Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject UK geography page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
What's new | ||
---|---|---|
Categories for discussion
Good article nominees Featured article reviews
Requested moves
Articles to be merged
Articles to be split
| ||
Did you know? articles[edit]Rosal, Sutherland (2024-05-25) • Newlyn Tidal Observatory (2023-11-20) • Godalming (2023-09-20) • Reigate (2023-09-10) • Woking (2023-03-18) Reached maximum of 5 out of 300 Featured pictures[edit]
In the News articles[edit]Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City (2021-07-22) • 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods (2009-11-21) • February 2009 British Isles snowfall (2009-02-06) Main page featured articles[edit]Coventry ring road (2023-07-23) • Combe Hill, East Sussex (2023-01-11) • Brownhills (2022-03-03) • Abberton Reservoir (2021-09-05) • Shaw and Crompton (2021-08-15) Reached maximum of 5 out of 71 Main page featured lists[edit]List of scheduled monuments in South Somerset (2023-12-22) • List of castles in Greater Manchester (2023-04-07) • List of Shetland islands (2022-05-20) • List of freshwater islands in Scotland (2020-04-24) • List of scheduled monuments in Taunton Deane (2018-10-26) Reached maximum of 5 out of 7 | ||
| ||
Archives[edit]
- /Archive 1 – 2005
- /UK or home nations in introductions – August 2006
- /Archive 2 – 2006 – Feb 2007
- /Archive 3 – Feb 2007 – Oct 2007
- /Archive 4 – Oct 2007 – Feb 2008
- /Archive 5 – Feb 2008 – March 2008
- /Archive 6 – March 2008 – June 2008
- /Archive 7 – June 2008 – Dec 2008
- /Archive 8 – Jan 2009 – May 2009
- /Archive 9 – June 2009 – July 2009
- /Archive 10 – August 2009 – February 2010
- /Archive 11 – March 2010 – January 2011
- /Archive 12 – January 2011 – March 2012
- /Archive 13 – April 2012 – April 2013
- /Archive 14 – May 2013 – August 2013
- /Archive 15 – August 2013 – April 2014
- /Archive 16 – April 2014 – August 2015
- /Archive 17 – August 2015 – September 2017
- /Archive 18 – December 2017 – October 2019
- /Archive 19 – October 2019 – April 2021
- /Archive 20 – April 2021 – May 2021
- /Archive 21 – May 2021 – August 2021
- /Archive 22 – August 2021 – October 2021
- /Archive 23 – August 2021 – October 2021 (Historic counties discussion)
- /Archive 24 – October 2021 – January 2022
- /Archive 25 – January 2022 – June 2022
- /Archive 26 – April 2022 – September 2022
- /Archive 27 – September 2022 – October 2022
- /Archive 28 – October 2022 – May 2023
- /Archive 29 – June 2023
- /Archive 30 – June 2023 – July 2023
- /Archive 31 – June 2023 – July 2023
- /Archive 32 – June 2023 – August 2023
- /Archive 33 – August 2023 – September 2023
- /Archive 34 – September 2023
- /Archive 35 – September 2023
- /Archive 36 – September 2023
- From old WikiProject UK subdivisions
Disagreement on Christchurch article re:settlement definition[edit]
There is a dispute at the article for Christchurch, Dorset over whether, how, and in how much detail, the article should cover Bournemouth Airport – a major employer which was in the now defunct borough of Christchurch, but some distance outside the built-up area in a neighbouring parish. This is essentially a difference of opinion on how to handle the ambiguity around defining settlements. If you think you can help resolve this, join the discussion at Talk:Christchurch,_Dorset#Bournemouth_airport. Thanks, Joe D (t)
New GSS template[edit]
Would there be much support for a combined GSS template to replace the separate English, Scottish, Welsh and NI district and county templates listed here?
Having just updated them all, it's driven home what a pain in the bum they are to maintain. They draw their information from the same source.[1] But process it in needlessly different ways.
And a combined template also has the flexibility to include any area with a GSS code which the ONS includes in its population stats, including the UK, the nations, regions, and perhaps the city regions if/when the ONS eventually includes them.
My suggested fields would be:
- GSS population
- GSS area
- GSS density
- GSS year
- GSS reference
For the rank fields, we can either keep them separate or else have combined fields but separate the data within the template. The latter is straight forward enough if you're familiar with the templates. The GSS codes are helpfully separated first by letter (E for England, S for Scotland etc.) And then use different codes depending on the type of area e.g. E12 is a region, E08 is a metropolitan borough etc.
It wouldn't be necessary to go through and remove all the old template references. The old templates can be updated to point at the new GSS templates. E.g. | E09000016 = {GSS population|E09000016}
The ceremonial county templates would need to stay as they're not included the ONS publication. Dgp4004 (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Mid-Year Population Estimates, UK, June 2022". Office for National Statistics. 26 March 2024. Retrieved 3 May 2024.
District template[edit]
Can a template be created that is similar to Template:RWS that links to a district by typing the short name, for example {{lgd|Stafford}} would go to the Borough of Stafford artcle. Maybe this could have a parameter:
- none = would link to the borough, Stafford
- 1 = linking to the council article, Stafford Borough Council
- 2 = Stafford borough
- 3 = Borough of Stafford
- 4 = Stafford (Staffordshire)
The template could automatically retrieve if it is a district, borough, city, etc.
I might try myself to do it, no clue how to but I can learn if somebody is able to help. Chocolateediter (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- There is no consistency with article naming, like there is for "X railway station". We can link straight to the intended article. I'm not sure there is a problem to be solved here. Rcsprinter123 (collogue) 23:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- It is not a problem to solve but a suggested tool for editors so that if you want to link to a specific district but don’t want to find for example if five of them are metropolitan boroughs, five use district and one has (unitary authority) in their article name.
- They is a consistent use of piping these often 4 or 5 titles to a single word to merit the template’s creation. The railway station links also tend to do simular piping, that is the whole point of the stnlnk/ rws template. Unless the stnlnk template needs, in some users’ eyes, be removed and everybody forced to link to the exact title, removing the whole redirect concept.
- The fact that they is less consistent naming of articles makes it worse to find the right link and an even more useful a template to create. The parameter can come along later for varying the display name.
- I created redirects so that all the Local government districts (LGD) can be easier to find for building the template and maybe for the template to use, until then these are shorter and consistent link format for piping. Local government district redirects to the Districts of England article so I thought LGD would fit as a short template name as district goes to the international article. If England only uses the term local government district then LGD seems an appropriate and consistent acronym for a template.
- I was a bit pushy with changing established links though sorry about that. Chocolateediter (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Too risky! As Rcsprinter says, there's no consistency in naming, or at least not enough (and trying to enforce naming consistency to make the template work would not be universally welcomed). Also, we don't have articles on every variant and some articles may be about another place of that name. So to use the template safely, you have to confirm the target, in which case you can aim straight at it anyway. NebY (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see what problem thus is trying to solve, really. PamD 03:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- When you have long-ish lists you have to think which is which borough, city or (district) when linking and a lot of the time you just want the short name. Could go through and create a consistent redirect for all districts but the parameter would be quite good to set for example to show the county.
- As I said I have no clue how to make a template so I’d need talking through it. No worries if no body can be bothered, it’s just a suggestion. If anybody wants to do it and not teach me that would be great as I can be lazy, but then again I think I might create redirects anyways. Chocolateediter (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- I see you've already created nearly 150 redirects,[1] such as London LGD, redirecting to City of London. You might do well to discuss your approach to creating such redirects here, in case there are concerns that their naming and/or targeting might direct readers inappropriately when searching. Broadly speaking, the convenience of an editor creating list articles must be secondary to the experience of readers. NebY (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- That illustrates the point very well, because the local authority for London could just as validly (and with a lot more power) be the Greater London Authority. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- So the editor making the list needs to check the dab page or primary topic to make sure they choose the right link to make (UK, current, if that is what they need) PamD 06:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- I see you've already created nearly 150 redirects,[1] such as London LGD, redirecting to City of London. You might do well to discuss your approach to creating such redirects here, in case there are concerns that their naming and/or targeting might direct readers inappropriately when searching. Broadly speaking, the convenience of an editor creating list articles must be secondary to the experience of readers. NebY (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13 concerning three of the "foo LGD" redirects that have been created, and I have asked there how the other 282 may be best considered, procedurally. NebY (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Noting that all 282 redirects have now been bundled into that discussion. All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] 14:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Parishes v other features[edit]
When a parish shares the same name as a settlement most of us know that we almost always have 1 article for both meanings like Sutton Cheney but I'm less sure about other types of places like parks and buildings, see Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about parishes#Parishes with the same name as other types of places. The article in question is Blenheim Park which User:Dudley Miles has removed the information. I think when it comes down to things like castles and other buildings it often makes sense to have separate article though this is often weaker if the parish only contains/contained the building its self and the building's grounds but when it comes down to parks often the parish will cover/have covered a similar area to the park so its probably best combined, thoughts? Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- The county council page for Blenheim Parish Meeting gives its website address as www.blenheimpalace.com and the information that the clerk of the meeting is in the estate office of the palace. This intimate connection suggests to me that the parish should be covered in the article for the palace. I expect an interesting paragraph could be written about the history and any present-day consequences. JonH (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Sub-national geographic flag guideline[edit]
Given my last attempt to create a guideline on flags through an open discussion didn't work at all, I thought it might be easier to give everyone a pre-written guideline to comment on. I've written it to apply to all UK articles, but it could easily be amended to focus only on certain nations (England?). Let me know what you think:
Subnational geographic flags
The counties, principal areas, council areas, and other subnational regions of the United Kingdom use a variety of flags. In many areas, semi-official flags are in popular use; some of these have long histories, but the majority have been designed since 2000. These flags, particularly the historic county flags registered with the charity the Flag Institute, have since 2010 received some recognition from the British Government. For example, they do not need planning consent to be flown in England, and the British Government has marked Historic County Flag Day. Nevertheless, the exact status of these flags can be unclear.
The following guidelines are designed to address this uncertainty by standardising how Wikipedia editors handle the flags. In particular, they aim to avoid giving undue prominence to flags which may not be in widespread use, and to properly contextualise the history of a flag and the area it covers. The guidelines apply to any subnational geographic flag in United Kingdom, including the flags of counties, districts, settlements, and other regions.
Before creating an article for a subnational geographic flag, or including such a flag in the article about the area it represents, the following should be taken into consideration:
- To whom it belongs. In particular, flags based on the coat of arms of a council are usually the property of and represent that council, not the area it governs.
- Whether the physical flag is widely used, or if it primarily exists in an online database such as the Flag Institute’s Flag Registry. Flags which have an exclusively or primarily online existence are not typically as notable as those which are in physical use, and may not meet the threshold for inclusion in the encyclopedia.
- The area the flag represents. For example, if a flag was designed to represent an historic county, rather than its contemporary equivalent, then this should be explicitly noted. This is the case even if the flag was designed after the historic county was superseded for ceremonial or local government purposes.
When placing a flag in the article about the area it represents, the following should additionally be taken into consideration:
- Where in an article to place the flag. The article body is preferable to the infobox, as it allows for a fuller explanation of the flag, its context, and history. In particular, a flag should not be placed in the infobox if it represents a different area to that which the infobox covers.
- When placed in the article body, place the flag image close to text explaining (where known) when it was designed, the area it represents, and when and where it is flown. If the flag has its own article this section can be a shorter summary with a link to said article.
A.D.Hope (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
Please start the discussion below this heading. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)