Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 42
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 35 | ← | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 |
Removing redirects (re-creating pages)
CLARIFY - the discussion below is about reverting the blanking & redirecting some time ago of nearly 50 poor-quality road articles to a single list. --10mmsocket (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not "to a single list" but to the relevant one of A roads in Zone 1 of the Great Britain numbering scheme and its sisters. PamD 15:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I hope this finds you well. There is an ongoing discussion taking place at the following articles, regarding whether the current redirects should be removed, which may be of interest to this WikiProject:
Please see the necessary talk pages for more information. Regards, Roads4117 (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Roads4117 Could you clarify this? The first link, Talk: A109 road, has no mention of any disccussion but A109 road redirects to A109 dab page, no problems there. The second, Talk:A110 road, redirects to Talk:A110 road (England), where you have made a complicated statement which ends up with "
If I don't hear anything back in the next few days, then I will more than likely remove the redirect
". A110 road should, and does, redirect to A110 as there are several roads there (2 roads and a motorway). What do you mean by "Remove the redirect"? A110 road (England) should redirect to A roads in Zone 1 of the Great Britain numbering scheme, as it does today, until there is an article about the road itself. If you have sources to create an article, you can do so, overwriting the redirect. What is the problem? PamD 14:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)- In short: If by "remove the redirect" you mean "delete the redirect", don't do it. If you mean "write a well-sourced article overwriting the redirect", then do it. PamD 14:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I did some digging PamD and I think what the editor is saying is undo the original redirects, e.g. diff. That would be a bad thing IMHO as all the redirects seem to have been done of the right reason. Writing a completely new article, like you say - go ahead. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Roads4117 A less controversial but useful job would be to ensure that all these roads are represented in the lists like List of highways numbered 109, which doesn't include the English A109. See List of highways numbered 1#United Kingdom for the way it's done (eg under U for UK not E for England). PamD 14:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would but I will be busy from now until Sunday, so someone else may have to do it. Sorry for the inconvenience. Roads4117 (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- No hurry: it's not an urgent job and has been left undone for probably years in some cases. There is no time limit. PamD 14:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Roads4117 (talk) 09:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- @PamD, digging around a bit more, it seems as though this is a bigger thing, as lots of the articles do not include the United Kingdom, or if they do, then they do not include B roads. Roads4117 (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- No hurry: it's not an urgent job and has been left undone for probably years in some cases. There is no time limit. PamD 14:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would but I will be busy from now until Sunday, so someone else may have to do it. Sorry for the inconvenience. Roads4117 (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Seconded. Keep the redirects until a dedicated article can be made. — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 15:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC) 15:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @PamD, I hope that you are well and sorry for over-complicating things! That was totally a mistake on my behalf; I was meant to write Talk: A109 road (England) and Talk: A110 road (England). What I mean by remove the redirect as in short, revert the edits by @Ajpolino and @Ritchie333, to create a well-sourced article overwriting the redirect. The reason why I put the message on the talk page and did not do it straight away is because I wanted a consensus and overall opinion on the matter. The editor that redirected some of the pages, @Ajpolino, has given this move the go ahead on my talk page. I hope that answers all of your questions! Regards, Roads4117 (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- The rule will always be: if you can produce a well-sourced article on the road, do so. Don't just revert to an unsourced previous version. PamD 14:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Roads4117 And have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A2199 road (2nd nomination) to be reminded of considerations around notability: we don't just need proof that the road exists and goes from A to B via C (which can be well summarised in a list like A roads in Zone 1 of the Great Britain numbering scheme), but that there is something notable about it - follows line of ancient Roman Road, was built as a turnpike road, has been the subject of numerous controversial planned new schemes, etc. PamD 14:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- See A82 road and A215 road and the other UK road Good Articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways#Good articles for ideas about road articles and sourcing. PamD 14:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- And I wonder how many other UK roads should really be converted to redirects, if A132 road (England) is typical: the only "source" is Google maps. Is it time for another sweep through to redirect unsourced roads with no claim to notability to their relevant lists? PamD 15:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @PamD Personally, I just think we should turn all these kind of articles into much better articles. But there is an ongoing conversation at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Websites for road lengths which is discussing using Google Maps as a source for Wikipedia, as right now, there are only two websites you can use as a reference (unless if you know of some others), with those being SABRE roads (of which is made by road enthusiasts and therefore is unreliable, so you cannot use that), and Google Maps (which some may say is original research). Roads4117 (talk) 08:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- And I wonder how many other UK roads should really be converted to redirects, if A132 road (England) is typical: the only "source" is Google maps. Is it time for another sweep through to redirect unsourced roads with no claim to notability to their relevant lists? PamD 15:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- See A82 road and A215 road and the other UK road Good Articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways#Good articles for ideas about road articles and sourcing. PamD 14:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Roads4117 And have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A2199 road (2nd nomination) to be reminded of considerations around notability: we don't just need proof that the road exists and goes from A to B via C (which can be well summarised in a list like A roads in Zone 1 of the Great Britain numbering scheme), but that there is something notable about it - follows line of ancient Roman Road, was built as a turnpike road, has been the subject of numerous controversial planned new schemes, etc. PamD 14:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- The rule will always be: if you can produce a well-sourced article on the road, do so. Don't just revert to an unsourced previous version. PamD 14:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- In short: If by "remove the redirect" you mean "delete the redirect", don't do it. If you mean "write a well-sourced article overwriting the redirect", then do it. PamD 14:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- It would be much better if you had the discussion in a single place rather than create a virtually identical discussion on 49 different articles (discussions that should always be posted at the bottom of the talk page b.t.w. - as you failed to do at Talk:A1066 road). When you look at the blanked/redirected articles you'll see they were nearly all unreferenced and ranged from virtually empty stubs to unsourced articles chock-full of original research - see the last revision of the same A1066 article as an example. I don't see any compelling reason to overturn what was a really good move for Wikipedia. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- The reason why I put the messages on 49 different articles was because I had already put it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways, but then no-one replied, plus as well I wanted editors to know that there had been a consensus on restoring the page, unlike in February 2018. Roads4117 (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Can I suggest that you remove all 49 discussions to save any further confusion and focus any feedback here? 10mmsocket (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would, but I spent my whole Thursday putting them up, for potentially no reason, and as well, I am unavaliable later, so it would take forever. Roads4117 (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I can take them down in a couple of minutes if you want me to. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- At the very least, anyone responding should be directed here and their response shown here. If no-one's responded, a simple notification that there's a discussion here would be better than the current text. NebY (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Good point. I'll happily do that. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- All done! Each in individual discussion now has a reply pointong back to here. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Great! NebY (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes just redirect them all here. Then there is no more misunderstandings and miscommunication. Roads4117 (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've also fixed the few talk pages on which you top-posted. Next time you might want to click "New section". 10mmsocket (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @10mmsocket The reason why I did not do that is because I was just copy and pasting onto every discussion page, with just a few changes made here and there. Roads4117 (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Understood. As long as you know next time not to top-post. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @10mmsocket The reason why I did not do that is because I was just copy and pasting onto every discussion page, with just a few changes made here and there. Roads4117 (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've also fixed the few talk pages on which you top-posted. Next time you might want to click "New section". 10mmsocket (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- At the very least, anyone responding should be directed here and their response shown here. If no-one's responded, a simple notification that there's a discussion here would be better than the current text. NebY (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I can take them down in a couple of minutes if you want me to. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would, but I spent my whole Thursday putting them up, for potentially no reason, and as well, I am unavaliable later, so it would take forever. Roads4117 (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Roads4117: You need to clarify what you are asking people to support or oppose. Do you mean "Revert all 49 redirects to unsourced/otherwise dubious articles", or "Work through each of the 49 roads and carefully create a well-sourced article, where sufficient sources are available, perhaps initially based on reverting to the previous version but then adding good sources and making it an acceptable article"? PamD 15:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @PamD, my aim would be to revert the redirects, but over time, collaborate with other editors to create a well-sourced article. Roads4117 (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Why not just do them one at a time? Revert one, upgrade it to a well-sourced article demonstrating notability, then move on to the next one. PamD 04:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- @PamD, that was my plan; do them one-at-a-time, and try my best to make the best possible article (and even maybe aiming for Good Article (GA) contention). However, currently I think/know I am a long way off that. This is because an article I was the main author of, A508 road, has recently been nominated for deletion, as you can see at this link here. Therefore, I would probably (definitely) need a little help to get me on my way (just one or so article(s)),then I can do the other 47/48 articles by myself. Regards, Roads4117 (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Roads4117 If you had just taken the redirects one at a time and upgraded them to worthwhile, well referenced, articles, no-one would object: the problem was the proposal to, apparently, reinstate all the old versions at once. For now, perhaps concentrate on the AfD discussion of the A508 and see how that works out, trying to enhance the article with relevant sourced content. PamD 11:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- @PamD, that was my plan; do them one-at-a-time, and try my best to make the best possible article (and even maybe aiming for Good Article (GA) contention). However, currently I think/know I am a long way off that. This is because an article I was the main author of, A508 road, has recently been nominated for deletion, as you can see at this link here. Therefore, I would probably (definitely) need a little help to get me on my way (just one or so article(s)),then I can do the other 47/48 articles by myself. Regards, Roads4117 (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Why not just do them one at a time? Revert one, upgrade it to a well-sourced article demonstrating notability, then move on to the next one. PamD 04:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @PamD, my aim would be to revert the redirects, but over time, collaborate with other editors to create a well-sourced article. Roads4117 (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Support
Comment copied from User talk:Roads4117#Un-redirectifying road articles
- Hi Roads4117. I see you posted on the talk pages of a handful of road articles I redirected several years ago. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Sadly, I doubt there's anyone else watching those talk pages. I support undoing the redirects. Back in those days I was wiki-young and wiki-impatient and got wrapped up in an effort to reduce a backlog of uncited articles. Now with a bit more time, I think it's clear the encyclopedia is better with those road articles intact, than with the redirects to a list that just shows "from", "to", and "notes". I'd suggest you just go ahead and revert right away. I don't think anyone else is likely to notice and comment on those pages. It looks like I hit 19 road pages, all on the same day here. If no one objects and you don't get around to it, I'll undo this weekend when I have a moment. No need to wait for me though. All the best, Ajpolino (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support an attempt to work through each of the 49 roads and carefully create a well-sourced article, where sufficient sources are available and the road is notable, perhaps initially based on reverting to the previous version but then adding good sources and making it an acceptable article. PamD 15:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment, be free to re-create any page with a well-sourced version (which I think you mentioned) meeting WP:GEOROAD. But don’t just revive any of the poorly sourced older versions. DankJae 15:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support overwriting redirects with individually written well-sourced articles that demonstrate notability. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose any suggestion to revert all 49 redirects to unsourced/otherwise dubious articles. PamD 15:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I object to you doing a mass-revert. Wikipedia is way better off without a bunch of mostly unsourced original research. Less is sometimes much better. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. In my view, no roads at all are intrinsically notable. WP:GNG still applies. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose mass reverting redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Now the action to create redirects has been taken, article recreation should be considered on a road by road basis with regard to the usual notability and sourcing expectations. Poor articles previously existing does not give them a right to re-emerge. Rcsprinter123 (lecture) 23:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. I've taken some time to read through the discussion. I oppose performing a mass-revert. If these routes are notable, then it would be better to write an article per route than mass-reverting all of the redirects. There is no need to rush the process of article creation. --hmich176 08:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, yes I strongly oppose this action. Will mass reverting redirects help the Wikipedia user? I don't think so. Redirecting it can give the user some information even if it is not enough to create an whole new article for the road. SethWhales talk 10:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. If the roads qualify for stand-alone articles at all, then write articles that comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and have significantly greater value to our readers than entries in a list article. The mass posting to article talk pages includes "
I cannot see what singles out the A109 or A508 for special treatment
".[1] A508 road is not a good model; it is padded with commentary (the only area in Leicestershire to be included in the Sunday Times Best Places to Live 2023 guide
), trivia (some allotments and Market Harborough cemetery on our right
), continual breaches of MOS:WE (We turn right onto Northampton Road from Springfield Street
), and more (We also now have to say goodbye to Kelmarsh, and hello to Maidwell...
) - it's only recognisable as a Wikipedia article by its formatting. I can't see what's singled it out for special treatment either. NebY (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)- @NebY, these breaches have since been removed by Steinsky. Roads4117 (talk) 08:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- The next thing someone should do is take out the whole "Distances" section. Full of original research and excessive detail. Surely there's no place for things like this on Wikipedia? 10mmsocket (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Personally I believe it's beyond redemption, so A508 nominated for deletion 10mmsocket (talk) 09:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- @NebY, these breaches have since been removed by Steinsky. Roads4117 (talk) 08:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Ilford, for example
I'm puzzled by where the default definition of UK places comes from. Ilford provided an example of what I'm trying to get at: A reference says "Ilford is made up of 12 wards in the London Borough of Redbridge: Aldborough Hatch, Barkingside, Cranbrook, Clementswood, Fairlop, Gants Hill, Vicarage, Loxford, Mayfield, Newbury Park, Seven Kings, Hainault and Valentines." I followed the link and found no explanation of the make up of Ilford by ward - the wardsare of London Boroughs.
Also "Ilford is divided between the UK Parliament constituencies of Ilford North and Ilford South." This is v unclear. Ilford South constituency includes places that are clearly not in Ilford, but the wording suggests that 'Ilford' comprises the two consituencies. There's no definition of Ilford given or sourced with which to compare the other information given. 82.45.172.71 (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for querying that. We don't improve if we don't challenge. There's a guide at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements which may or may not have been followed in the case of Ilford. Maybe you should take a look and see if you can see any glaring issues – then either fix them or report on the article's talk page? 10mmsocket (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the population figure in the infobox of Ilford (which that reference is supposed to explain) is problematic. It seems to be derived by totalling the populations of selected wards, but I see no reference indicating that Ilford is made up of exactly those words in their entirety. Random checking shows Catford, Wembley, Twickenham and Feltham have similar issues, in the latter case with significantly more wards included than is justified by the description in the body of the article. Some other London districts don't have population figures and that might be for the best.
- I disagree on the second point. If we wrote that Ilford is divided into two constituencies, that would
suggest that 'Ilford' comprises the two consituencies
, but the article says it is divided between two, fully allowing for the possibility that those two contain more besides. NebY (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for River Don Navigation
River Don Navigation 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. Z1720 (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for England
England 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. Z1720 (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Curlie (DMOZ)
Those who have been around a while may remember that DMOZ and subsequently Curlie were recommended in WP:EL as a way of reducing excessive external links. This was done in a lot of UK settlement articles and a number links to Curlie remain today. Over the years Curlie became less useful and more spammy, to the point where it now looks like Curlie has been shut down. I have nominated the {{Curlie}} template for deletion as it is no longer useful, and having the template deleted should hopefully mean it will then be robotically removed from any article that contains it(??).
Here's a link to the TfD discussion if you would like to comment Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 September 20#Template:Curlie. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
This is a pretty poor article, with very little content apart from a mile-by-mile route description (obtainable from any good road atlas). There's nothing about its history - Romans? Turnpike roads? Importance pre-M6? Current developments? PamD 08:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I looked at it while joining the discussion about road length sources at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Websites for road lengths as I wondered how it treated the non-existent stretch of A6 in my local area ... but was shocked by what a poor article I found so thought I'd alert potentially interested editors who might like to have a go at improving it, posting here and also at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#A6 road (England). PamD 09:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Anyone thinking about tackling this would do well to read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A508 road first. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Could we do something where we gather all of the information that needs to be factchecked, added, removed etc onto a table on one page, and then when we have a spare minute or two, just go through and do some, and that way things are slowly improving. Would that work? Just a suggestion. Roads4117 (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- It would be useful to have one or more examples of a well-written UK road article - but they seem thin on the ground. Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Highways#Recognized_content, there are a few UK Featured Articles - but all for bridges or short streets. There are just 5 Good Articles for UK A roads. Perhaps someone should draw up a guideline as to what an article on a UK road shouuld look like? Perhaps starting with "What makes a road notable?" PamD 22:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, I will start an article on this topic immediately. Roads4117 (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- The page can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/Road article improvements. Roads4117 (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- That page is now at Draft:WikiProject UK geography/Road article improvements as it has not yet been accepted as part of this Wikiproject. NebY (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- @PamD, @10mmsocket and @NebY: do you guys have any more ideas of things that I could put on this page? Roads4117 (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- It would be useful to have one or more examples of a well-written UK road article - but they seem thin on the ground. Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Highways#Recognized_content, there are a few UK Featured Articles - but all for bridges or short streets. There are just 5 Good Articles for UK A roads. Perhaps someone should draw up a guideline as to what an article on a UK road shouuld look like? Perhaps starting with "What makes a road notable?" PamD 22:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Ward articles
It's been brought to my attention by @PamD that @DragonofBatley has created a few articles about wards within towns, e.g. Trinity, Louth. I don't have any inherent problem with this where a ward is notable, but it seemed wise to open a discussion to see what the general consensus is and save potential wasted effort.
To make the discussion easier I'll frame it as a question – what's the overall plan with these articles? A.D.Hope (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- I had a discussion a while back about this on Westborough Ward with User:Crouch, Swale. If they are notable, then yes but in reality most wards are not. Your example that was created Trinity, Louth to me doesn't not shout notable (a minor mention in a BBC article about wildlife murals, stats from city population which are not always accurate, a source that actually doesnt mention Trinity as a place (just the church) and a directory!). Davidstewartharvey (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- @A.D.Hope, did this recent discussion on the same topic reach a conclusion? Seems divided between WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND arguments, but no consensus reached? DankJae 14:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- There seemed to be a consensus there that wards aren't inherently notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, that's the half-remembered discussion I was asking @A.D.Hope about.
- Looking at it again, that discussion didn't even seem to take account of the situation where ward names are not settlement names - the wards like "North" or "Harbour", or the ones like "Lancaster Rural North". A ward is a boundary drawn on a map to define a group of voters to elect one or more councillors for one or more councils. It doesn't have any other significance, as far as I know. As I said in that previous discussion, we have treated them very inconsistently, and I really don't see the point in these articles.
- What would be much more useful would be a "List of wards of Xyz" (clearly defined as "As of date yyyy") for each "Xyz" which has elected councillors representing wards. This could be part of the article on "Xyz", probably in the governance section, or could be standalone if there was some good reason for it to be so. It could have incoming redirects or dab page entries for those ward names. It would possible be useful for the reader if it described which settlements, or areas of Xyz (eg "the area east of the river A", or "an area including the town centre and extending to the north east") were in which ward, with a map.
- I suppose we could have a few AfDs for wards of questionable notability, but it might be helpful to discuss it here, again, in a calmer atmosphere (and among people who understand UK geography, rather than AfD enthusiasts!) PamD 18:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- @PamD: That discussion did talk about the issue with wards named after settlements v those that aren't in the sense option A would support having articles on the likes of Lower Lune Valley that only exist as a ward as well as having separate articles on Silverdale, Lancashire (village and parish pop 1,559) and Silverdale (Lancaster ward) (pop 1,900) while C would still support having Lower Lune Valley but would have Silverdale, Lancashire covering both the village/parish and the ward. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- There seemed to be a consensus there that wards aren't inherently notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
I think it is first necessary to decide what type of content is desired in the articles. Is it information that is relevant to the precisely defined area of the ward (such as election results) or is it description that that is applicable to a vaguely defined part of a local-government district (such as everything that would go in an article about a settlement)?
Consider the case of Luton, a large town with a population of about 227,000. The navbox lists 19 wards and 21 areas of the town.
The local editors have written almost all of the ward or area articles as if each article covers a village. There are some problems.
- The navbox list of wards is slightly different from that at Luton Council website. This probably shows a Wikipedia maintenance problem: not enough editors to keep it up to date.
- The South, Luton article talks as if there is a place called "South", but I do not remember seeing that name used outside of Wikipedia.
- The wards and the areas are both trying to cover the whole town. These articles therefore have some duplicated content.
- Although most of the "area" articles have a name that I would recognise as a place in Luton, some of the articles define a boundary that is perhaps just the personal opinion of one editor, and perhaps some of the names are not widely used.
JonH (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- South, Luton shows several reasons why ward articles are not a good idea:
- It's virtually unsourced. Two "refs" are verifying the existence of local newspapers - but now redirect to the same shared page. The other ref links to the list of councillors, conveniently allowing us to check whether the list of 3 councillors is correct: no, there are now two councillors for South, both elected 2023, while the article lists 3 other names of councillors. Listing named councillors always seems dangerous unless we can be confident that "someone" will still be taking an interest in the article after the next local elections, and the next.
- There is a map of the wards, potentially useful except that it is hand-drawn by an editor and shows the wards in 2006-07
- The list of "local attractions" includes the Chiltern Hills and Whipsnade Wildlife Park (now Whipsnade Zoo) which isn't in the ward or even in Luton district, according to Mapit which puts it in Whipsnade parish in Central Bedfordshire. So the list is presumably repeated in every Luton ward article. It looks appropriate for a local tourism leaflet but is not useful here. A similar list appears at Luton#Local attractions where it seems much more appropriate, though even there it could usefully distinguish betwwen attractions which are in Luton and those which are nearby.
- That article really isn't a credit to the encyclopedia.
- Looking at South (disambiguation) illustrates our inconsistent approach to wards: there are entries for South (Cardiff electoral ward), South (Newham ward) (with a blue link to Newham London Borough Council, though the only mention of "South ward" is in specific-year articles like 1964 Newham London Borough Council election), and South, Luton. So what form of disambiguation should we use? It's a mess. PamD 20:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- My favourite hobby horse I know but this is yet another reason to have separate articles about the County Council/UA council/city council/whatever, separate from the settlement or District articles that is. Wards are inherently transient, their boundaries are determined principally to equalise electorates. They are purely administrative and belong in an article about the administration. Mostly there is not a lot to say about them that is encyclopedic and will withstand time and tide. I recognise that this is easy for me to say when I come from a UA that is fully parished but parishes do have longevity – future as well as past. So to get to the point: no, we should not have independent articles about wards, they should be sections of the relevant LA article. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- As I said in the discussion linked above by DankJae, wards are notable per GEOLAND. I am not opposed to them being included as part of an article on Xyz County/District/Borough Council or in a List of wards of Xyz County/District/Borough Council article though. I've destubbed/created a few ward articles and my thinking has always been that a brief history, boundary details and election results was a reasonable way to structure them. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Wards guidance?
Wards is a topic I've been wrestling with recently with the Bristol wards. I'm afraid I don't have strong feelings either way on the question of whether wards are inherently notable, so I'm taking the opportunity to hijack this conversation slightly and add a few random thoughts related to a slightly different question: should we have some guidance on whether/when to create a ward article, and more importantly, what it should look like when you do? I ask this because:
- Many of the established Bristol ward articles read like generic UK place articles, with UK place infoboxes and roughly following the "how to write about settlements" guidance. That makes sense when the name of the ward is in general usage as the name of a neighbourhood, but probably doesn't if it's only used as an electoral ward. E.g. I recently rewrote Ashley (Bristol ward) (old version) to refocus it on details relevant to an article about an electoral ward, using the ward infobox and making sure it's not written as though it's just about a neighbourhood of the city.
- I think some people perhaps have the mindset that because wards are "official" entities, they have more encyclopaedic legitimacy than other geographies that are more informally defined. This might be what led to one editor in the mid-00s merging a lot of Bristol neighbourhood articles into their ward articles – something I've had to undo recently with e.g. the Cabot ward neighbourhoods (because Cabot was abolished) and the Ashley ward neighbourhoods like Montpelier, Bristol (because of the rewrite).
- Where the name of the ward is in common usage as a neighbourhood, things get complicated. Eastville, Bristol is a good illustration of that – where the common usage of "Eastville" and the electoral ward are a Venn diagram, neither one entirely within the area of the other, and it's very difficult to find good reliable sources explaining the difference (but I've done my best!). I don't know whether it would be better just to split articles in this scenario (my instinct is against splitting, but the double infobox certainly makes things messy).
- A lot of people seem to be pre-emptively disambiguating ward articles with a "(ward)" suffix (e.g. Cornwall wards and Dorset wards), when more than half the time there is no need for disambiguation. I assume this is inspired by the convention for UK constituencies (which I also think is bad, but accept had a consensus behind it), but in the absence of any such consensus for wards should default to WP:TITLE which has a presumption against suffixes.
Back to the question of whether we should have ward articles at all, I know that should be a question of notability and shouldn't really be influenced by this issue, but List of electoral divisions and wards in Cornwall illustrates that having ward articles is inherently a big maintenance burden. Some years ago somebody put in a heroic effort to create articles on all of the Cornish wards, but the map was redrawn in 2021 and everything is very out of date now. Similarly, I'm still working my way through updating the Bristol ward articles and boundary maps eight years after the boundary changes happened! I don't know if having guidance and other supportive structure might help with keeping them up to date? Cheers, Joe D (t) 11:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't write it like a settlement, I'd go more along the lines of parliamentary constituencies because they are comparable - a ward is just a smaller version of a constituency. That's what I've done with any I've edited. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Media sections guidance
Do we need to add "Media" sections to our guidance articles? I'm starting this discussion here, rather than on the guidance pages, because this applies to both How to write about counties and How to write about settlements. Thoughts:
- The settlements guidance briefly mentions the option of including media (under culture). The counties guidance doesn't mention media at all. But a lot of county and settlement articles have media sections, many of them added systematically over the past few years.
- Surprisingly, I can't see that this topic has ever come up before in the UK geography archives.
- But I regularly see disagreements about what is notable/encyclopaedic vs trivia in edit histories for UK places.
- And a lot of current media sections are poor quality with common issues (unreferenced/low quality sources, lists instead of prose, etc)
- There appears to be a community of editors who are extremely interested in the minutiae of TV and radio – what can be received where, on what frequencies, and from which transmitters – who add information to articles that would be of interest to that niche community, but which I suspect is unlikely to be useful to the general reader of an encyclopaedia.
- Often those edits get tidied up afterwards by UK geo editors to keep them on topic to the place article, but not always/sometimes after a long delay, and we're not consistent in our decisions as to what is/n't relevant for a place article.
- Often the county and settlement articles duplicate information that is contained in articles about individual stations etc, so there is a question of what details are relevant enough to be included in the county/settlement article (vs just linking to the station article without duplicating such details).
- Many of our best articles, e.g. Dorset which has FA status, omit media sections entirely (relegating it to a brief subsection of the Economy article) – in the Dorset case, it did have a "Television" section, but that was deleted because it contained poorly sourced trivia. Others (Weymouth, Dorset, also FA) do have them (though I haven't trawled the page history to work out how much post-dates FA status).
- Some media sections – e.g. in Bristol – cover aspects of the creative industries (e.g. TV/film production in the area). That could equally be considered to be part of "economy" or "culture", and I'm sure examples could be found where we cover creative industries in those sections. Do we care that we're inconsistent, or do we want to agree a guideline on where creative industries belong?
- This discussion is prompted in particular by edits by 1.140.233.171 (talk · contribs) adding lots of unsourced material to county/settlement articles – e.g. in counties, BBC local radio stations which can be received in (parts of) the county (because obviously radio signals don't obey county boundaries), even when that station's editorial remit does not include the county – something that I consider trivia, but which it might be useful to have an established position on in our guidance?
cheers, Joe D (t) 12:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Long unreferenced list of newspapers, TV and radio stations, and worse still whether they try to explain whether have Points West or Westcountry Tonight (or whatever they're called) as their local news programme. Example South West England#Local media, which by coincidence had that section updated in the past couple of hours. It's as trivial, dull, and irrelevant as most "In Popular Culture" sections, which at least have strong guidance (WP:IPC) to justify pruning them. Perhaps that's what we need - a UK-specific guideline on the inclusion and content of "Media" sections for UK settlements and regions. In the meantime, nuke-em-all™ 10mmsocket (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- My instinct is that most settlements and counties don't have significant enough media to justify a standalone section. Lists of which radio stations etc. can be received in a given settlement are, unless actually produced in said settlement and of note, trivia and should be removed. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Would generally agree with A.D.Hope above. I copy-edit these sections when they're added to settlement articles on my watchlist rather than deleting them, but I do question their relevance and usefulness. The Buxton Advertiser should probably be mentioned in the Buxton article, but do we need to document that it's the local newspaper for all of the villages in the area on their individual articles? And the TV stations and transmitter cruft is even worse. Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- The IP above is currently blocked for disruptive editing, so as a start I got my red crayon out and went through the various settlement articles that he/she has edited. Good to have consensus here from nice people! 10mmsocket (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Wrexham § a city or the former town/city centre of the City of the County Borough of Wrexham?
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Wrexham § a city or the former town/city centre of the City of the County Borough of Wrexham?. Do we interprete the Letters Patent literally, and regard the City to be Wrexham County Borough and not Wrexham, which in turn is something, anything but "city". DankJae 16:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Great Ouse drainage in 17C
Can anyone help clear up an evident error? (see River Great Ouse#Drainage Acts). Specifically, does anyone have Boyes, John; Russell, Ronald (1977). The Canals of Eastern England. David and Charles. ISBN 978-0-7153-7415-3., which may have the answer. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Warning to watch pages
Important reminder to watch pages. I just came across one of the worst Wikipedia articles I have seen in my nearly 10 years on Wikipedia and it's been like this for months. With quotes like "In Ribblesdale, (In Renishaw Court) Teenagers usually smoke weed as reported by a resident on Facebook" and " Near Deltic Field, around August 2020, some unknown kids poured Petrol on the grass and attempted to light it on fire, which is extremely Dangerous, they succeeded in lighting the petrol on fire and to this day aren't caught. One of the residents have got pictures of the offenders." complete with a picture of alleged young offenders. AusLondonder (talk) 14:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- There was a watchlist for UK Geography, the link for it (List of recently-edited UK geography articles) is still on the main wikiproject page, but the tool that generated the list has not worked for many years. Some projects still have working watchlists to monitor for changes/vandalism, for example WikiProject Yorkshire has been using an alternative method since 2019. EdwardUK (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
District split
I've added a criteria at User:Crouch, Swale/District split for if Britannica mentions the settlement as well as district population. Of those that have pre 1974 boundaries only Basildon, Fareham, Havant and Gosport have settlement population mentioned by Britannica. Interestingly Britannica actually has separate articles for Basildon settlement and district rather than merely mentioning the difference in population and I'm counting Basildon as having longstanding boundaries even though it gained land from Thurrock Urban District because the area gained was in the designated new town rather than an entire parish. Havant is also perhaps a special case as the pre 1974 district was named "Havant and Waterloo". Of these 4 all are split apart from Gosport. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Village lock-ups in the United Kingdom
I'm working on creating a List of village lock-ups in the United Kingdom in my sandbox, with the intention that when it's complete it will combine and replace the "Surviving lock-ups in England and Wales" and "Gallery" sections at Village lock-up. I'd welcome comments on the (incomplete) draft and my approach.
- Is this a sensible approach?
- Should I include a Location column?
- I've included a Wikidata column. I don't recall seeing links to Wikidata in other Wikipedia link articles. Is this controversial? It's useful, particularly during construction, to keep track of existing Wikidata entities relating to lock-ups (I'm also attempting to update them and add images where available).
Comments welcome. Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- It looks good, better than whats currently there definitely. I think a location column is a must. I guess you could use articles like this for listed buildings, Listed buildings in Elstow as a guide. It might be good to have when the lock up was constructed on there, which should be in the official list entry on historic england. Eopsid (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks @Eopsid: others have made similar suggestions at User talk:Dave.Dunford/List of village lock-ups in the United Kingdom and I've started adding co-ordinates where available. I'm not sure about including the date of construction as a separate column, though: these tend to be low-key vernacular constructions and dates are often vague or speculative. I'll include a date in the notes if the listing or other sources give a definitive year of construction. I've also decided against a separate Wikidata column and (for now) put the link to Wikidata below the end of any notes. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think the construction date is still worth including even if its as vague as a whole century. Its included in articles like this Grade I listed buildings in Bedfordshire and the dates there vary from a year to as vague as just Norman. Eopsid (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Most lock-ups (though admittedly not all) will be roughly from the same period (18th/19th century) though. There aren't any Norman lock-ups. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think the construction date is still worth including even if its as vague as a whole century. Its included in articles like this Grade I listed buildings in Bedfordshire and the dates there vary from a year to as vague as just Norman. Eopsid (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks @Eopsid: others have made similar suggestions at User talk:Dave.Dunford/List of village lock-ups in the United Kingdom and I've started adding co-ordinates where available. I'm not sure about including the date of construction as a separate column, though: these tend to be low-key vernacular constructions and dates are often vague or speculative. I'll include a date in the notes if the listing or other sources give a definitive year of construction. I've also decided against a separate Wikidata column and (for now) put the link to Wikidata below the end of any notes. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Nice idea. My US$0.02:
- Put the coordinates into a separate column (nice but not essential), and (essential) give each set of coords a name, e.g. {{coord|51.1234|-2.3456|type:landmark_region:GB-SOM|name=Trumpton lockup}}. That way you can then use the {{geoGroup}} template to give links to an auto-generated map of all of the lockups.
- As others have mentioned, a sortable date column would be nice-to-have but not essential.
- I personally don't like the table colouring in the listed building column, not least because the blue-linked text to the reference fails MOS:CONTRAST rules.
- 10mmsocket (talk) 09:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll probably go with these suggestions (though I still have my doubts about the value of the date column). Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- OK, suggestions implemented. I'm still not entirely convinced by the date column, which feels a bit ahistorical for several reasons:
- generally the date is sourced from the National Heritage List for England (NHLE) entry, and my impression/experience is that the amount of in-depth research the inspectors were able to make on each building was limited, so they seem to me like vague guesses except where a property has a datestone or a third-party source has a date. Different inspectors make different calls.
- NHLE is often deliberately vague – "19th century/Mid-19th century/Possibly early 19th century" etc. – and I sometimes feel I'm giving the dating an air of certainty and confidence that was never intended.
- The next best source is the Prison History website, and that often refers to NHLE or to user-generated blogs. I worry about user-generated and single sources.
- Sometimes sources are inconsistent.
- there's also the difficulty of knowing which date to use when a lock-up is inserted into an older structure.
- Convince me it's worth keeping? Thanks for the feedback so far. Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Nice work. One more thing on coordinate precision - 4 digits is considered sufficient for landmarks, so round up and with five or six digits after the decimal point. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- OK, suggestions implemented. I'm still not entirely convinced by the date column, which feels a bit ahistorical for several reasons:
- Thanks. I'll probably go with these suggestions (though I still have my doubts about the value of the date column). Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Can I ask why the word 'village' is used? Only because the two I know of are in what are now very built up areas (Everton and Wavertree in Liverpool). Just worried the title might be a bit misleading, but I'm not an expert on these matters. Orange sticker (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Fun fact - see New_Mills#Notable_residents if you weren't already aware. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Very aware –in fact, I took the picture next to that quote. It should probably go in. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Not really sure (not an expert either, and I've pondered the same thing), but it does seem to be a wider convention (there are similar conventions with "village pumps", "village pounds", "village greens" and the like). I suspect that lock-ups mostly were in villages (as Everton and Wavertree would have been when the lock-ups were built), whereas larger towns and cities had assizes, with courtrooms, police stations and proper prisons, I guess. The existing Village lock-up article (which is where the naming convention that I've followed came from) says "mostly where official prisons or criminal courts were beyond easy walking distance". Dave.Dunford (talk)
- Fun fact - see New_Mills#Notable_residents if you weren't already aware. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
What's a suburb?
An editor is creating many articles on local government wards, such as Station, Boston, which start "Xxx is a ward and suburb of [town]", although there is no evidence for existence of Xxx as anything other than a ward (eg not on OS maps, and no sources other than as a ward). Do other editors think this use of "suburb" is correct? (One article even described somewhere as an "inner-city suburb" which seemed a novel use of language). PamD 10:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Being brutal, if there's nothing to support the use in an article then I'd remove the phrase as straightforward original research. If it's just a ward/district I would question whether the article even meets the notability guidelines. Just because something exists doesn't mean it should have an article WP:NOTDIR etc. I'm very much a deletionist - less is more! 10mmsocket (talk) 12:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'd tend to agree with you, 10mmsocket. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Short of an RfC on ward notability, which I think is way overdue, I think it's time to test the water - so I just did this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Station, Boston. I am obviously *not* canvassing by mentioned that here... 10mmsocket (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- As well as ward notability, there's a question of ward article titles: if a place is only a ward, not a "place", it should probably not have comma disambiguation but a title like Station (Boston ward). PamD 14:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- @PamD: I don't think it needs to be moved as the title doesn't appear to be ambiguous and comma disambiguation is also used for parishes that only exist as parishes like Cranford, Northamptonshire. Boston railway station doesn't seem ambiguous with "Station" though many wards will be ambiguous locally. I'd say the naming conventions should be use just the name if unambiguous like Broughton and Appleby, use the county or settlement etc if ambiguous in general but not ambiguous locally like Station, Boston, use "(ward)" if local disambiguation is needed but there are no other wards with the same name like Petworth (ward) and use the district and ward if local disambiguation is needed and multiple wards exist like Highgate (Haringey ward). Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- As well as ward notability, there's a question of ward article titles: if a place is only a ward, not a "place", it should probably not have comma disambiguation but a title like Station (Boston ward). PamD 14:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Short of an RfC on ward notability, which I think is way overdue, I think it's time to test the water - so I just did this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Station, Boston. I am obviously *not* canvassing by mentioned that here... 10mmsocket (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'd tend to agree with you, 10mmsocket. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- There are lots of places that don't have matching local government or electoral structures. Suburbs are rarely defined officially but certainly exist. The danger is in trying to over-define something. Often electoral wards within cities will cover multiple suburbs, which each have their own identity and often very loosely defined boundaries.
- It's silly to try to nail jelly to a wall. But just because we can't nail it down, we shouldn't deny the existence of the jelly. We need to accept and embrace the wibbly wobbly, loosely defined, ambiguous nature of UK geography. WaggersTALK 14:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- If no maps or other sources make reference to a settlement it should just be described as a ward. We would not say Shap Rural is a village or Nuneaton and Bedworth is a town. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Claiming that a ward - an electoral district whose boundaries are drawn and redrawn by the Boundary Commission to provide an appropriate number of councillors, sometimes renamed but often not even though substantially changed - constitutes a suburb is not only a misunderstanding of wards, it's unfounded WP:OR. NebY (talk) 19:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Agree 100% with NebY. As there are multiple interpretations of the term suburb (UK and US both differ in much the same way they do on other geographic terminology usage) it's very shaky OR ground. I have to admit that I do use "areas and suburbs of Metropolitan Borough of St Helens" for the navbox but I am also happy to admit that may be wrong, but the intent was to capture the difference between the urban centre, and the hinterland villages / towns often used informally in local media / parlance but most reliable source / usage dates back decades (or longer). Koncorde (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's very much like villages and civil parishes. Sometimes there's a one-to-one relationship, in which case one article works. Sometimes a parish contains multiple villages or a ward contains multiple suburbs - in which case the existence of distinct articles is just a question of notability.
- Of course, sometimes wards are not named after the suburbs they contain, and I think that's what the original question was about. "Station" is the name of the ward but there isn't (or might not be) a suburb of that name. WaggersTALK 11:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- As "Station" appears to be the area in the very centre of Boston around its train station and urban core, "Suburb" seems wrong just from a matter of basic observation. Koncorde (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Suburb in British English usually means any subdivision of an urban area regardless of whether its central or on the outskirts. In American English suburb implies its not central. Eopsid (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree, Eopsid. It definitely means the bolted-on or absorbed settlements towards the edge of an urban area - see Suburb#United Kingdom and Ireland. As for this supposed locality in Boston, there's no way it could be categorised as such. Because they are geographically undefined, unlike wards, suburb is not generally a useful descriptor in the UK. Rcsprinter123 (spiel) 21:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wiktionary defines suburb as "Any subdivision of a conurbation, not necessarily on the periphery." and says this is a British (and Australian amongst other places) definition. Eopsid (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think Wiktionary is a WP:RS: here it is plain wrong, at least in terms of British English. Chambers Dictionary defines a suburb as "a district or comunity adjoining a town or city, especially one having relatively low-density housing and open space as characteristc features; (in pl) the outskirts of a town; outskirts generally." PamD 22:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Would agree, Suburb specifically speaks of "sub-urban" development, typically differentiated from the "city centre" or "inner-city" or equivalent. That the wiktionary definition states "part of a conurbation" seems innately a contradiction. I assumed the intent was to differentiate from planned development in the hinterland of the US (what might in the UK be considered Commuter developments) by suggesting the UK towns and cities have a "natural accretion" of more dispersed areas, but instead it seems it was intended to represent Australia / NZ perspective until this unsourced edit in 2023. However it's cut, I don't think Station (literally the heart of Boston) meets the standard of Conurbation described in the sources even if we accept unsourced assertion. Koncorde (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think Wiktionary is a WP:RS: here it is plain wrong, at least in terms of British English. Chambers Dictionary defines a suburb as "a district or comunity adjoining a town or city, especially one having relatively low-density housing and open space as characteristc features; (in pl) the outskirts of a town; outskirts generally." PamD 22:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wiktionary defines suburb as "Any subdivision of a conurbation, not necessarily on the periphery." and says this is a British (and Australian amongst other places) definition. Eopsid (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree, Eopsid. It definitely means the bolted-on or absorbed settlements towards the edge of an urban area - see Suburb#United Kingdom and Ireland. As for this supposed locality in Boston, there's no way it could be categorised as such. Because they are geographically undefined, unlike wards, suburb is not generally a useful descriptor in the UK. Rcsprinter123 (spiel) 21:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Suburb in British English usually means any subdivision of an urban area regardless of whether its central or on the outskirts. In American English suburb implies its not central. Eopsid (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose it depends on whether a locality is commonly described as a suburb in convention or in sources. Suburbs usually are listed on maps so they shouln't be too hard to define. In many cases, suburbs were former villages which were swallowed up by a growing town or city, so they often have a long history, e.g. Binley, Coventry for example. G-13114 (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Having been the editor involved with making these articles. I would argue that if they are defined by older newspapers or books by their names such as Hartsholme, Newport, Lincoln and Staniland, Boston. They would be suburbs since they are mentioned in older papers from 50-100 years ago. Same with Chorlton-cum-Medlock or Speke. They existed before as settlements but then became suburbs and wards for Manchester and Liverpool. I would argue any books noting the settlements or wards as well as newspapers and websites lend weight to notability and WP:GEOLAND. I haven't exactly just gone on a mass exodus of making non-notable articles. These are heavily researched and written. If they aren't notable then delete merge or redirect them but if they are notable and pass checks such as Swallowbeck and Abbey, Lincoln. They should be fine and can be given a category of areas of said settlement Lincoln etc...DragonofBatley (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- But isn't the original question to ask whether the term "suburb" has any status in UK geography? (as it does in Australian geography, for example). There is nothing to be gained and a lot to be lost by permitting this word to be used here. "... in the X urban area" does the job without being deliberately provocative. (Or at least it would if the ONS would extract the digit and republish them.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wards are electoral districts. The Boundary Commission determines and redetermines their sizes and boundaries to provide appropriate numbers of local councillors, and names and renames them to indicate local names and local sentiment without asserting that they are identical to or coterminous with settlements. Any article on such a ward can and should look to our guidance on constituencies Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Style and our practice in the articles listed at Constituencies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. NebY (talk) 08:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- So if i for instance created a ward article which was notable for say Kingston-upon-Hull called Minster or Victoria Dock. There isn't I dont think but lets speak hypothetically and there was references to it both books maps news etc. And it simply said a ward of Hull. Not a ward and suburb. Then is that avoiding confusion or not? Or if i said a ward and district and it was actually the latter? Most cities and towns have suburbs and wards for different areas or a suburb is a ward like Birchwood is for Lincoln and Staniland is for Boston. DragonofBatley (talk) 12:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. If it's a ward, just say it's a ward.
- It might or might not also be a suburb, as discussed above, but you can't assume every ward is also a suburb.
- A ward is never a district. In your example, the district is Kingston-upon-Hull itself - districts are historically the "borough-level" things that make up counties, and most unitary authorities are districts that were elevated to have county-level powers. So unless there's a district somewhere that only has a single electoral ward - and I don't think there is such a thing - a ward won't be a district. WaggersTALK 13:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Your hypotheticals are based on confusing an electoral division with a settlement. They're not districts in the same sense at all. Compare our articles Cheadle, Greater Manchester and Cheadle (UK Parliament constituency). Look at the differences in the content of those articles and how they are not describing the same thing. NebY (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks @NebY and @Waggers for your replies. I'll note this for future reference when making ward articles that are of course notable and not using suburbs unless of course they are classed as them. Is it also safe to say that inner-city district is a USA thing and not a UK term or is the latter only used sparingly for like inner areas of cities like London Manchester Leeds Birmingham etc...DragonofBatley (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- So if i for instance created a ward article which was notable for say Kingston-upon-Hull called Minster or Victoria Dock. There isn't I dont think but lets speak hypothetically and there was references to it both books maps news etc. And it simply said a ward of Hull. Not a ward and suburb. Then is that avoiding confusion or not? Or if i said a ward and district and it was actually the latter? Most cities and towns have suburbs and wards for different areas or a suburb is a ward like Birchwood is for Lincoln and Staniland is for Boston. DragonofBatley (talk) 12:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Having been the editor involved with making these articles. I would argue that if they are defined by older newspapers or books by their names such as Hartsholme, Newport, Lincoln and Staniland, Boston. They would be suburbs since they are mentioned in older papers from 50-100 years ago. Same with Chorlton-cum-Medlock or Speke. They existed before as settlements but then became suburbs and wards for Manchester and Liverpool. I would argue any books noting the settlements or wards as well as newspapers and websites lend weight to notability and WP:GEOLAND. I haven't exactly just gone on a mass exodus of making non-notable articles. These are heavily researched and written. If they aren't notable then delete merge or redirect them but if they are notable and pass checks such as Swallowbeck and Abbey, Lincoln. They should be fine and can be given a category of areas of said settlement Lincoln etc...DragonofBatley (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- As "Station" appears to be the area in the very centre of Boston around its train station and urban core, "Suburb" seems wrong just from a matter of basic observation. Koncorde (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Agree 100% with NebY. As there are multiple interpretations of the term suburb (UK and US both differ in much the same way they do on other geographic terminology usage) it's very shaky OR ground. I have to admit that I do use "areas and suburbs of Metropolitan Borough of St Helens" for the navbox but I am also happy to admit that may be wrong, but the intent was to capture the difference between the urban centre, and the hinterland villages / towns often used informally in local media / parlance but most reliable source / usage dates back decades (or longer). Koncorde (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
FAR for Trafford Park
I have nominated Trafford Park for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Ben Nevis
Ben Nevis 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. Z1720 (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).