Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Braintree, Essex

I have requested a move at Talk:Braintree, Essex to move Braintree, Essex to just Braintree and would be glad to hear some opinions on the subject. Reginmund 03:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Derry

I have proposed a move at Talk:Derry to move to Londonderry and would like to hear some thoughts on the subject. Reginmund 01:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Templates for guidelines

I think it would be a good idea if there were templates that could be added to talk pages to alert editors that an article has been, or should be, written in accordance with particular guidelines, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements.--Derek Andrews 16:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I will make this change - I have read this request elsewhere before now. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Project improvement drive

Having been a participant of this project for almost two years now, I'm really disappointed with the lack of organisation, branding, and orther such development demonstrated by this project. Much of the content has been identical for at least two years, the participants list is small, and out-dated, and the collaboration of the month has been Rutland - for the last year!!!! The templates are ugly, and there's no system of progress or assessment set up, nor is there a clearly definied remit or goal explained to new-comers or old-comers!

My point? I propose that we have a major project improvement drive during the next month. I intend to be bold in the next few days and overhall some material, including the mainspace and templates. I will check the list of participants for the levels of activity; if there is no activity in the last few months I will remove names from the list unless otherwise instructed here.

If there are any objections or comments, I'd like to ask for them now (!) rather than later. I'm so dismayed by the progress of the project I intend to make a start within the next 48 hours. Hope this is well recieved, -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Good idea! I think the suggestions I made in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 3#Overlap between this project and various county/town/city projects still largely apply. Some may well have received attention in the meantime, and the view, expressed by one, that this project was intended to become dormant or reduce its activity seems quite mistaken to me. In which case, I think an overhaul along the lines I suggested forms a good basis for discussion to see if some better ways forward can be developed. DDStretch (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that the "How to write about..." articles should be expanded to include more items. As a relative new-comer I would welcome as much guidance as I can get. They provide a good checklist for things to write about in an article, and should also be of some help in assessment. I also believe that this project should promote the creation of projects for every county. --Derek Andrews 17:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree the "How to" guides are the project's saving grace, and one of it's only real strengths. I've just made a massive overhall of the project's mainspace. - it's mainly cosmetic and can't see it being contentious. However, I've made a call to remove all names from the participants list - most were inactive, or, sadly, indefinately banned sockpuppets/vandals!

Feel free to make additional changes - mine were hopefully just the beginning! -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brownhills

Hi there

Would anyone from this project be prepared to look at this FAC? it's currently somewhat stalled, with only one editor having expressed a support/oppose opinion........

Cheers!!

ChrisTheDude 11:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This FAC's still in a somewhat stalled state, nearly a month after I put it up. If any editors from this project could take a butcher's it would be much appreciated :-)

Cheers!!!

ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been around and kicked the tyres a bit, so hopefully the FA director will promote this article on the next sweep. It certainly deserves to be an FA I think. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You've done it! Well done. If you've got any other articles you'd like me to come around and kick the tyres on, then just let me know. :) --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Re-rating

I've done a fair bit of work on the Redbridge, Southampton article, previously rated as a stub, today. I reckon it's now "B" class, but feel it would be a conflict of interest if I made that change myself. Any chance someone can review it and amend the rating as they see fit? Cheers, Waggers 11:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly a "start" class article and now no longer a stub. There are a few discrepencies though. I'll leave a review at the talk page if you like. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be great, thanks. Waggers 14:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

New article assessment/project progress system

Hello again team! Just a note that, as part of the revamping of the project, a new assessment guide has been implimented by User:And-Rew (to whom we should give thanks!) for use with this project.

For those unfamilliar with the system (which brings us inline with other WikiProjects), it allows us as a team to review the progress of the project, see what work has been done, and how much work remains outstanding. It aids us in categorising our articles according to strengths (or weaknesses) and develop a hierarchy of tasks by importance.

Challenge: We're required to assess all of our articles from hereon to obtain a full picture of progress. It's a massive task, but in time, with teamwork, it can be done. Thanks folks, -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I found the problem was that an old outdated assessment scaled was being used and on many articles within the project it has been assessed by quality and priority when it should be class and importance respectivly. This means that basically all articles need to be re-assessed properly with the {{WPUKgeo|class=|importance=}} template. Good luck! Find the unassessed articles on Category:Unassessed UK geography articles.

_└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 22:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we first need to agree on an assessment scale for rating the importance of UK geography articles. I propose that the four countries and capital cities be rated as "top", all the counties and any settlement with a population of over 100,000 be "high", and any settlement with a population of over 10,000 be "mid". Epbr123 (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I like that, sounds reasonable enough to me. Any ideas as to what constitutes a "low" article? Under 5, 2.5 or 1 thousand perhaps? Also I think there will be some seminal articles that will also need to be top rated, such as Geography of the United Kingdom, City status in the United Kingdom (+ Borough status), Wards of the United Kingdom, Counties of the United Kingdom and such.... -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Any settlement under 10,000 would be low. I agree with the seminal articles being top rated. Epbr123 (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The size of a settlement seems a reasonable indicator (except maybe for the smallest city etc), but what about ranges of hills, major rivers etc. Please could people adding this banner to talk pages where there are already one or more from other projects please nest them using {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} to stop them taking over - this was one of the requests when Wikipedia:WikiProject England recently started adding the assessment banner to thousands of pages & this project wouldn't want to cause similar annoyance. — Rod ^talk 15:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

For rivers, I think it should be "high" for those over 100 miles long, and "mid" for those over 10 miles. For mountains, "high" for the highest in each country, and "mid" for those over 1000m high. National parks should be "high", and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty "mid". Local government districts should be "mid". I know the size of a settlement, river etc. isn't a totally accurate measure of its importance, but it does has the benefit of being objective, allowing articles to be rated consistently by different users. Epbr123 (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Manchester

Just to let people know that Manchester is up for WP:FAC! Please add any comments with support or opposition (with details why please) on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manchester if you have not significantly contributed. Thanks in advance! _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 01:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Roads in the United Kingdom

I have created this article today. It still needs some work and references for some sections. Any help is appreciatedRegan123 (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC).

Wow that is some great work! You really know alot about roads! _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 18:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I worked backwards - searched on things and then got the references to write from. There is more to add, but it is good to get going Regan123 (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions for suburbs within unitary authority cities

There's a discussion at Talk:Southampton#Naming_of_articles_about_city_suburbs suggesting that the established naming convention for settlements should be ignored in the case of Southampton, for no reason I can ascertain! Additional input there, or here, would be appreciated. Waggers (talk) 10:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Cities

User:Epbr123 has been tagging many small British villages as being within the scope of WikiProject Cities. Is this true? At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities#Project name someone has queried this on the grounds that they are not "cities". Also, I note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities#Article naming conventions says article names must include the name of the state, which would mean that we would have to rename our articles to include ", England" etc. JonH (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed a lot of places being tagged as well. I did wonder about the advisability of doing so, thinking that the UK geography project, with its WP:UKCITIES project guidelines would be sufficient. It also would not draw in editors who would try to fit the articles into a structure which was unsatisfactory and which led to the development of WP:UKCITIES in the first place. I think it best to remove them, if that is an option that we can discuss. DDStretch (talk) 13:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would benefit us to withdraw all UK settlement articles from WikiProject Cities. The more help our articles can get, the better. Also, no project owns an article; one project can't demand an article be removed from another. UK editors are still more likely to use the WP:UKCITIES' guidelines than WikiProject Cities'. Epbr123 (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we need help, and I also reject any idea that we own any articles. But from what you write, you are effectively saying that you added them, and added they will stay, as a kind of fait accompli. DDStretch (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If there is consensus among the members of this project, I will cease adding the WikiProject Cities tags. But I'd like to hear a few other people's opinions first, so we can agree whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Epbr123 (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to stop adding them now, and only agree to restart adding them if there is a consensus to do so? It would minimize any continued feelings of fait accompli. After all, as I said, the reason for the development of WP:UKCITIES was that the primary guidelines given under the WikiProject Cities project were inadequate. As JonH wrote, there are conflicts between them, and situations not suited for the UK settlement case. Additionally, the original guidelines were often quoted in a way which hindered UK articles achieving FA status, and I think the addition of the WikiProject Cities guidelines would work againts the good work that has been done to avoid this in the development and then use of the WP:UKCITIES guidelines. DDStretch (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'll stop adding them now. Epbr123 (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Tips for improvement and assessment.

I've done some work on Ashurst Wood and I've been following the helpful instructions on WP:UKCITIES. I was hoping that somebody here could help me out by suggesting other things that need to be done to improve the article. Also, the article is still currently rated as a stub and needs reassessing. As I've been looking at this article for a while now, I think it'd be better if somebody else did the assessment. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You've done a very nice job with that article, with an impressive numbers of references for a village. On quickly looking through it a few things jumped out. I think that there are too many wikilinks for things that don't need them, such as sheep and pigs. In some places the language will be considered by some to be a little bit too relaxed, for instance pub is a word that sometimes gets criticised over the more formal public house, and using the word "amusing" in the PRAWN section will likely be seen as POV.

The only other thing I'd say is that with a good copyedit – which I think the article does need – it could be a strong candidate for GA. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, as the lead is meant to be a summary of the article, everything in the lead has to be mentioned in the body of the article. Maybe you could include a section called something like Community Facilities where you could mention the schools, transport, etc. Epbr123 (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of pedantry, I'll simply point out that the WP:LEAD guidelines do not require that everything in the lead has to be mentioned in the article. "Significant information [my emphasis] should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although specific facts, such as birthdates, titles, or scientific designations will often appear in the lead only." Your suggestion about a Communal facilities section is a good one nevertheless. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips, I'll work on copyediting and neatening. If I were to create the Community facilities section with details about the 3 schools in the village, public transport, etc. (There's also a community funded bus and mobile library that might be worth mentioning), would the Sports and recreation section become a sub section of Community facilities, or would it remain separate? ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think sports and recreation would need to come under the Community facilities heading. Whether sports and recreation should form a subsection of Community facilities will depend on whether the info on schools, transport, etc. is long enough to also form its own subsection (called something like "Other facilities"). If not, the two will need to be merged into a Community facilities section, without the subsections. Epbr123 (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Merging projects

Embedded audio as a guide to pronunciation

Following a discussion between Jza84 and myself here and here, I have created some .ogg audio files of pronunciations of various UK places: see this user subpage for what this means in practice. I have recorded a spoken version of the place name, uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons and linked it using the {{Audio}} template, which as you will see from the five examples does not lead to a significant change in the appearance of the article's lead paragraph. The idea was inspired by a comment on the WikiProject: Spoken Wikipedia talk page, and by examples of embedded pronunciations in various Dutch geography articles (such as Zwolle, Enschede and Overijssel, albeit using a slightly different audio template); in particular, I felt that as a non-Dutch speaker who nevertheless has some idea of how the language is spoken, the audio was very useful in clarifying it.

Anyway, I think it would be useful for similar embedded audio to be added systematically to British place/county/district/river/etc. articles. I am willing to write notes on how to achieve this, create a place within or outside this project to collect and sort links to the pronunciations, and actually do as many recordings as I can (they don't take long). Any thoughts, comments, ideas, changes, objections etc. are welcome. Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

In principle it's a great idea, as many people (myself included) have no clue as to how to read/write IPA. The downside is that ideally you'd need two audio recordings for many articles - one in received pronunciation and, where relevant, one using the local accent. There is likely to be some debate around the correct pronunciation of some place names, but that aside, I think this would be a useful addition. Waggers (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent idea! --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea (particularly as you've used Somerset as an example) but have some questions/problems:

When I look at the Somerset article I can't see it - how do you include it, get it to play etc?
Machines on my work network can't play .ogg files (I will try again at home)

Any help with 1 appreciated - I know No2 is my problem.— Rod ^talk 13:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I finally got it to play (by adding codecs etc) - but it doesn't sound like a Somerset accent - would it be useful to ask at the relevant WikiProject (eg Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset ) for a native speaker to record it?— Rod ^talk 13:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(←Unindent) Thanks for your comments so far. Rod — I haven't added them to the actual articles yet; I decided to be more cautious than bold and stick them on my user subpage until agreement had been reached that they are worthwhile! :) Later tonight I'll put them in the actual articles. I did think about the regional accents issue; I can supply straight-down-the-line RP and a bit of South-East England, but I'd better not attempt any regional accents (even though people tell me I'm quite a good mimic of certain accents). Therefore, it would be lovely to have volunteers with suitable accents providing some recordings; and I will write a guide on how to do this. All you need is one freely-available sound-editing program and a microphone, and it's easy and quite fun! Hassocks5489 (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Great - I will put a request on the Somerset WikiProject asking for native speakers who could record it - as an aside are there any experts in IPA who could add this "translation" to the article if they do not already have them?— Rod ^talk 14:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(Line break) I've added a sub-project page and info on the main page just now. ~~I haven't had a chance yet to link the five "trial" files I've uploaded to their relevant articles.~~ Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Added now. I anticipate adding many more files in the next few days. Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly like linking the bolded title of the article in the first sentence, but more importantly, placing the small (help info) in the main text straight after the first word is very disruptive. Do you think there would be an appropriate way to fit the ogg links in parentheses with (or like) the IPA pronunciation, instead? JPD (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The {{Audio}} template is the standard, recommended one to use for this purpose, but there is a variant called {{Audio-nohelp}} which omits "help" and is a bit less intrusive. The only way I can see of not linking the article title itself (i.e. leaving it as plain bold text) is by placing the Audio template immediately after the title, which gives a more intrusive result. Comparison:

Urmston is a town within... (Audio template linked to article title)

Urmston is a town within... (Audio-nohelp template)

Urmston pronunciation is a town within (Audio template following article title)

Let me know your thoughts. Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the ideal would be if it was possible to just click on the loudspeaker, as in that third version. Maybe the template could be amended to allow that? --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I prefer

Urmston (pronunciation) is a town within...

as suggested by the {{Audio}} documentation. The more difficult case is when there is an IPA pronunciation with a link to the help page as well, although perhaps some variation

London (pronounced /ˈlʌndən/ (help·info)}}) is the capital city...

with a pupose-built template, would work. JPD (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just stumbled upon this and have to say it sounds like a great idea. I do like the idea of giving the pronunciation in RP and in local accents. I can already think of problem places though such as Bury, locals often say "Burry" whereas I have always been told it is pronounced "Berry". I hope you can roll this out across all articles though as it will be useful for many people not familiar with the areas. Also Hassocks5489 you have a great RP voice, sounds like you would be great announcing train information (I don't know if you think that is an insult or not!). _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 15:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I like Malleus's suggestion of just including the speaker icon (if someone is able to adapt the template) - but it is important for those not familiar with .ogg files that they can get some help playing them. My worry is that when a local accent version as a well as the RP version we have at present, how will that be linked/represented in the article?— Rod ^talk 15:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

What about combining the .ogg files, so that the audio contains both RP and regional variations? --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

(←Unindent) Thanks again for the feedback.

There has been a lot of discussion over a long period on the {{Audio}} template talk page about the best way to display inline audio clips for purposes such as word pronunciations. It appears that:
- The link cannot be reduced to a single icon such as the speaker icon, unfortunately
- The file info (the data stored at Commons, containing the licensing etc.) must be viewable via a link next to the audio file
- The overall "standard" is the {{Audio}} template, but there can be variation in exactly how it is formatted.
I'll continue with the "third" option as detailed above for now, as this seems to be generally popular (and I did find out on one of the talk pages that linking directly to the article title, as I have done so far, is naughty and not allowed except in exceptional cases: I'll go and change the "first five" in a min). I'm inclined to think it looks better with the parentheses, as shown on JPD's comment at 15:58.
I like JPD's IPA template proposal. Perhaps this could be used temporarily, pending a move across into mainspace? (Or is it "templatespace"?!) I couldn't find any ready-made alternative which already includes both audio and IPA links, so it would seem to be a reasonable addition.
Combined .ogg files with RP + regional equivalent would be good, if a bit difficult to create (splicing two files together and attempting to match sound levels). Certainly not impossible, though. The problem is eliminated when a place has two spellings, such as Cardiff/Caerdydd: the relevant pronunciation can be linked to the relevant spelling. An inferior solution might be to have the local pronunciation stored separately, perhaps using the {{Listen}} template. This runs the risk of making the local pronunciation appear less important or relevant — not a good impression to give. Hmmm ... I'll give this one some thought...
I'll provide RP for as many places as I can in the next few weeks. Last night I recorded and edited all of the top 65 places from List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population, but I haven't cut the one long file up into 65 individual files yet. Next up: probably some smaller but more confusingly-pronounced places.
As a rail enthusiast, I can say I would love to be a station announcer — and for many routes I probably wouldn't even need a script to work from! Too much time spent travelling around weird places, collecting tickets and looking at the GB Rail Atlas, I think... ;) Hassocks5489 (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing work on this. I'm sure we come up with a list of place name which might be a challenge :-)I' start with Chedzoy, Nempnett Thrubwell, Ruishton & Westonzoyland (all with a Somerset accent).— Rod ^talk 20:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Blimey, I thought Sussex had some tricky place names :-)! The next set I'm going to record should be interesting — I'm going to choose some of the more prominent entries here. The full set of London Boroughs should be uploaded and linked by the end of the week. Hassocks5489 08:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hassocks, I also liked what you've now done on the London page, although I changed the IPA link to the Help page used by {{EngPron}}. I don't know whether that or my template suggestion is better, but if anyone wants to use my template idea, feel free to copy and paste it into templatespace. (Moving might not be a good idea, as it is my template sandbox and the history contains all sorts of things from different experiments.) JPD (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, good idea there, JPD: I've used your '''[[Help:Pronunciation|IPA]] {{IPA|/xxxxxxx/}})''' coding on other pages where there is already IPA in place. Hassocks5489 08:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an excellent idea. Unfortunately, I lack the technical expertise to work with these... I am not a fan of IPA for one very basic reason - yes, it's "international", but like Esperanto, only a handful of people actually know it to a great degree, which undermines its "internationalism".

I definitely think that places with names which are not written phonetically, e.g. Fowey & Launceston in Cornwall, Happisburgh etc in Norfolk, Wymondham etc, in the UK need these... plus those in Welsh and Gaelic, whose pronounciation may not be obvious to an English speaker. We have hundreds of such names in Scotland... both Lallans and Gaidhlig. --MacRusgail (talk) 12:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Shapinsay FAC

The article on the island of Shapinsay is now a Featured Article Candidate. Please go to its nomination page to give your opinion. Lurker (said · done) 13:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Burgess Hill, West Sussex

I had a query regarding the classification of the article Burgess Hill. When I had it reassessed, it was assessed as a B class article, but since then, it has been reclassified as a Start class article. I was just looking for confirmation that this was a deliberate change, as it hasn't changed much since the time it was reclassified, and I thought it was unusual that it had changed to Start class. Also, there was no mention of it being reclassified on the talk page of Burgess Hill, unlike the last reclassification.

Thanks for taking a look,

80.229.16.243 20:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've changed it back to B. I either downgraded it by mistake, or I was in a harsh reviewing mood at the time. Epbr123 21:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:UKCOUNTIES

Hello team! Just a note that, in response to our very successful WP:UKCITIES guidelines, we now have a WP:UKCOUNTIES guideline. Feedback or rollout is more than welcome! Hope it helps, -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

National parks of England and Wales

I've started looking at National parks of England and Wales as I've been editing Exmoor trying to get it up to GA & was looking for ideas. I'm amazed that this is still a FA with no inline citations to verify the information given, which may not have been required when it became an FA in 2004 but is now. I'm happy to do some of the work on improving this if others are willing to help - otherwise would it be best to put it up for Wikipedia:Featured article review on the grounds that it fails 1(c) of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria which says "that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations where appropriate." Putting it up for FAR may get a wider audience & more people to work on it, but before this is necessary would anyone from this wikiproject be willing to help?— Rod ^talk 21:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

FAR National parks of England and Wales

National parks of England and Wales has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.— Rod ^talk 20:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Altrincham

Hello team,

Just a note that Altrincham is a current featured article candidate. The nomination/discussion page is found here. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Advert and todo...

Hello again team,

Just a note that we now have our own advert, kindly created by User:WebHamster. It is as follows:


Wikipedia ads	file info – #111

I hope this is well recieved!

While I'm here, has anybody thought about how we could revamp/update Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/todo? It appears a little stale. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting up north

The Shapinsay FA nomination has been opposed by an editor who feels the article could be with some more copyediting. Two of us have made some improvements, but a copyedit from someone who isn't so familiar with the article may catch things we've missed. Lurker (said · done) 12:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Shapinsay- help!

Hello, folks. Shapinsay has been copyedited, objections have been addressed, there are no oppose votes left. However, we could do with a little more input. I'd hate to see the article fail to be promoted simply because not enough people took part in the vote. Whether you decide to vote support, or have constructive criticism to offer, your participation on the candidacy page would be much appreciated. It's been up there a while and is near the bottom of the page, so time is surely running out. Lurker (said · done) 15:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you don't have to worry, Shapinsay has just been promoted. Congratulations! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Somerset FAC

Somerset is a similar position to Shapinsay above, having been at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Somerset for a while with all comments addressed but not enough support & likely to fall off the bottom of the list before long. It would be great if anyone could suggest other things which would improve the article enough to get the support needed.— Rod ^talk 15:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Somerset is now getting dangerously near the bottom of the FAC list and hasn't yet got sufficient support. If anyone had time to review the article & place any comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Somerset we may be able to address them before the article fails to get promoted within available time.— Rod ^talk 09:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Old Harry Rocks

This article needs work (or deletion) --AW (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Metric vs Imperial

I currently have Wormshill at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wormshill and one editor is insisting I use metric throughout. I have used miles for distance and metric everywhere else - I took Sheerness and Chew Stoke as just two examples of this. The FAC reviewer is suggesting that neither of those articles should be taken as precedent and indeed should be taken to FAR as they breach FA criteria. Please could editors let me know where I am going wrong and exactly where Wiki stands on the imperial/metric debate in UK GEO articles. Many thanks Dick G (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That FA reviewer is talking bollox. :) See here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree; the convention is clear. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the real objection was to inconsistency within the article miles(km) at some points and metre(feet) at others which I have corrected & I've responded on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wormshill. I've also added a response to the reviewers comments at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Metrics in UK-related articles pointing out that the EU has withrawn the requirement for a change in UK law.— Rod ^talk 10:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

When the editors writing the MOS don't even know what it says, what chance do we mere mortals have in trying to comply with it? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

As I and others have said before, this parody of professional copy-editors' comments is one reason why I and others are not bothering with submitting articles for FA status. The reviewer in question states somewhere that wikipedia demands prose of a brilliant and professional level. Reading his comments, it is sad to see that the demand for such brilliance, consistency, and professionalism does not extend to the comments made by reviewers. (I speak as someone who has done such work myself in the past for a variety of paper-copy publishers.) DDStretch (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If you Brits want this changed back to the way that I originally wrote this in the MOSNUM, then you need to speak up in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Metrics in UK-related articles as Rod has already done. For the record, the original bullet gave you the choice of which order to place the units in within the article provided that they are consistent throughout. This was later changed by an editor from Germany to its current reading of metric first except for traffic situations.—MJCdetroit (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Calling all members!

What is the project's take on this and this?

User:Mais oui! has been removing the UK geo template from "Scottish" talk pages without asking us here. It's hard not to assume this isn't a nationalist breach of WP:POINT and WP:OWN, but I wondered what others thought about this. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Scotland peer review

The Scotland article is a peer review candidate. If anyone here wishes to contribute, they will be more than welcome. Lurker (said · done) 15:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Bucks Hamlet

Unfortunately, this is not about a new brand of drink or the county-in-question's take on a Shakespearian play!!!

It seems strange. Most of the settlements in Category:Hamlets in Buckinghamshire would be classed as villages, e.g. Loudwater. And yet...
Why is this?

Am i missing the definition of a hamlet? Should other places be checked?

Simply south (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

What I think has happened here is that when that category was created, the traditional definition of a hamlet was used as inclusion criteria, i.e. any small settlement within a parish that doesn't have its own parochial church. Since then a lot of those articles have been changed by people using the more modern definition of a village, i.e. based on size. It does depends on what definition you are using for British places. -- Roleplayer (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I would say however it's always best to go along with what source material says for maximum verification. If a local history book says town, village or hamlet, try to go with that rather than personal criteria. If no source about it exists, try to apply the WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:CONSENSUS priniciples to reach a compromise/conclusion. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wales categories

I came across these categories. The 'traditional' ones contain contemporary places as well as ancient hundreds. I'm wondering if a good move would be to create a Category:Monmouthshire (historic)‎ to match the article Monmouthshire (historic), but only put things relating to the ancient administration of the county, rather than the current arrangement where we have contemporary places and things categorised by historic designations, which is against the spirit of WP:PLACE. Any thoughts? MRSC • Talk 15:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I can see logic in this proposal, but would this have implications for England too, where I know this kind of categorisation has been fiercely resisted? I would have hoped the prose in the various articles would properly elaborate on boundary changes to avoid confusion. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I would support removing them entirely. I much prefer sticking the usual practice or categorising by current units. MRSC • Talk 17:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the traditional categories stuff should be removed. We should, as MRSC states, use current units in our categorizations. Jza84 is correct in suggesting that carefully phrased prose in relevant articles would deal entirely with various boundary changes, etc. DDStretch (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I'd have to agree with sticking to WP:PLACE as strictly as possible. It's certainly the stance taken in English and Scottish articles, and one could raise questions (albeit rather silly ones) of having Category:Mercia (historic) or Category:Places formerly in Roman Britannia or Category:Confederate States of America (historic) etc. Furthermore, we'd have issues of enclaves and exclaves and non-static/disputed archaic boundaries. Certainly WP:UKCITIES outlines good suggestions for going about tackling prose for changes in administrative boundaries. -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Shall we CFD these? MRSC • Talk 16:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I spotted the question earlier, but was hoping someone else would answer as I think my standpoint is already clear (!). In the absence of futher input it does seem like the right step forwards. However, I've left a note about this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wales to be inclusive however. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I came because of that note. In general I think it should be the current units that should be categorized, but I can see some exceptions possible if the place was particular relevant to an ancient unit. Agathoclea (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"The 'traditional' ones contain contemporary places as well as ancient hundreds." You should have seen them, and the rest of the so-called traditional counties categories for Wales before I started on the long and laborious task of recategorising several hundred Welsh towns, villages, castles etc which had been arbitarily placed in the trad. counties categories and, incredibly, deliberately excluded or even removed from the modern administrarive areas categories (I have a selection of over a dozen diffs on file, all by a certain editor who seems to have a mission to marginalise the modern counties and present Wales in its pre-74 boundaries). I guess I've missed a few, just got tired of doing it all on my own. I'm glad you're looking into this and considering what to do. Some of the castles / archaeological sites / etc still need sorting into new, contemporary categories. I'd be glad of any help and advice. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. There is so much work to do in that area that its daunting, but nothing is impossible. Do you have a list of things that still need doing? MRSC • Talk 00:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Just been having a quick look through some of the Wales cats after seeing your message. Actually it's not as bad as I thought. The main problema are in south-east Wales, especially Glamorgan. I've also left quite a few empty categories in the trad. counties which need deleting (unlike on cy., I'm not an admin here). A few to sort out (more tomorrow?): Category:History of Wales by locality, Category:Archaeological sites in Glamorgan, Category:Castles in Wales (I created some new cats here but simply dumped some sites in this general category for now, after removing them from the 'historic counties'). It's geeting on a bit so I'll get back tommorrow to sort through everything again, hopefully. Plenty of stray articles in 'hist.' cats as well that I wasn't sure what to do with - maybe they warrant being there after all, for historical associations. Enaidmawr (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to depopulate/recategorise this now, starting with Monmouthshire. Historical stuff can go in categories like History of Monmouthshire. From what I can see, these categories are currently acting like forks of each other. MRSC • Talk 09:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Yes, things are bad. For example Gwent (county) was not categoried under Gwent, but under Traditional county of Monmouthshire. Very sad, but not impossible to fix... MRSC • Talk 09:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

A quick update. Categories needing particular attention: Category:Towns in Wales by historic county, Category:Glamorgan. Categories emptied and awaiting deletion (please!): Category:Towns in Cardiganshire, Category:History of Cardiganshire (these have been replaced with equivalent Ceredigion categories); (Category:Archaeological sites by historic county)*, Category:Archaeological sites in Glamorgan; (Category:Castles in Glamorgan)*. (*already deleted it seems). Enaidmawr (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If there is a planned "grouped" deletion nomination, entries like Category:Grade I listed buildings in Yorkshire might also be suitable here. There seems to be alot of Yorkshire categories that organise and imply that the ceremonial counties which bear the Yorkshire name are somehow sub-districts of Yorkshire - often redundantly too (so W.Yorks is in UK and Yorks categories). -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

County agglomeration categories such as Yorkshire and Glamorgan are not neccassarily a bad thing, depending on the contents. Category:Glamorgan as it stands at the moment is a somewhat random collection of towns and features which should all be removed and categoried by current subdivision. MRSC • Talk 17:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree that Glamorgan is a special case. However it is important to distinguish between Glamorgan (Morgannwg) as a distinct geocultural area within Wales (bro would be the term in Welsh) with a history of about 1500 years and Glamorganshire which is a former administrative unit. We have a category Morgannwg on cy. which deals with the area as a bro (rather like Gower or Llŷn for instance). I think that is perfectly acceptable, but a category for the former county as such should, as you say, not contain articles on places and structures etc other than as sub-categories from the current unitary authorities , where appropriate. Enaidmawr (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Congestion charging

Could i please divert people to a discussion on congestion charging in general? Opinions and ideas welcome. See WT:MWY#Congestion charging generally. Simply south (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Geocompass?

About a week ago an anonymous editor added this section to the Kidderminster article and a few others, calling it a geocompass. It's certainly not something I've ever seen before on any other UK town articles and personally I think it looks untidy and is unnecessary. I've posted here in order to guage opinion before I removed it. Simon KHFC (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen it before, as it was the subject of some small discussion on an article I can't recall. That article had its old-style compass-table (as can be seen, for example, in Warrington#Geography) replaced with this geocompass. The new one is overbearing, in my opinion, and the large graphic in the middle dominates the table completely. It makes the entire geocompass far too large, in my opinion. After some discussion, when the creator of the geocompass said the old-style compass-table had faults (which he was, I recall, unable to specify), the table was reverted, and the creator agreed to look into changing the format of the thing to take away its totally over-large dominance for the information it conveys. Obviously, it hasn't happened. I would change it (back) to the old-style compass-table, after careful thought about whether such a table is really needed in the first place. DDStretch (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Aha! Found the previous discussion: it was in the obvious place: Template talk:GeoCompass. I don't think my views have changed much. DDStretch (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not keen on that version too, based purely on personal tastes and sensibilities. There is an alternative "plainer" version I've used here and there. An example is found on Neilston. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Versions aside, I personally really like the Geocompass idea. Thanks for pointing out the template, I'll probably start using it soon! Waggers (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Lists of English people by location

I've created Category:Lists of English people by location to contain the variety of articles that fit this description. Trouble is, they are all very inconsistently named. I'd apreciate some input on what the standard naming should be. I am warming to the idea of "People associated with" because of its eleasticity, but would apreciate the views of other editors. MRSC • Talk 00:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You're certainly on a roll of late! I think I need to start drinking whatever you're on! I spotted this a while back but didn't dare tackle it because of the scale of the problems like you point out.

I was thinking "List of people from X" which seems to get around the birth/residence issue. To me at least, this doesn't sound as ambiguous and nervous as the "association" proposal. I could live with either though. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

List of people from matches up with the categories we've used on biographical articles so that makes sense. MRSC • Talk 07:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with "List of people from X" or "List of people associated with X". At the moment in other lists there is "residents" or "inhabitants" in the title, or in other lists are "Natives of X" or "...ians". I feel it would be a good idea to have some consistency with these page titles. Cwb61 (talk) 13:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to start moving the articles to "List of people from X". That may generate some more input. MRSC • Talk 13:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Barrow-in-Furness

I've raised some concerns about the "over ethusiasm" exhibited in this template and was wondering if I could get some input about this at Template talk:Barrow-in-Furness. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox historic subdivision

I've been busy expanding Template:Infobox historic subdivision, which now replaces a variety of infoboxes for historic subdivisions and incorporates fields found in Template:Infobox England historic county and Template:Infobox London Met Borough. They are nominated for deletion. MRSC • Talk 20:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have incorporated articles using Template:Infobox Wales historic county, which is now also nominated for deletion. MRSC • Talk 15:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles on hundreds

I wonder if we could gain some consensus on articles about hundreds. All that I have encountered so far have been in the past tense: Becontree (hundred), Ossulstone, Elthorne, Agbrigg and Morley, Barkston Ash (wapentake), Charlton (hundred), East Goscote (hundred), Hartismere (hundred), Salford (hundred) etc. i.e. the hundred is something that has fallen out of use. However, User:Owain has been changing these articles to the present tense. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. MRSC • Talk 22:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

These "hundreds" articles have been troubling me for a while. The vast majority are poorly, or completely unsourced. I would imagine that most people think of these as archaic territories (though can't be sure of course). Some citation would help. I found a few sources that Salfordshire was abolished in 1971, but other sources say it was just its court (although this rendered the territory void). More research is needed in my opinion, though for now I'd certainly stick with past tense. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There's also Hundreds of Cheshire (which I have started, and is due for expansion when I get a few others things out of the way). I have a number of quite reputable sources to expand that one, including maps, and have sources for how the Domesday Hundreds transformed themselves by loss (to Wales) and amalgamation into the last hundreds in use (half of the number of the Domesday hundreds). I don't see there being much use in having separate articles about each hundred unless the content of each within this article gets too large to fit comfortably within it. Someone else had already started Hundred of Wirral, which I think is effectively little more than a stub wrapped around a list, and could easily be merged in the Hundreds of Cheshire article. I may well propose this. I think the basic approach of writing about the hundreds within a county in one article named "Hundreds of XXX", and only breaking some out into separate articles if they become too large to fit in the "Hundreds of XXX" article is the best way forward. DDStretch (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple of issues at stake here. One is notability - WP:N says that notability is not temporary. If we were writing Wikipedia back when hundreds were the way of administering the country, each hundred would certainly warrant an article of its own. On those grounds, each hundred should have an article of its own. But it's important to remember that hundreds have, by and large, been replaced by other areas such as parishes and wards, and thus most articles on hundreds should in fact be redirects to their modern day counterparts - for example, Redbridge (hundred) redirects to Redbridge, Hampshire, with the hundred referred to in the history section. I think this is the way it should be done - at least a redirect for every hundred, and a mention of every hundred somewhere in Wikipedia. I think "List of hundreds in [county]" lists are a good idea too as they're a useful reference, and that's what an encyclopaedia is meant to be. Waggers (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this alternative should be considered in conjunction with what I have started in the case of Hundreds of Cheshire. I say this, because in some cases, there are no clear or unique successors for the hundreds in modern day entities, and so it is not clear just what the redirects should be pointing to. It is far better in these cases either to deal with Hundreds in an overall "History of XXX-shire" article, or else to split these out into a "Hundreds in XXX-shire" article (as I have done in the case of Cheshire). This then avoids potential disagreements on just what any redirection to a modern-day entity should be pointing to. The issue on notability is well-made, as we do not really want many articles about each specific hundred littering wikipedia unless there is something really notable about it. (The example of Hundred of Wirral is a case in point where I think it should be merged into the Hundreds of Cheshire article.) Thus the approach of only splitting out to separate articles if and when required seems appropriate to me. DDStretch (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Having had a flick through some Hundreds articles, I'm coming round to a series of amalagamated articles, like Hundreds of Lancashire, Hundreds of Oxfordshire etc etc. The vast majority are little more than stubs. If some really are notable enough they can split into their own articles I guess, otherwise it makes more sense to me to go for DDStretch's approach and keep them in a healthy sized article. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the merged articles. We can then be more selective about the hundreds we wish to develop into full articles. MRSC • Talk 17:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Owain has restored these articles to the present tense for a second time [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Perhaps these Monmouthshire hundreds are a prime candidate for conversion into a single article. It seems pointless edit warring over an article that contains only a few lines of text. MRSC • Talk 04:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

May be the development of a project guideline for these kinds of non-functioning entities would be an idea? That way, we can see if there is a project-wide concensus directly specifying that as a rule, these should form part of a single article which groups corresponding entities together, and that separate articles for any of them should only be considered if the specific entity is notable in its own right? If we try to be inclusive, we can deal with Ancient Parishes as well (I'm thinking of doing an article on the ancient parishes of Cheshire), and we could also then recommend we consolidate the pre-1974 districts, etc into single articles by the same reasoning. It would certainly make for a more consistent and well-structured approach that would aid people's understanding of how things were organised in the past, as we would then be implementing a "top down" approach to describing them, well in keeping with wikipedia. DDStretch (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone find a citation for the actual abolition of the hundreds and wapentakes? Until we have our finger on that I am uncomfortable being too harsh on use of the present tense. Howard Alexander (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried to find information about this, but could not. Perhaps others could find more definitive information? If, indeed, they were never abolished, it seems that we have entities that no longer have any real function, and it would seem that one could describe their boundaries, etc, in the present tense (of one really wanted to be minutely precise on grammar), but that one should take care to write about their functions in the past, since they have no effective functions in the present day. Would that be at all acceptable? I must say my own inclination is that a too close attention to grammatical niceties about distinguishing present tense (for existence) and past tense (for functions, etc) may bring more problems that it solves (try explaining it when they go up for GA or FA status, for one example). In which case, I would say we should go with past tense. DDStretch (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've found a couple of sources (but not ones I'd use as references) which mention the hundreds being formally abolished as units of local government in 1867 & they definitely still existed in 1851. In 1867 there were several Local Government acts. According to British Political History, 1867-1990: Democracy and Decline By Malcolm Pearce, Geoffrey Stewart see [12] the effect was the creation of the 62 elected county councils. However I don't have access at present to the full text of the act. Alternative sources suggest that the Local Government Act 1888 might be more relevant.— Rod ^talk 21:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Map makers

I'm doing some work expanding articles on the 1894-1965 districts of Middlesex such as Municipal Borough of Willesden. I wonder if there are any map makers around who would consider producing maps similar to those used in the County of London subdivisions, such as Metropolitan Borough of Paddington. There are some maps in the public domain for guidance [13] and I have access to [14] from which I have managed to get data for the districts in 1961 but have no idea how to turn that into a map. So can anyone help directly or point me in the direction of suitable software? MRSC • Talk 14:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Vernacular cultural regions

I have recently watched several spats between editors of geography articles on Wikipedia, so I took the time to research some views on what constitutes geographical areas. As a result, I think that part of the problem is that contributors to articles on historic counties and traditionally recognised regions are writing about vernacular culture regions (VCR's). These are defined in a Wikipedia article on cultural regions as:

Vernacular Culture Region- is one that is perceived to exist by its inhabitants, as evidenced by the widespread acceptance and use of a special regional name. Some vernacular regions are based on physical environmental features; others find their basis in economic, political, or historical characteristics. Vernacular regions, like most culture regions, generally lack sharp borders, and the inhabitants of any given area may claim residence in more than one such region. It grows out of people’s sense of belonging and identification with a particular region. E.g. One popular region in the US is “Dixie”. The often lack the organization necessary for functional regions, although they may be centred around a single urban node, and they frequently do not display the cultural homogeneity that characterizes formal regions.

On Wikipedia these views of a region are sometimes referenced to cherry picked online factoids or websites which have been designed and written by people with similar views, opinions and beliefs. If this is so, then Wikipedians can either ignore, war against or accept (with caveats) these genuinely held views. I am proposing that we accept the idea of vernacular cultural regions so that we can curtail and/or redirect what is perceived to be vandalism but is actually a contribution being made in good faith by someone who genuinely wishes to participate. The articles can be clearly flagged (with appropriate explanation) as being about VCR's. Other users and editors would not then be misled, confused or annoyed by inappropriate edits made to other geography articles. I am not suggesting dumbing down. The concept gained respectability in the U.S. and was the subject of research in the 1980's. The same standards need to apply as to other Wikipedia articles.

I appreciate that some information will be duplicated in other articles, but what harm does this do?

A first draft suggestion for the structure of articles on VCR's is:

Approximate location and boundaries

These are often not precise (see definition above)

Physical environment

Hills, mountains, lakes, rivers, climate, seashores, mineral deposits

Economy

Main industries, agriculture, crops, employment/unemployment

Politics

Present and historic affiliations in the region

History

The growth of settlement, immigration/emigration, past glories, battles etc.

Culture

Food, music, traditions, dialect.

Sport

Major sports & teams

Media

Regional T.V., radio and newspapers

Legends and folklore

(This will probably grow and grow to make separate articles - maybe several)

Notable landmarks

Buildings, parks, etc.

Notable people associated with the region

Many of these topics will need to be linked to substantial articles and well referenced. There is the obvious danger of writing that does not maintain NPOV because of regional pride and affiliations.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you give examples of where this guideline might be applicable? We do have WP:UKCOUNTIES set up for former/historic/ancient county boundaries. Is this guide on cultural regions intended for other entities? -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

When I wrote,I was thinking in particular of Yorkshire.The shire county no longer exists as an administrative area but as a VCR it is alive and well!! There is confusion over the use of past/present tense when writing about historic counties as they still exist as cultural entities as per the above definition. I certainly do not support the reinstatement of old boundaries. Other regions might be the Midlands, the South West, the East End, East Anglia, Wessex in the England.In the U.S. there are the Belts e.g.Bible belt.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You could consider South West England which is fairly nebulous eg does it include Glos - but the Government regional office boundaries seem to have been adopted & link that to West Country dialects which is even more "undefined".— Rod ^talk 13:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Certainly of the examples you mention East Anglia would benefit from some kind of order, as would others like the Black Country and the West Country, but I'm not too sure about Yorkshire myself, it being a county. Indeed WP:PLACE outlines that mentions of Yorkshire's familliarity, customs and traditions are quite permissable to mention in articles. Is there anything in WP:UKCOUNTIES that you feel doesn't adequately cover Yorkshire? The only heading I can see that is missing from UKCOUNTIES is the Legends and folklore section (though there are Culture, History and Legacy sections). The introduction of a guideline that acts as a fork for others could be a confusing way to take this. What I'm saying is I'd be much more inclined to build upon existing guidelines rather than develop parallel ones to them. If Yorkshire requires some excemptions from UKCOUNTIES, the guide itself (which is only a guide) does say this is perfectly fine. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I thought that mentioning Yorkshire might confuse the discussion because it is both an historic county and a region with a strong regional identity. (I agree that the guidelines on counties are comprehensive and well thought out yet I would still like to clear up the conceptual struggle that some editors seem to have between historic counties which ceased to exist in 1974 and writing about things that have happened in the area since then. e.g. The Arctic Monkeys were formed well after the historic county of Yorkshire ceased to exist.) However the main suggestion was that there are more nebulous culturally accepted and named areas which defy exact geographical definition and yet they still exist in the perceptions of the inhabitants. Perhaps this could somehow be acknowledged in the guidelines? --Harkey Lodger (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheadle Hulme

Hiya, could somebody come over to the Cheadle Hulme page and see if we deserve a B-rating yet? :) Chris Martin (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Another couple of sections needed first, in my opinion. If you need further advice, there's more info at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements. Epbr123 (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Epbr123. I'd also suggest taking a look at the WP:UKCITIES guidelines for some ideas on how to structure this article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Categories relating to boroughs (again)

A new-ish user appears to have stirred up the hornets nest that is naimg of categories relating to boroughs again. I have started a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester. Pit-yacker (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

On a slightly related issue, a Category:Liverpool City Region seems to have been created, and Halton (borough) has just been added to it. Halton is still in the ceremonial county of Cheshire, and I don't know what the status of "Liverpool City Region" is. Can anyone shed any light on this? My inclination is to remove Halton from the category, but want to check things first. In fact, does the category have any use at all, or should it be deleted? DDStretch (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Fingerpuppet is/was a bit of a whizz on urban areas from memory. I'd recommend contacting him for pointers. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

City Regions are controversial at best, and are currently semi-official areas where local authorities co-operate. The Liverpool City Region is, however, one that has taken hold better than most. It consists of the "core area" of the Merseyside Metropolitan Boroughs, plus Halton, and the "outer area" which includes Ellesmere Port & Neston, Warrington, Chester, West Lancashire, Denbighshire and Flintshire.

As to the use of a category, personally speaking I don't see the point - but then I don't have a strong urge to delete it either. If it stays, then it needs all the other local authorities adding to it. I can see controversy on the horizon when some of the outer area get added to the category, though. Fingerpuppet (talk) 06:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. A reference has been supplied for this, and so it has a reason to stay, but, like you, I don't see the need for the category unless it is complete. Also like you, I am sure some will start to object if the other, outer areas, get added. DDStretch (talk) 11:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)