the residents[5]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

  Have to agree with RC, there are very loose definitions of settlements, London as a whole is considered a city in a dictionary sense, formally using government definition it's not. The districts usually do an assessment of their areas and define settlements on not just population but also services and amenities provided. The Equalizer (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

BUA and BUASD definitions source

As above, I felt we ought to explain BUASD, but when doing so I couldn't find a current doc at NOMIS which would do so - the 2011 version was archived, and linked from Urban_area#United_Kingdom, but the live URL was ... well, not live.

I emailed NOMIS to ask the whereabouts of such guidance currently, and had a helpful reply from the NOMIS Helpdesk:

... Apologies, the document is in the correct directory on our server so I am not sure why it is not downloading. We will need to investigate.

However, since we did those pages on the Nomis site, ONS now publish all their geography information, including BUA user guidance, on their Open Geography Portal. You can find the latest version of the user guidance at:

https://geoportal.statistics.gov.uk/documents/ons::built-up-areas-user-guidance-1/about

This is the definitive link for the guide – where ONS will first publish any updates / revisions. As such it should be the location you link to. To fix the issue on Nomis, we will most likely change the links to point at the above page rather than hold a local copy of the document.

So there you have it: the current document is at:

ONS Geography (August 2015). "2011 Built-up Areas - Methodology and Guidance". Office for National Statistics.

ie

{{cite web|title=2011 Built-up Areas - Methodology and Guidance | author = ONS Geography | publisher=Office for National Statistics | date = August 2015 | url=https://geoportal.statistics.gov.uk/documents/ons::built-up-areas-user-guidance-1/explore}},

PamD 21:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Birmingham

Birmingham has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

City centre articles...

So recently, I created two articles Lincoln City Centre and Lancaster City Centre. Now, Lancaster City centre was subject to an AfD and then deleted/redirected to Lancaster, Lancashire. Lincoln city centre has so far (for now) avoided an AfD while I look to try and tidy it up to a set standard. But I'm intrigued to know why cities like York, Preston, Chester and Bradford among others cannot warrant a city centre article. Yet Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham and Sheffield among others can? It's seems onesided to allow articles like Leeds City Centre and Manchester City Centre but not other older notable cities like York, Lancaster, Chester and Bath for example. Just because the said cities are not as massive as likes of Manchester Birmingham and that. They still warrant city centre articles that could easily be replicated in their own settlement or county articles?

@Rupples @KeithD @JMF @A.D.Hope @Eopsid @Chocolateediter @PamD @Crouch, Swale @A. B. @Murgatroyd49

Interested to get opinions and reasons why. DragonofBatley (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I have no opinion. I'm not involved with any of these. See their talk pages. There may also be some old discussions about this in the archives for WikiProject UK geography or WikiProject England. I'm not in England.

We don't normally want a lot of redundancy in coverage between articles -- it doubles the effort to monitor and maintain them. We should merge and delete an article when this happens.

Take a look at the comments made about the quality of the page that's being deleted. Any problems noted by others -- just don't do them again. It may help to get a pad of paper and make a list of lessons learned -- things to do and things not to do.

Use the article talk pages and do nothing without consensus.

Good luck!

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

A. B. is right about redundancy, many cities are just too small to warrant a separate 'city centre' article. The relevant topics can be covered adequately in the main article or in other articles such as 'History of [city]'. Lancaster was one of those cities, unfortunately.

So far as I know there isn't a set rule about which cities warrant 'city centre' articles and which don't. The current articles mostly cover the larger city centres, but I think there is a case for creating them for historically-dense cities such as Lincoln. Such articles could cover the centre in more detail than would be warranted in the main article, perhaps noting significant buildings or giving more specific geographic information. We would have to be very careful not to overlap with existing articles, which can cover niche topics such as Medieval parish churches of York or Listed buildings in Chester Castle parish. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd leave the centre detail as a section within the existing place article, until the length of the content justifies WP:SPLITOUT. The usual organic way it happens is that an existing article gets too large and sections are only then spun out, this is more likely to happen on larger or historic places which would justify enough content. The Equalizer (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham and Sheffield are much larger than York, Preston, Chester and Bradford so its more likely city centre articles may be appropriate for these but otherwise we should normally try to just add this information to the main settlement its self. Crouch, Swale (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

As I was pinged to come to this discussion...

I think that in many cases an "Xyztown city centre" article is going to be a net negative to the encyclopedia, by being a near-overlap with the main "Xyztown" article, as was the case with Lancaster. If, unusually, there is a small, easily-defined, city centre area with an identifiable set of characteristics not shared with the rest of the city, or if the city itself is a vast sprawl of a place with outlying areas and suburbs, then in some cases there might be scope for a "Xyztown city centre" article (though it might well have a different title, reflecting the named area), but in every other case the reader will probably be better served by improvements to the main "Xyztown" article (which could have a section on the city centre, including any discussion of different definitions of such a centre).

The significant landmark buildings, churches, etc are part of the wider city, and the economic importance of the place probably includes, these days, firms based on outlying business parks as well as the traditional inner-city offices, so to say that "Xyztown city centre is the economic hub ..." may well no longer be true. Even retail is now migrating away from the traditional city-centre shops to the out-of-town malls, so that a well-written article on the whole city (centre and the rest) can more easily give a full and accurate description. Sports teams, universities, etc are associated with the city as a whole, and their premises may, or may not, be within what any particular definition might call the "city centre". The history of a city belongs to the article about the city, although quite possibly the oldest settlement was in what is now the city centre (eg because it's a river crossing point or defensible high land). Trying to write about transport links etc for both a modest-sized city and its centre in two different articles is a waste of time: the services from the city railway station(s), the main road or motorway connections, the nearest airports, the nature of the bus company, all these cover the whole city and not just its centre (and if the city is large enough, there may well be a separate article altogether like Transport in Leeds).

If two articles largely overlap, then it's a recipe for future problems. The name of something changes, a church becomes redundant, a website needs to be updated... and either the one, or the other, but probably rarely both, of the articles will be updated. We should not be setting up such problems for ourselves and other future editors. So, please, no more "Xyztown city centre" articles except in very exceptional circumstances. PamD 13:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Unless the city centre is a CP in its own right. E.g., Central Milton Keynes. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

As ever it comes down to the core policies - are there sufficient independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject? The answer will be different for different cities. In some cases, the city centres have barely changed over time and the history of the city as a whole will be more or less identical to that of the city centre. In other cases, where there has been significant redevelopment in the city centre, there might be a lot of detail specifically about the city centre as an entity that wouldn't really belong in the overall city article. We need to be very wary with trying to find a "one size fits all" rule or using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments for the existence or otherwise of any subject, and city centres are no exception. Sometimes they're notable, sometimes they're not. I wouldn't agree that comes down to whether or not they have their own civil parish or any other legal entity, it simply comes down to WP:N. That's the only rule that matters when it comes to deciding whether or not we should have an article on something. WaggersTALK 15:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Searching NHLE list for unparished areas

I wanted to look at the NHLE list to find the listed buildings in the Lancaster unparished area within City of Lancaster district, although we've got the existing splendid lists at Listed buildings in Lancaster, Lancashire (central area) and Listed buildings in Lancaster, Lancashire (outer areas). Going to NHLE's "Advanced search" I couldn't work out how to do it, as there was no appropriate entry in the dropdown menu of parishes - there were several other "Non civil parish" entries, but neither Lancaster nor Heysham.

I emailed NHLE to ask about this, as I felt there had to be a way to get the listing. I had a lovely helpful reply with a pair of spreadsheets listing the Lancaster and Heysham listed buildings, but then as followup was also told how to find the list for myself, which I'm happy to share here.

Counter-intuitively, you don't use the "Advanced Search". Go to the ordinary "Search the list" and put the keyword you want (Lancaster or Heysham here). Then use the "Filter" to specify the local authority area and, in parish, there is now an option of "Non civil parish" which you can use! Inconsistent and strange, but very useful. I'm sure @Peter I. Vardy:, the listed building guru who creates so many of these splendid lists, knows about it already: perhaps I should just have asked his advice rather than going to NHLE! PamD 11:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Good info. The British Listed Buildings people got around this by using wards in unparished areas, e.g. Lancashire -- Wire723 (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I use this tactic to make lists of manageable size for unparished areas, for example Leeds. The NHLE does not help in this way. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

County infobox images guideline

The new infobox images guideline has been added to WP:UKCOUNTIES. Thank you to everyone who participated in the discussion above and helped to craft what I hope will be a useful set of principles. Just the infobox parameters to go now! A.D.Hope (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Wait I'm confused, does this now apply to ALL counties in the United Kingdom? Thought it was just on English ceremonial counties per the discussion heading(s) and all the example articles discussed? Did not follow it deeply as I thought it was not supposed to apply to Wales, which seems fine with the one-image principal areas and no image for counties no longer extensively used (ex. Powys ones, which are somewhat still used). Just surprised that's all. DankJae 13:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Erm, truth be told it was a bit late when I wrapped things up and I simply forgot to clarify the guideline title properly. The guideline doesn't mandate a collage by any means, so it wouldn't matter much if it did apply to Wales, but I'll change the title now. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this: it's a useful addition to the guideline. (I've added the "anchor" so that your link above gets there directly - perhaps you changed your mind about the section heading midstream?) PamD 13:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Pam, much appreciated. When it comes to anchors and whatnot I do find myself hoping for the best more than I probably should, so cheers for sorting it. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Should there be a similar guideline for other areas such as metropolitan boroughs? Kirklees has seven images in its infobox. PamD 09:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

and Lincoln has 5, Leeds has 8, Bradford 8 and Salford 6. Etc, nothing wrong with 7 or more for metropolitan boroughs or districts according to Wikiguidelines. DragonofBatley (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Bradford has 7? While Salford and Leeds have one? Do not confuse it with the settlements, which AFAIAA, settlements like London and New York City can have many, but there could be a case to be stricter for more broader areas like met. boroughs. DankJae 10:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

i was referring to the settlement articles as well as Bradford's borough and settlement articles. DragonofBatley (talk) 12:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I assumed @PamD only specified the met. boroughs? Not the settlements, which are allowed a maximum of 6–8 images. There is no guideline specifically on only met. boroughs. Articles on both the settlement and met. borough seem to follow the settlement guidelines. DankJae 13:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Personally I think all infoboxes about places should be restricted to the same no more than four images in no more than three rows standard for exactly the same accessibility, usability and WP:NOTGALLERY reasons why we agreed that for English counties. None of those reasons change based on the subject of the article. Thryduulf (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Technically the discussion above was started for only English ceremonial counties in mind. If multiple editors are willing to clarify or expand their position for it to apply to all English counties/districts/boroughs then be free to do so.

Not sure if settlements should be grouped into this discussion as it already has a pre-existing guideline, and best settled separately. But settlements on average seem to have had montages/multiple images for a longer time. DankJae 14:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Wales discussion

Hi, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales#New county images guideline concerning the guideline agreed here. As the discussion above was largely with English ceremonial counties in mind (It did not clearly state it was for all UK counties :/) and a closed debate, had limited choice but to start separate discussions as collage image edits began on Wales' articles. Anyone in UKGEO can participate. Diolch! DankJae 22:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

County how to

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties/2023 Reword sandbox

I’m proposing a new counties guideline rewrite, this puts emphasis on varying content on types of article, increasing the articles that use the guide and looking to make the new collage guidance set to all these articles. If anybody wants to pick up on anything (please do) I’ll be happy to accommodate any changes, removals and additions. Chocolateediter (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties/2023 Reword sandbox Chocolateediter (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC) - updated 00:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Chocolateediter: Could we consider the order of sections please? I have never understood why our current guidance suggests that the "geography" section should come after "history". This order seems to have originated in the very early days of wikiprojects and (in our case) seems to have been imported across from the more US-focused WP:CITIES project, without any real debate as to whether this is appropriate in the UK context.

The guidelines that you are proposing are intended for different types of county (be they lieutenancy/ceremonial, historic, abolished) and so defining what is inside and what is outside the county boundaries at the earliest possible point in the article is essential. This is obviously best done in the geography section.

It's also worth pointing out that many points covered in a typical history section will be dependent on geography e.g. major settlements in a county tend to be on the principal rivers, industrial areas are often based around former/current mining/quarrying areas etc.

So, at the very least, I would propose adding a note to say that the order of the geography and history sections may be switched/varied, according to the consensus of local editors. (This is the same advice as given here for WP:CITIES - see Note 2.)

Best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I quite agree, it's often puzzled me as to why they are that way round. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Mertbiol, @Murgatroyd49, hmn this discussion seems to be fractured, there is a similar discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties#A reword not sure if it should be here or there? DankJae 19:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Mertbiol, @Murgatroyd49, tbh the current UKCOUNTIES does state the order of sections is also optional, and sections may be moved around to a different order based on the needs of the county so technically if a county needs the clarification earlier you can switch them. DankJae 16:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @DankJae:. The problem is that the current guidance then goes on to say: Editors are strongly encouraged, however, to follow the first five sections outlined here. My reading of this is that the order of the first five sections is fairly firmly set (i.e. History before Geography) and then the order of subsequent sections is relatively flexible. In my opinion, this is what needs to be changed. We need to make it very clear that local editors can come to a consensus as to whether the History precedes Geography or vice versa. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @DankJae: I didn't realise there was another discussion. I simply replied to @Chocolateediter:'s message. The other discussion seems to be focused at the moment on whether writing new guidelines is a good idea or not, rather than on the substance of the proposals. Perhaps Chocolateediter as the initiator could decide how they would like to proceed, where they would like other editors to comment and then to transfer the discussions as appropriate. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Mertbiol, yes that discussion is so far on whether there should be one overhaul or a more targeted changes. My main concern is how this should be handled. Should @Chocolateediter, consider creating Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties 2023 proposal? To allow its talk used to the new proposal and move it out of userspace? (as CE states they're open to other changes) Or is that a bit too early, or in the end the decision of CE. DankJae 19:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I’ll happily add it there, keeping my sandbox as a back up. Then they is a space for talk to open up on different topics. Chocolateediter (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)