Talk:Worcester, England

WUUS-tər

Would disagree with the simplistic 'WUUS-tər'. Suggest the key is to divide syllabically as 'worce' + 'ster'. An 'r' should be heard, albeit subtly. This condiment has nothing to do with PG Wodehouse.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brett Alexander Hunter (talk • contribs)

District/council

No article exists on either the district (like Stafford/Borough of Stafford) or district council (like Portsmouth/Portsmouth City Council). Its normal for settlements that share a name with a district to have a separate article for the district (and the district council redirecting to it as with Stafford) or when the boundaries are similar to have an article on the district council as with Portsmouth. At User:Crouch, Swale/District split Worcester did have significant boundary changes in 1974 and does have 2 parishes (in addition to Worcester unparished area) but the other criteria for having the district combined with the settlement appear to be satisfied (and the parishes one may also as 2 is probably "few"). It may make sense to create an article at City of Worcester, England for the district and redirect Worcester City Council there or perhaps just at City of Worcester as like City of Lancaster its the only 3rd order unit with claim to this title. It may be better however to instead create an article on Worcester City Council since as noted most of the criteria for not splitting the district are satisfied, thoughts? Note that probably only 1 or the other should be done not both since if we have articles for both district and council we will likely end up with articles duplicating each other. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Use of "Cathedral" in lead summary

So while minor, I have seen this anon in January going to Hereford and Worcester removing cathedral using terms like "(Removed “cathedral” as inaccurate)" Hereford: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia and "(Removed unnecessary detail)" Worcester, England: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia and Worcester, England: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia. Cathedral City is quite clearly established and these were made cities by their cathedrals. @Crouch, Swale, @PamD, @John Maynard Friedman, @Eopsid, @KeithD, @AD Hope thoughts? Just offering a consensus discussion on using terms in two major city articles? Cant tag the anon due to their ip address. DragonofBatley (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Just fix it. Doesn't need escalating to the Star Chamber. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

As I've been invited here to comment... I agree that "Cathedral city" is appropriate in the lead ... but I don't think "and unparished area" is appropriate for the lead sentence of any article. It adds nothing of interest to about 99.99% of potential readers, adds a confusing term which most people will never have heard of, and detracts from the clarity of the lead sentence.

@DragonofBatley You might like to check how you cite diffs, as there are three red links in what you posted above. For the Worcester one, I think you meant to type: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Worcester,_England&diff=prev&oldid=1136327464 Worcester, England: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia], which would have produced Worcester, England: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia. You look at the diff, then copy the URL from your browser, then create that as an External Link. PamD 07:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I was trying to but it appeared on pc to not allow me. I'll have to try working on cite the difference more in future. Thanks for the heads up on that. DragonofBatley (talk) 10:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• Yeah, I think you can just fix this. It's worth checking whether the term 'cathedral city' is sourced in the body of each article, and if it isn't you could add one. It's good practice to open a discussion about reversions you're not sure about, so keep it up! A.D.Hope (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
• "Cathedral city" seems like a good term which removes the problems of the fact city status is held by the district not settlement or unparished area. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion was merge City of Worcester into Worcester, England.

---

I'd like to propose that the City of Worcester page is merged back into this article - it was a redirect pointing here until 8 July 2023 when @DragonofBatley removed the redirect and created a page there. As far I can see, the only discussion on the topic was @Crouch, Swale's inconclusive musings in August 2022 on this talk page, which suggested either creating a "Worcester City Council" page or a "City of Worcester" page, but not both. I then created the Worcester City Council page in September 2022 as I believe that is the better way of dividing the information readers may be seeking, letting Worcester City Council cover the administration of the place and Worcester, England discuss the city and district and its history / geography / population etc.

The policy at WP:UKDISTRICTS says that where a settlement and district cover essentially the same area we just have the one combined article for both. Worcester used to be one of the examples given there, but following the split last month it's been removed.

In particular, I am concerned that in making the split an element of WP:synthesis has been introduced, with the Worcester, England page having been refocussed on just the parts of Worcester district that fall outside any civil parish - the unparished area. This appears to be based on the assumption (incorrect in my view) that the unparished area somehow represents a quasi-official definition of the settlement of Worcester, or a better definition of "Worcester proper", as the other parts of the city are contained in civil parishes. I think we need to be very careful with how we deploy the concept of unparished areas - they are not things in their own right, but are rather the absence of other things. Worcester's city status attaches to the whole local government district, having been explicitly re-conferred on the enlarged district in 1974. The two parishes within the district (St Peter the Great County and Warndon) are both within the built up area of Worcester as defined by the Office for National Statistics. Wording about Worcester being a "city in the district of the same name" is misleading - officially, the city is the district.

The population figure on the Worcester, England page is now given as 87,483 with no indication that this represents only the population of that part of the local government district which is not included in any parish - the unparished area. At the 2021 census, the population of the built up area was 105,465 and of the local government district was 103,872 and it's clear from looking at those official sources that the built up area and local government district are very similar in extent. I would argue that most readers looking for information on Worcester would expect the built up area or district to be the primary population figure given, not the rather more abstruse unparished area. This is not a case like City of Winchester where there's a need to make clear that the city status attaches to a district which covers a much wider territory than the built up area. Worcester the built up area / settlement and Worcester the city / district are so similar in extent that we tie ourselves in unhelpful and confusing knots by trying to divide them. Stortford (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree, there's nothing here which couldn't be dealt with by a single article, and as you say to suggest that the proper definition of Worcester is the unparished area is ridiculous, an unparished area is by definition a non-entity, defined only by the absence of civil parishes, it is not an authority. See also Talk:Coventry#Undiscussed_split. G-13114 (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Strongly support The point raised by Stortford about a probable breach of WP:SYNTH is both highly pertinent and well made. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

• Merge Worcester City Council to City of Worcester, agree with what I said that we don't need 2 articles. My slight preference would be to keep settlement and district as the district did have significant boundary changes in 1974 and does have parishes. Its generally clearer where information should be as the council is a subset of the district but not the other way round. Otherwise support merge as suggested, namely City of Worcester into Worcester, England. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: You are getting hung up on the most minor differences between the city and the district:

"the district did have significant boundary changes in 1974" - almost 50 years ago!!! (Many districts did - so what?) Easily dealt with in a couple of sentences in either the governance or history sections of the merged article, depending on how it best fits.

"and does have parishes" - again easily dealt with in a couple of sentences in the merged article.

Neither of these points are anywhere near significant enough to require separate articles. Mertbiol (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

If that's the case, I'd recommend merging City of Salford to Salford, City of Preston to Preston, Lancashire and City of Lancaster to Lancaster, Lancashire. Since these all contain areas already made a part of the city settlement before and after 1974? Preston has no real notable settlements except a few minor villages all part of the city centre. Same with Lancaster with Carnforth and Morecambe being part of it and Swinton, Pendlebury, Eccles and Walkden being part of Salford. Worcester and City of Worcester cover two separate areas. So like the City of Preston, which has two separate articles. Worcester can qualify for two as well and city of Worcester council can be on the district page like it's reflected at City of Lancaster and City of Salford. DragonofBatley (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes the vast majority of districts that had significant boundary changes in 1974 do have separate articles and that's normally basis for a point in coverage but some like Fareham and Harrow (1965) didn't and we have articles which cover the situation before the reform as well.

Yes parishes are important, while unparished areas may not have any of much legal significance they are a common and useful definition for article scope. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Preston is really an odd one since it's doesn't really have many notable settlements. Most of it is parishes but they all form the urban area of the city itself. Like Eccles and Swinton form the Salford and Manchester urban area. And Morecambe seems to have been part of Lancaster for many years. Like Sutton Coldfield to Birmingham or Shipley to Bradford. DragonofBatley (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: Again, you are just thinking about creating and splitting articles - and not on what is going to be in them. Half a dozen sentences will cover the points you have raised in the merged article. If any reader needs more detail (and those that do are probably civil servants or other government officials), they can look at Vision of Britain or any other resources available to them. Mertbiol (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The settlement, unparished area and former county borough (pre 1974 district) would be in this article and the post 1974 district would be in the district article. This is normal and standard and easily can be defined. This has been the practice AFAIK here and on Commons even before I joined the project though I added these points to WP:UKDISTRICTS after an unopposed proposal. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

No everything can go in one article, with half-a-dozen sentences to explain the differences. This is is far easier for readers, as all the information is one place (and the pre- and post-1974 boundaries can easily be compared). Splitting this up between two articles makes things less clear. Mertbiol (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm still unclear why the presence of parishes is significant, urban/suburban parishes are a thing you know, they are usually considered a subordinate tier of government if they are considered at all. I'm unclear as to why this has any bearing on whether an article is split or not. Perhaps someone could enlighten me. G-13114 (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Parishes tend to reflect distinct communities (as often do individual unparished areas). This may be less important if the parish was carved out of an unparished area like Trident but both parishes were in rural districts until 1974. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

But in this case, both the civil parishes of Saint Peter the Great County and Warndon are contiguous with the rest of the urban area of Worcester, so their distinctiveness is less important here. Again, very easy to explain in a couple of sentences - you don't need an entirely separate article to do this. Mertbiol (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

But many modern parishes are suburban in nature. Suburbs are considered subordinate communities to a larger urban entity. So the presence of suburban parishes does not necessarily add any weight to an argument in favour of splitting. G-13114 (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

For towns / cities which share their name with a local government district, the key question to my mind on whether to have one or two pages is the extent of similarity between the built up area and the administrative district, as those two definitions are probably the most frequent ways in which ordinary language usage talks about places. Where those two definitions are very similar (e.g. Worcester, Coventry, Gloucester) I think we should have one article. Where those definitions diverge (Winchester, Lancaster, St Albans) it's clearer to have separate pages (as we do) and explain the differences. Some cases are less clear-cut and need more discussion on their pages, like Preston.

Parishes can be helpful in understanding community identity, but they have considerable limitations when trying to define the extent of a larger place. The parish of St Peter the Great County in Worcester is a good example. It was originally the bit of the old parish of Worcester St Peter the Great which lay outside the borough boundary, and so got split off from its original parent parish in the city in 1894 when the Local Government Act 1894 said that parishes couldn't straddle district boundaries - it's therefore questionable whether it was ever a particularly meaningful definition for a community. Since 1974 it's been within the city boundaries.

In the case of Worcester, having the main Worcester, England article focus on the bit of the city which excludes the two parishes added in 1974 has the effect of fossilising a definition of the city which was superseded then. In other cases, as more suburban areas choose to establish parishes, it becomes even harder to use parishes (still less unparished areas) as a way of defining the area which should be attached to the main article for the place of that name. Stortford (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

In that case, the main question @Stortford and @G-13114 even @Mertbiol is why have a separate article for Preston and Salford? Let me put this down in writing. Preston's boundaries pre-1974 were made up of the following:

Fulwood Urban District and the County Borough of Preston. Pre-1974, post 1974, Borough/City of Preston.

Salford City and County Borough and "In 1961 a small part of Eccles was added to the city. On 1 April 1974, the City and County Borough of Salford was abolished under the Local Government Act 1972, and was replaced by the metropolitan borough of City of Salford, one of ten local government districts in the new metropolitan county of Greater Manchester." Only by 1974 was Municipal Borough of Swinton and Pendlebury added to the city.

Again all these form suburban areas of each city and warrant their own articles. So Worcester and the City of Worcester (unlike Coventry) have seperate parishes and I for one see no difference between Worcester having an article to Preston and Salford. DragonofBatley (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@DragonofBatley: This merge proposal concerns Worcester and Worcester alone. The other areas are not relevant to this discussion. The "one size fits all" policy does not work - Stortford's very thoughtful and clearly written response explains why, in this case, a merge is appropriate. "Other stuff exists" is never a valid argument for deciding whether an article should be kept or not. If you want to oppose the merger, you need to provide an argument focusing on Worcester alone. You have not attempted to do so thus far. For me Stortford's position that having two articles "has the effect of fossilising a definition of the city which was superseded [in 1974]" is the best explanation as to why this merge should go forwards. Mertbiol (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll give you a good reason, [1] covers in depth ons data from population to urban area algorithms and the district and unparished area have two different populations. It's used commonly for reference and is always up to date. That's one reason.

Two, here is an extract from Worcester and Hereford reorganization 1987:

[2]

And the parishes of St Peters Without and Warndon were separate until 1974 from the city itself. So they now form parishes in the district. This qualifies as post 1974 district. Not until then were they part of it. So again my above point stands. The comparisons are post 1974 and so is Worcester. So what @Stortford and @Mertbiol is the so called issue and problem with the district article? As it passes all WP:UKDISTRICTS? If anything City of Worcester Council should be merged into the district article.

DragonofBatley (talk) 10:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, DragonofBatley. To take each of your points in turn:

• City Populations - I assume you're talking about the City Population website, which I agree can be helpful, but we do have to understand what it's actually showing to ensure we don't misinterpret it. Yes, it gives you population figures for the unparished area of Worcester, but all that means geographically is the parts of Worcester district not in parishes, which is not the same as saying there is such a thing as the "Worcester Unparished Area" which is a better / proper definition of the city that we should be using to determine the content of pages. That its "unparished areas" are not an attempt to define individual settlements becomes clearer if you look at City Population's data for a district with multiple unparished parts, like High Peak - they class it as one unparished area, even though it's clearly the geographically separate settlements of Glossop and Buxton. Yes, City Population has assembled its figures from Office for National Statistics data, but the ONS itself does not publish total data for each unparished area as far as I know - I understand City Population has deduced these figures itself by aggregating the output areas not contained within parishes. It is therefore better to see its data for unparished areas as a placeholder which they felt it was useful to produce to sit alongside the parishes data. That is a long way short of providing a stronger candidate for the main definition of "Worcester" than either the local authority or the built up area in my view, and no claim to that effect is made by City Population either.
• The 1987 re-organisation order does not provide any support for the unparished area being a better definition of Worcester proper either. The references to "city of Worcester and parish of Warndon" aren't referring to two separate places - they're referring to parcels of land which were in both. They're saying that areas which were in the district of the city of Worcester and the parish of Warndon were to be transferred to some other district / parish.
• Warndon and St Peter the Great County have both been administratively part of the city of Worcester since 1974. Whether they were already within the urban area then I don't know, but they certainly are now. Applying the criteria from WP:UKDISTRICTS:

1. The built up area closely matches the boundaries of the district: Yes.
2. There is a lack of other distinct settlements in the district: There are no other distinct settlements in Worcester district. Of those claimed as extra settlements on the City of Worcester page (Claines, Henwick, Diglis, Northwick), I would argue they are all suburbs rather than distinct settlements, all falling within the same built up area.
3. The ONS population is roughly the same for the settlement and district: Yes, as I've set out previously 103k (district) and 105k (built up area) are very similar and considerably closer to each other than the 87k we're now quoting at Worcester, England, being the unparished area.
4. Current boundaries are long-established and pre-date reforms in 1974 - I acknowledge that there were differences in 1974.
5. There are very few or preferably no civil parishes: We're only talking about two parishes, which has to fall within "very few".

The policy doesn't say you have to have full compliance on every point - the wording is "matches most of the following criteria", and I would say it's only criteria 4 which isn't fully complied with. (I'd also query why criteria 4 is relevant anyway, but that's a discussion for the policy page, not here.) I think merging better aligns with the policy overall than splitting does. Hope that helps. Thanks Stortford (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I changed it from only created when all of the criteria are met to generally created when most are met a few years back[3][4] but I think in most cases if a district has parishes or additional unparished areas it should in most cases be split even if the geographical criteria are met. And I'd argue that Claines is a district settlement as its a standalone village. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I did look at Claines - whilst the church and a small number of houses near it do stand a little detached from the main urban area, the Claines page tells us that much of the population who locally describe themselves as from Claines live in the Cornmeadow Green area which certainly is part of Worcester's built up area. Besides, whether Claines is a separate settlement or not, it's in the unparished bit of Worcester district, so it doesn't add any support to say that a split of the kind which has been made helps distinguish between a "Worcester" settlement and a "Claines" settlement. I disagree on parishes being a factor with more weight than the others - you need to look at whether those parishes represent genuinely separate freestanding communities, or whether they are more suburban in nature, as I would say they are in Worcester. Stortford (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

UKDISTRICTS makes reference to parishes and England's hierarchy goes county>district>parish (or unparished area, apparently) so normally we would expect to put information about a district in a separate article to an unparished area as an unparished area even if not a legal entity can be used as a replacement area for a parish. Thus the "Worcester" article can deal with the lowest and the district article with the area that covers the unparished area and the 2 parishes (a different area). I'd also say that not having parishes or 1974 boundary changes doesn't mean we can't have 2 articles though, see Borough of Fareham which survived the 1974 reforms and has no parishes, in this case we use the district article for the unparished area and pre 1974 district which seems to work well. Or see Torbay and Epsom and Ewell which also survived the 1974 reform or Blaby District that was a rural district that survived the 1974 reform. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: - This is getting very tedious. You wrote: "...an unparished area even if not a legal entity can be used as a replacement area for a parish." NO IT CANNOT. This is a breach of WP:SYNTH. There is no justification for your claim that the so-called "Worcester Unparished Area" is the "Settlement of Worcester". Mertbiol (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Mertbiol: I didn't say the unparished area was the same as the settlement, I was meaning that normally we combine them with the settlement just like what we do with parishes. Consider for example with Kirkburton and Much Hadham the boundaries of the parishes are significantly larger than the settlements and we note this but we combine the parish with the settlement, the same can be done here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: This makes no sense. If you now agree that the so-called "unparished area" is not the same as the settlement, then why are you trying to base the "Settlement of Worcester" article on it? You are just going round in circles. You need to fully abandon the "unparished area" as a concept - it is of no use to us. As far as "what we normally do" goes, it is now very clear that the policy as written is not fit for purpose. Merges and splits must be examined on a case-by-case basis and we must not be slaves to arbitrary criteria. Mertbiol (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Because like parishes we tend to put them rather than districts in the same article as settlements even if the boundaries are different. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: Civil Parishes exist - they are legally defined - they are (mostly) run by a single parish council, which is responsible for administering some of the services inside their boundaries, including within the settlement(s) inside those boundaries. It is therefore entirely appropriate to have a single article that covers a civil parish and the settlement(s) within it.

The "Unparished Area of X" does not exist - it is not legally defined - it is not run by an unparish council. You cannot therefore use the Unparished Area to set the boundaries of the settlements within it. You have no authority to do so and nor does any website (e.g. CityPopulation.de or UKBMD) that is not run by the UK Government or the local authority.

The "Unparished Area of Worcester" does not exist - again it is not legally defined. The area of Worcester that is not part of a civil parish is SMALLER (and this is key) than the contiguous urban area of the city. You are trying to say (even though you claim you are not doing this) that the boundaries of the "Settlement of Worcester" should be set by the "Unparished Area of Worcester". You are lopping off the civil parishes of Warndon and St Peter the Great from the "Settlement of Worcester" without being able to cite a source with the authority to do so. This is the crux of the problem. Again, as Stortford has very succinctly put it, this strategy ""has the effect of fossilising a definition of the city which was superseded [in 1974]". Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support merge. The civil parishes Warndon and St Peter the Great included within the City of Worcester administrative district are contiguous with what some might call Worcester proper. There's no great rural hinterland with distinct villages covered by the district administration. Worcester City Council is sufficient for the administration and in my view is a less confusing and hence preferable page title than City of Worcester. Rupples (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale - The question we are trying to address is whether we need two articles or one for Worcester the settlement and Worcester the district. Stand back and put yourself in the position of someone who comes to read one of our Worcester pages wanting to be informed about the place. What proportion of ordinary readers do you anticipate come looking for information specifically on the part of the district that is unparished, or would expect that to be the primary definition underpinning the main Worcester, England article? You cannot treat unparished areas as a proxy for settlements. In some cases an unparished area may co-incidentally be similar to a settlement (Market Harborough for example), but that has to be judged on a case by case basis, and it is not the case in Worcester.

For some of the other examples you give:

• Borough of Fareham - is a case where the borough covers a larger area than the built up area, with ONS defining at least 3 separate built up areas in the borough with gaps between them. Even though the borough has no parishes, we need two pages to distinguish between Fareham the settlement and Fareham the borough.
• Torbay - is not the name of a settlement, only the name of a district. The Torbay page is correctly about the district, the settlements it contains are separately covered at Torquay, Paignton etc.
• Epsom and Ewell - is only used for the district. The settlements are covered at Ewell and Epsom.

Stortford (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed you have to bear WP:ASTONISH in mind, and consider what the reader would expect to see. G-13114 (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the consensus is to merge, supported by most participants in this discussion. It having been over a week since it was proposed and with discussion appearing to have come to a halt, I will therefore go ahead with the merge. Thanks all. Stortford (talk) 06:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

History section versus history through the article

Hi there, some time ago I pruned the history out of the "economy" and "rail" sections, and moved all the content into the "History" section but new and duplicate historical facts can now be found there. I will try to reorder to content to ensure that material is not lost, but would kindly as editors to try to avoid making the whole page a history article. In my view this is quite easy to do: older things belong in the history; economy and transport sections should not be "heritage" discussions of closed, historic activity but an accurate picture of what Worcester has now.

I'm also OK if we give the history section a good prune and a rewrite, if that is helpful, to bring it more in line with WP style guidance on town and city pages. Jim Killock (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps a new article for the history would be warranted? There's enough material. (EDIT: Oh I see there's already one. In that case a prune of the history on the main page is warranted) G-13114 (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, both done by me some time ago. I did some pruning afterwards but I am sure more would help. I haven't gone and read the style guides but I do remember them disliking chronology for city pages, which the version I wrote is definitely guilty of. Something thematic would also help people spot that there is a "rail" section or a "glove industry" section within the history so would help editors avoid duplication or having information scattered through the page etc. Jim Killock (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The guidance is at WP:UKCITIES (it is guidance, not policy). It says Avoid using headings that arrange the history of a settlement according to century or decade. and Consider prose (or subheadings) on Industrial history, Social history or Political history where appropriate. Jim Killock (talk) 08:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)