Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

South East Faversham

I recently created an article for the planned town of South East Faversham. Any help with the article would be appreciated! Thank you, Thriley (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Missing parishes project

I have now started a project to manually create the missing 431 civil parishes in England, see User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Civil parish infoboxes

Regarding the project above, its been pointed out at User talk:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes#Infobox by User:Keith D that all parishes should use "Infobox UK place" rather than the "Infobox settlement" (with settlement_type = Civil parish) for CPs like Ingatestone and Fryerning that only exist as CPs as opposed to Rivington that is also a village as per Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Infobox. By "footer information" I'm assuming you mean things like post town and dialing code etc? With the likes of Hatfield, East Riding of Yorkshire the "type = Civil parish" has been used which seems to work though it doesn't have "established_date", "established_title" and the parts parameters like with Greenstead Green and Halstead Rural to add the settlements the parish contains. Perhaps these should be added to the UK place template? The civil parish infobox was merged at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 16#Template:Infobox England and Wales civil parish and there was another for Newport at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 28#Template:Infobox Newport parish. I'd also point out that information such as when the CP was formed and what name it was is highly relevant to CPs that are only CPs as opposed to Bulkington, Wiltshire that is also a village that existed prior to it becoming a CP so when Bulkington became a CP while relevant isn't highly relevant. I'd also note with CPs that are only CPs information like dialing codes and post towns etc may be more difficult to add/verify etc because a CP that only exists as a CP may have several different parts in different codes/post towns etc and adding them all may be difficult in contrast to those that are based on a settlement where the settlement's location its self would likely only be used. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Warwickshire articles

I have noticed a lot of Warwickshire articles are in need of a lot of attention, ones which I can say are the likes of Baddesley Clinton (village), Kingswood and Chadwick End to name a few. They lack notability, use only advertising references or none at all. They could really do with attention. There might be others too in that county area of articles. Might be worth raising this to any projects to do with Warwickshire. I think these easily fail WP:Notability, WP:Geography and WP:Importance. @Eopsid:, @Crouch, Swale:, @PamD:, @GhostInTheMachine: DragonofBatley (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I've added a few sources for 2 of them, Baddesley Clinton and Chadwick End are civil parishes so are notable and Kingswood is an ONS built-up area so may well be notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Better to raise this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warwickshire or just go ahead and improve the articles. It didn't take long to find a few good sources for Kingswood, Warwickshire and improve the article, though there's scope for far more (especially picking up more history from the Rowington parish plan doc). PamD 07:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Zynthetik

This @Zynthetik: editor has changed nearly all Greater Manchester articles to suburbs and areas of Manchester when these are their own towns villages and in different unitary authority boroughs of the county. This user seems hell-bent on trashing Wikipedia with non constructive and silly edits. DragonofBatley (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

User_talk:Zynthetik#Your_edits DragonofBatley (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Naming River Conventions.

I recently tried to correct the name of the River of my birthplace in the UK, Bedford. I am a 4th generation Bedfordian and the name of the River that runs through the Town and beyond has always been known by local residents, by the name that I edited to. The river concerned is the Great Ouse, note there is no The, in the name neither is it prefixed by the term River. The Wiki page refers to it as The River Great Ouse which is incorrect. When I changed all references to just Great Ouse it was reedited back by a moderator. In doing this they are changing Centuries of History and readers unfamiliar with the river will adopt the wrong name.

Naming conventions are all very well but there are occasions, like the one I mention, when a degree of flexibility has to be shown. The Avon is another case, the Wiki has to be River Avon which again is incorrect. I'm sure there will be other examples, not least any River with the name Ouse in it potentially has the same issue. Ouse mean River so you don't call a river, River River, well not unless that is the known name by those who familiar with it.

There is ambiguity because on Wiki The Nile is called so, not the River Nile. So if it the river naming convention doesn't apply to The Nile, the second longest river in the world, why does it apply to the Great Ouse, the 5th longest River in the UK

Greens Peace (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Did you provide sources for your claim about the naming? Otherwise it comes across as "It is because I said so". As for River river, try River Avon! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

There's a better example: Pendle Hill literally means "Hillhill Hill". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Similarly the source for the naming is not given in the current Wikipedia page for the Great Ouse. I can understand the complexities of allowing an oral history of a name but sometimes that should be sufficient. The problem now is that Wikipedia in being the authority to which many will turn to get information, and in my opinion the incorrect name has already become so common in use that the correct name is lost. The Ivel Drainage Board refer to the the Great Ouse https://www.idbs.org.uk/ https://www.visitanglianwaterways.org/ part of the Environment Agency mainly refer to the Great Ouse, but they do also use the incorrect term River Great Ouse and some of their data is copied into the Wikipedia entry.

Greens Peace (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually a site you quoted refers to the River Great Ouse on it's front page. As for local useage, Londoners refer to the Thames, Guilfordians refer to the Wey, Sotonians refer to the Itchen, Test and Hamble and so on. Dropping the formal River prefix in colloquial usage is not an indication that the formal title is wrong. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Carlisle: lead summary and use of border city

I really don't think the lead for Carlisle works. While I get it's a city and is near to Scotland border. I feel the term Border city doesn't work for two reasons.

1. It's geography to the actual border with Scotland is quite a distance away. Aside from that other towns like Berwick upon Tweed and Hexham are close to the border. The only other notable city close to Scotland is Newcastle upon Tyne. But that's a distance too from it.

2. The city was given city status by its cathedral and was a city long before the Scottish borders were established which post-date the city status therefore it would render a border city for the article as being very confusing and misleading. I think also we need to be careful using border in lead titles because other examples of border towns could include Berwick upon Tweed Oswestry Saltney Chester Bristol and Hereford because of their proximity to Wales and Scotland.

So I would propose to either switch the lead to either a cathedral city and the county town of Cumbria or a city and the county town of Cumbria.

There might be sources clarifying the border term but would be better placed in either the geography tab or further down in the lead.

Thoughts?

DragonofBatley (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Well one could certainly argue that Carlisle was founded by the Romans as a border city, the border being Hadrian's Wall. The border between England and Scotland predates the foundation of Carlisle Cathedral (1133) and, as the article says, changed hands a few times and was subject to border raids. So the moniker has credibility but, like any other challenged assertion, needs a WP:RS citation. Full disclosure: I have visited the city once in my life so obviously that makes me an expert. :-) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The Shell Guide to England (pub 1970) claims it was added to England after the Norman Conquest. It subsequently changed hands several times until 1745. So it would appear that the border city claim is well justified. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

This looks a pretty good source. And this book and assorted other ghits if you search on the two words "Carlisle" and "border". PamD 23:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

"Large" town again

Would members put a watch on Northampton as I have reached my 3RR. An IP editor keeps trying to declare that Northampton is a "large town", ignoring talk:Northampton#"Large" town. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

But doesn't it also reflect the borough too?, John. It has 224,000 I'd say large qualifies but I'll leave it to other editors to discuss DragonofBatley (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Chadderton

I have nominated Chadderton for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 03:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Bristol and the surrounding South Gloucestershire towns and village articles

I was just reading some of the south west articles and feel some of the leads really do not make sense.

I will point two out:

"Stoke Gifford is a village, and parish in South Gloucestershire, England, in the northern suburbs of Bristol." and "Little Stoke is a suburb of north Bristol, situated in South Gloucestershire, England. It is surrounded by Patchway, Stoke Gifford and Bradley Stoke."

as well as the suburban town articles for Patchway and Filton.

I really think these article leads need tweaking to make sense. Something like "Little Stoke is an area of South Gloucestershire, England. It forms a part of Bristol" or "Patchway is a town in South Gloucestershire, England. It is contiguous with the city of Bristol".

They read really badly at the moment. Especially Little Stoke saying its a suburb of North Bristol in South Gloucestershire. Bristol is not in Gloucestershire and Little Stoke comes under the unitary authority of South Gloucestershire.

What do you all think? DragonofBatley (talk) 04:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

No local knowledge or strong feelings on the question in hand, but I've removed the spurious comma after "village" in Stoke Gifford, which may have been contributing to the problem. Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately British political geography is messy and Stoke Gifford and Little Stoke can be both a de facto suburb of Bristol but come under the auspices of South Gloucestershire. I'm in an analogous position where I'm technically in a dispersed village but, in practical terms, in a suburb of the adjacent town. I don't think your proposed changes would improve things as it removes the information that both places are now suburbs of Bristol which is an important aspect of their description. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that while the administrative area and ceremonial county called Bristol does not overlap South Gloucestershire (administrative area) or Gloucestershire (ceremonial county) the built up area of Bristol extends into South Gloucestershire (e.g. Filton, Downend, South Gloucestershire and Kingswood, South Gloucestershire are fully contiguous). Places like Stoke Gifford, Little Stoke, Patchway and Bradley Stoke are part of the Bristol metropolitan area and economically and conceptually form part of Bristol (I don't know about Severn Beach or Pilning). In other words it is correct to say that these places are in all of South Gloucestershire, Gloucestershire and Bristol.

There is no significant overlap with Bath & North East Somerset, and only a couple of places with North Somerset (Leigh Woods, Somerset, probably Portbury and maybe Pill, Somerset and Easton in Gordano). Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Creation of new UA articles for Cumbria?

Given that the modern boroughs and districts are being abolished soon. Should these UA articles be made for Cumberland and Lakeland and Furness so once they are officially abolished (the modern districts). Then the cities towns and villages affected can be then easily linked to the UA's automatically? If they remain in a proposed UA article. Then once officially confirmed and implemented. Only then have to link the Unitary Authority articles to each settlement article in Cumbria? DragonofBatley (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Probably though perhaps we should wait until they've been confirmed and yes Cumberland can probably have a separate article to Cumberland the former county given the boundaries are different such as not including Penrith. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

List of towns in Warwickshire by population

This article uses the term "town", however some of these mentioned (Polesworth, Kingsbury, Bidford) are not towns. It should be renamed List of settlements in Warwickshire by population. Calling villages towns without official town status is misleading. I won't implement changes without a concensus as I reverted my one. DragonofBatley (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

It should probably be moved to List of settlements in Warwickshire by population per the likes of List of settlements in Berkshire by population. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree DragonofBatley (talk) 11:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Personally I think all those List of Settlements in X county by population should be deleted like the ones for England and the United Kingdom were. They are lists of "built-up area subdivisions" not lists of settlements. Eopsid (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

without official town status - there is no such thing. The only "official" term is city, a status that is in the gift of the Crown; and all other UK settlements are not cities, each of which may decide for itself whether it should be described as a "town", "village" or "hamlet". Polesworth, Kingsbury and Bidford are not cities, that's for sure. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The designation of town/village is pretty arbitrary to be honest, and based mainly around historical or traditional usage, or whether the local parish council has decided to call it a town. It doesn't make much sense for example that Henley-in-Arden (population 2,074) is considered a town, while Polesworth (population 8,500) is considered a village. I would agree with moving it to settlements. G-13114 (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to rename 1946 article as "New Towns Acts 1946–1981" or even just "New Towns Acts" (and merge the other two New Towns Act articles with it)

I have just created New Towns Act 1965 to resolve a red link. But standing back a little, I wonder if that is just a band-aid solution. There were New Towns Acts in 1948, 1959, 1963, 1965 and 1981. The current New Towns Act 1946 article already has most of what needs to be said about the legislation side of things – including a lot of material that was not governed by the 1946 Act.

I think it useful to keep the legislation article separate from the more general New towns in the United Kingdom article, but could be persuaded otherwise.

Comments at talk:New Towns Act 1946, please. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Just to wrap this up, we now have a single article, New Towns Acts, which includes the 30ish individual Acts. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Major Parish Churches

If you're interested in Major Churches Network or the C of E's "Major Parish Churches", please see Talk:Major_Churches_Network#Major_Parish_Churches. Thanks. PamD 18:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Infobox selection

I started a discussion here about removing the second exception for infobox selection for UK settlements, but response has been limited, possibly because there are not so many watchers of that page. If you are interested then please chime in on the discussion. Keith D (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Older borough and district articles.

Borough of Oswestry, Shrewsbury and Atcham and Ellesmere and Neston articles among other ones need a lot of editing doing to them. They lack citations, sources or premise. They existed and maybe no longer around but these articles are really badly written and don't have sources. Perhaps a wide editing of these articles and others is needed. I could list more but be here all day. DragonofBatley (talk) 08:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Neston and Ellesmere. DragonofBatley (talk) 08:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Ellesmere Port and Neston forgot port DragonofBatley (talk) 08:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• I can't see much the matter with the previous version of Borough of Oswestry,except lack of sources, and nothing to justify the edit summary of "No sources, badly written, lack of attention detail and perhaps one of the worst articles on Wikipedia", followed by adding and re-adding the incomprehensible sentence "It was the smallest district of Shropshire but was the only other with borough status". Pots and kettles? Or just an example of Muphry's law? PamD
  • A source for the rename would be helpful, I've tried but all I can find is this and UKBMD talking about the unparished area which infortunatelly its started applying to whole districts rather than named areas. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Weymouth, Dorset

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Weymouth, Dorset/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped save this featured article from demotion. Z1720 (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Request for consensus on Doncaster lead summary

Hi all hope your enjoying your Christmas so far.

Could I ask for a concensus going forward on Doncaster.

I ask because it is constantly getting changed between minster and market town by certain users. I find some articles saying market town and others saying minster town.

Now the main parish church of Doncaster was granted official minster church status in 2004. That status usually adds the word "minster" to the town. As is the case with Rotherham, Dewsbury, Halifax, Howden and Beverley.

While these have markets or market charters. They use minster town, Doncaster seems to be caught between both due to it having a market charter but also a minster.

So I'm thinking going forward something like "Doncaster is a large market and minster town in South Yorkshire, England". Or "Doncaster is a large minster and market town in South Yorkshire, England".

I know large is questionable but given its size, it is the second largest town in South Yorkshire after Sheffield.

If a thorough concensus could be reached for Doncaster, that be great. I have used sources which use minster town for Donny, even BBC have. But others use market. So a thorough concensus would be appreciated.

Maybe down the line the use of minster town might want to be debated too.

Happy Christmas

DragonofBatley (talk) 07:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• The current lead is far from ideal, with very convoluted sentences. The simpler version of 2 December before recent flurry of editing, seems fine though could perhaps benefit from a mention of the Romans. PamD 08:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
• And can we please spell "consensus" right? PamD 08:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

How about just calling it "a large town" in the lead, and dealing with the niceties elsewhere? As an outsider who is aware of Doncaster but not an expert, neither piece of categorising information seems essential or worth fighting over. Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd go with Dragon on this but lose the word large as that is always subjective. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree with just town in the lead, minster town is hardly a commonly used term and I suspect most people in Doncaster would not have a clue what it is. It can all be explained in the article, certainly being a market town is an important characteristic. MilborneOne (talk) 08:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Just to add this discussion should really be on the Doncaster page. MilborneOne (talk) 09:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Good point, I'll copy it across Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The only issue is that when minster status is awarded. Towns take to using minster town. For towns like Rotherham (also in South Yorkshire), Dewsbury and Halifax (West Yorkshire) and Howden and Beverley (East Riding) they have minsters or minster churches. Commonly minster implies a kind of cathedral town a bit like [Southwell]] (Nottinghamshire) and Wimborne (Dorset). They use minster but those churches had the term ages ago. York is interesting in how it has always been a city but used York Minster (not York Cathedral). Maybe a simpler summary could say "The town's main parish church was awarded minster status" and it has the term "minster town" because of it." Then insert source a and b or an official source which clarifies it?

I mention those aforementioned as it is widely used on certain town articles in Yorkshire Nottinghamshire and other parts of UK even Ilminster and Leominster. DragonofBatley (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

(copied from Talk:Doncaster since discussion continues her after all)The term "market town" is a common one, readily understood by many readers and explained at Market town. Market town status had a significant effect on a town's character and development, and often still has, so "market town" usefully characterises the town. "Minster town" is an obscure term, not explained on Wikipedia. The Church of England's 21st-century designation of some parish churches, such as Doncaster's, tells us nothing about the history of the town or its status, and there is little reason to assiume it will have any significant impact on the town or its people. Even if some councils use the term to add a little sparkle to their self-promotion, it does not characterise the town. NebY (talk) 11:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm thinking with why not just use towns in every single town UK article I say for two reasons really.

1: a town is not really defined sometimes town comes from the market charter it had, sometimes from its growth from a village or from a council parish or district being granted town status. Market town really is just to say it became a town through a market. Bit like some towns became towns because of their mills, factories or coal mining. Not really a designated town unless granted the status. Or being a port or seaside town that grew from fishing ship making etc.

2: a town to a market town to a Cathedral town or minster town or industrial town doesn't like Neby said "characterize a town". Also USA French German etc town articles avoid using terms like market or minster.

I'm confused on how one could call Rotherham Dewsbury Halifax minster towns when they were little more then mill towns until their main parish churches (which are equally lovely in architecture and importantance to their history) even Doncaster as we are discussing become by default a minster town. Some towns use minster in their names like Ilminster Leominster Kidderminster and Littleminster but they don't have minster churches or do but those are nicknames.

Maybe we need to avoid those terms and just use towns or large towns. Some towns have lost their markets but still maintain market town which is a contradiction if a market is no longer there at all.

Those are what I'm thinking DragonofBatley (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

May I recommend the whole article Market town to you? It may change or at least extend your view of the history of market towns and the ways in which describing a settlement as a market town informs the reader about the history and local standing of the town, regardless of whether it still has a regular market. It's an article that's apparently wikilinked over 4,000 times, which may also convey some idea of its significance within Wikipedia, as might the sheer number of members of the many subcategories of Category:Market towns in the United Kingdom. NebY (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Adjectives in short description?

As mentioned in the above discussion, "Minster town" is not a well-known term. I suggest that it has no place in a Short description, which aims to convey enough information about the article to help the reader know whether they have reached the right one (rather like the annotation on a disambiguation page), and aims to be under 40 characters. So "and civil parish" is worth including, as it indicates the scope of the article, but "Minster town" is better just as "Town". See PamD 11:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of avoiding most of these sorts of qualitative adjectives in opening sentences - "Minster", "Market", "Historic", "Border" - as they imply that this characteristic is somehow the definitive feature of the settlement. There is no market town in the country where the market represents anything but a miniscule fraction of the local economy, only a tiny proportion of the population of Doncaster actually attend services in the minster, and the most historic place in the country is arguably Leicester. In most cases if this supposedly definitive characteristic suddenly disappeared the place would in most respects carry on pretty much as before. If the market or minster or history is significant enough in its own right it should be described in its own right in the lead, but including it in the definitive description of the settlement is mostly just estate-agent speak. JimmyGuano (talk) 12:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Please take this to Talk:Doncaster Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

This thread is generic to all UK towns and some of the thread above should really be here, and some of this thread should really be there. Sigh — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 16:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Short descriptions should always avoid qualitative adjectives — in particular, "Large ...", "Small ..." and "Historic ..." should be burned on sight. "Market town" is, however, not at all subjective and is valuable in the Short description and absolutely required in the lead. "Minster town" is an oddity that should be avoided. If the town/city has a minster (or a cathedral) then of course this should be stated in the lead, but a town is not a "Minster town" – it is a town that has a minster — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 17:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Disagree about "market town" being "absolutely required" and "not at all subjective". As JimmyGuano points out, in most towns the market is a minor feature these days – yes, the charters may have historically been important, but it really doesn't tell you much useful about a town as it is now. My home town (New Mills) has a market but I've never heard it described as a market town, and I don't think it has a charter (though I'm open to correction). Some villages have markets (e.g. Winster), which by your "objective" standard makes them market towns, whereas some are large urban conburbations (e.g., er, Doncaster) and presumably other large places are technically not market towns. It seems silly to insist that we must describe these two settlements identically on the basis of a fairly arbitrary historic status, while studiously avoiding what really helps to distinguish them now (i.e. their size). Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm with you there, Dave.Dunford "market town" to me sounds like a small town in a rural area. Yes it may technically mean a town which was once granted a market charter, but it isn't a useful description for the lead of an article in an international encyclopedia, especially when describing a large industrial or post-industrial town. PamD 23:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Dave.Dunford and PamD here. The idea that New Mills is definitively a completely different type of settlement to Glossop, but Glossop is definitively the same sort of settlement as West Bromwich, seems misleading to the point of absurdity. Pigeonholing places with a single word has lots of other misleading effects too. Crewe is apparently still a "railway town", though the article itself suggests that 4 times as many people work at the Bentley Car Factory than the few hundred left working at Crewe Railway Works. York, which is also historically a "railway town", is however a "cathedral city", although it was one of the most important settlements in Britain several centuries before there was even christianity in Britain. Birmingham, which is a market town, a railway town and a cathedral city with no less than three cathedrals, is none of these things, but does seem very keen to be "major". Carlisle, 8 miles from the Scottish border, is apparently a "border city" rather than a "cathedral city", but Chester, which has the Welsh border running through its suburbs but didn't have a cathedral until four centuries after Carlisle, is apparently a "cathedral city" rather than a "border city". It makes no sense, not because any of these are wrong, but because getting something as complex as a settlement of multiple thousands of people that has existed for centuries, and classifying it into such a single definitive category can't help but be a fundamentally unencyclopedic over-simplification. JimmyGuano (talk) 09:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

So do you support having everything as simply "... is a town/city", with no descriptor or indeed size, or are there cases where we should in fact make a best attempt to label the settlement into one certain category or another? Rcsprinter123 (soliloquise) 11:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

If the purpose of the short description is "to convey enough information about the article to help the reader know whether they have reached the right one", then we need to consider what other places exist with similar names. For example Whitchurch, Shropshire should not be described simply as a "Town in England" as that fails to distinguish it from Whitchurch, Hampshire. "Market town" is, in my opinion, a fine adjective to use to describe a small town with a distinct commercial core (especially if that is based around a market place) that serves as the trading centre for a surrounding, predominantly rural area. "Minster town" is not a description that I'd head before reading it on this page. "Cathedral city" is appropriate for smaller cities where the settlement would be a town or even a village if didn't have a cathedral. Thryduulf (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

"Town in Shropshire, England" does the job just fine, for me. Are you suggesting that "Market town in England" would distinguish Whitchurch, Shropshire from Whitchurch, Hampshire, because (apparently) the latter doesn't have/didn't once have a market? That seems a rather strange proposition. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Rcsprinter123:That's a good question. The relevant bits of of MOS:LEADSENTENCE seem to be:

• For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence.
• Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.

I guess the premise underlying my argument is that almost all settlements are notable for more than one reason, and often the reasons for their notability changes over time. Are there circumstances where one single element of a settlement's notability is so much more significant than all of the others as to be worth pulling out in the first sentence as a settlement's defining feature? Capital city status would seem an obvious one. More tentatively perhaps where a settlement is the administrative centre or largest settlement of a significant non-national territory? Maybe where a settlement is a subsidiary part of a larger urban area? Maybe where there is something about a settlement that is many times better known than the settlement itself? (I was going to suggest Pilton, Somerset's role as the venue for the Glastonbury Festival, but that doesn't even seem to be mentioned in the lead of the current article, as if it is a trivial detail). To be clear I don't have an issue with any of the descriptions in the discussion above being used in lead sections, I just think pulling a single one of them out and presenting it as the settlement's definitive characteristic in the opening sentence is very often going to be a case of WP:UNDUE. It feels like a similar situation to musicians and their genres - we should give a rounded description in the lead, not attempt a definition in the first sentence that is over-precise to the point of potentially being misleading. JimmyGuano (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• @JimmyGuano: This thread is about the "Short description", not about lead sentences ... Though perhaps we do need a wider discussion, somewhere with a clear section heading, about lead sentences and lead sections: "X is a (large) (historic) (market) town/ village/ settlement ..."?, how much detail about local govt units comes before anything descriptive of the essence of the place, etc. PamD 10:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@PamD: Apologies, got the wrong end of the stick. The general point does cross both though. And I stand by my rant about lead sentences, even if I put it in the wrong place :( JimmyGuano (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Overlooked talk pages

I happened upon some misinformation on both Talk:Sutton-in-Ashfield & Talk:Kirkby-in-Ashfield. They were both placed under WikiProject Derbyshire and WikiProject Nottinghamshire. Now yes they are close to the border with Derbyshire but I find it misinforming to readers to be adding Nottinghamshire towns to a project dedicated to Derbyshire when both counties have their own geographical and ceremonial own identies. Maybe it was a crossproject for a Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire project but these two pages are not about Derbyshire. They are about the towns and their Nottinghamshire history. It is misleading to add other towns to other counties wikiprojects without validation. It is a bit like adding Grimsby and Scunthorpe to Yorkshire Wikiprojects and Lincolnshire Wikiprojects which while are in Yorkshire and Humber. Those towns are under Lincolnshire for ceremonial and unitary authority purposes. Could someone maybe clarify who is on Wikiproject Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire why this was overlooked when even Hucknall and Mansfield don't have connections to Wikiproject Derbyshire? Thanks DragonofBatley (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking at history of the talk pages I just think someone put them in the Derbyshire Wikiproject by mistake back in 2007 and no one noticed or fixed it since. Surprisingly the user who made the mistake is still active and according to their user page is an admin. Eopsid (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Categories for parishes

As established in previous discussions if a civil parish has an alternative name of a settlement it should generally redirect to the settlement rather than having a separate article like Aston upon Trent (name of parish) redirects to Aston-on-Trent (name of village). What do we do with the "Civil parishes in X" or "Former civil parishes in X" categories? I've been wandering about the a bit lately but just this morning I decided to move Category:Former civil parishes in Cumbria from the Kirkandrews-on-Eden article to the Kirkandrews upon Eden redirect. Shortly after PamD reverted this but then unreverted. There are several cases I can think of:

1, cases where the difference is very small namely the presence of absence of hyphens, capitalization or punctuation such as Brafield-on-the-Green (village) and Brafield on the Green (parish)

2, cases where the difference is by word difference such as the Aston-on-Trent v Aston upon Trent example, shorter names such as Leysdown-on-Sea (village) and Leysdown (parish) and Shiptonthorpe (village) and Shipton Thorpe (parish)

3, cases where the name is quite different but it is still an alternative/historical name, for example South Holmwood (village) and Holmwood (parish), the village used to be just "Holmwood" but the parish is still just "Holmwood". Similarly Abbeytown (village) and Holme Abbey (parish) where "Holme Abbey" is an alternative name for "Abbeytown".

In favour of putting the category in the article is that readers and editors can find the category in the article and per WP:COMMONNAME we often don't take a strict view on what something is named, in favour of putting in the redirect is that it correctly shows the name of settlement compared with parish and per WP:WIAN we normally accept the Ordnance Survey as being the authority on the name of places.

If you look at Warwick-on-Eden v Warwick, Cumbria, Plumpton, Cumbria v Plumpton Wall and Holland-on-Sea v Little Holland you can see that plain "Warwick" was the name of the village and most readers will probably understand they're interchangeable, "Plumpton Wall" was also the name of the village but I wouldn't be surprised if many readers don't realize that and "Little Holland" (select 19th century map) was a long time ago the name of "Holland-on-Sea" but most readers probably wouldn't know that. With Warwick and Kirkandrews it probably wouldn't cause confusion to put the category in the article but with Plumpton and Holland it probably would. Thoughts? Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Townships

I've added population figures for townships in Cumbria. I'm assuming townships would be considered legally recognized for the purpose of WP:GEOLAND but even if not its some useful coverage of the places. See Brunstock for example but in some like Boustead Hill the population isn't mentioned but is mentioned here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

But how does township relate to what exists now as the examples do not meet the definition of a township? Keith D (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Townships in England were mostly abolished in 1866, those like Brunstock just went to the parish they were previously in while others like Unthank, Alnham became separate parishes though many were later abolished. Only the hamlets exist now but being defunct doesn't stop a place being notable and being able to be discussed in the current place. Perhaps we need Category:Former townships in Cumbria like Category:Former civil parishes in Cumbria. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Bucksburn

Could someone with a little more time (and patience) than me keep an eye on Bucksburn please - seems all sorts of cruft has been added. I reverted to an edit from December as it seemed the last one that seemed vaguely reasonable. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Is that the market village swallowed up part? DragonofBatley (talk) 10:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• There seem to have been a few sensible things added in amongst all that lot - the boundary stone for a start (tbh the picture on commons looked so modern that I wondered if the mention of it was a hoax, someone photographing a modern utility marker of some sort, till I found it in Canmore and that there is a modern copy in a more accessible place than the original). But it's had a hectic history over the last few weeks. There's a war memorial too. PamD 11:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Possible the March Stones of Aberdeen or Aberdeen March Stones merit an article, or at least a mention within Aberdeen: they get a mention at Woodside,_Aberdeen#March_Stones and a category on Commons. There are quite a few images of Bucksburn on Commons too. PamD 11:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

City of Salford being constantly changed by anon/s

It seems an anon is challenging the authenticity of the wider city of Salford article without realising it includes key towns like Eccles, Swinton and Pendlebury. But when even mentioning the whole thing in a revert they don't get it. And I thought removing long standing work was deemed vandalism? Anyone mind looking at this. Anon unfortunately so not an established user...DragonofBatley (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

City of Salford DragonofBatley (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@PamD:, @Eopsid:, @Crouch, Swale:, @Redrose64:, @Keith D:, @TiB:, @NebY:, - Those pinged, just asking for you to please see about this as the Anon claims it is misleading and has no place the use of City of Salford to describe the wider metro area and the city of the same name? Appreciate anyone of you commenting on this. DragonofBatley (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Also the anon changed the lead of Salford main page so I have reverted it. They seem to not know the difference between the two. The main settlement is the city and the borough is the main areas and towns of the city. Is this another Salford debate by an anon? I wonder...? DragonofBatley (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The Salford article should probably state "city" and the City of Salford article should probably state something like "district with city status". Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, reading their comments, I get what the anon means (though they've attempted a hacky fix). Is the "City of Salford" the correct name for the metropolitan borough? I don't believe so. I'd find that highly unlikely given metropolitan boroughs, even Manchester, are styled "metropolitan borough of X". In fact most of the references I can find to "City[capitalised] of Salford" are likely circular references back to Wikipedia. The name of the borough is correctly the "Metropolitan borough of Salford", or more commonly just Salford for short. This seems to be an issue with a lot of boroughs with city status on Wikipedia which are styled "City of X", but I don't think that's actually an official title.

As for "The main settlement is the city and the borough is the main areas and towns of the city.", this is entirely incorrect. The borough has city status, as is generally the requirement now. City status is not conferred to settlements.

There is no prohibition on "removing long standing work"; just because something is longstanding doesn't mean it's correct. Ideally the editor should engage on talk pages if their change is reverted though. ChiZeroOne (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

But which came first? Salford (the main settlement) or the borough (Swinton etc?)? Both Salford and the borough have city status but the anon made a huge mistake calling the main Salford article a metropolitan borough is both misleading and wrong. The city applies to all the borough but also Salford itself. If it's being challenged and a good cause to. Then the anon should have done the correct thing and that's challenged it on talk page. Instead of making major changes which if I did so myself. I'd have been reverted and accused of breaking Wikipedia? Anons can't just remove things on the basis they find it wrong and not first seek a concensus on it. At the end of the day if that's the case then anyone can make changed without first seeking input by other editors. I always been told that's not how wiki works? Salford is a city and so is the main borough. Changing the meaning of them doesn't take away facts which can't be made on opinions. DragonofBatley (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

City status was awarded to the County Borough of Salford. The Metropolitan Borough of Salford (what Wikipedia currently calls the City of Salford) is the successor to the County Borough of Salford — as well as other various neighbouring county boroughs. City status is only conferred to administrative units, generally boroughs, not settlements. Technically, the settlement, Salford, is just the primary constituent of the city — which is the whole borough. But as I said, although boroughs may be granted city rights, I'm not sure it's technically the official term to call them "City of X". I'd like to hear other editor's thoughts, but from what I can see official documents tend to refer to the borough as the Metropolitan Borough of Salford, or just Salford, not the City of Salford.

Your impression of how Wikipedia works is incorrect. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, anon accounts have no less editing privileges than anyone else. There is no requirement to seek consensus before an edit (In my experience this is very very rare). Indeed, one of Wikipedia's few editing guidelines is to be bold (Wikipedia:Be bold), and BOLD, revert, discuss is a common editing method. The key is to engage if your edits have been reverted, rather than edit warring. If you think an edit someone has made is incorrect, just undo it and politely explain why, and ask them to discuss the issue on talk. See more at policies such as Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Editing policy, for instance "Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes. Nobody owns articles, so if you see an improvement you can make, make it." Though it is best practice to raise issues on talk pages first if you think the change might be controversial, the fact is many pages aren't watched by a lot of people so it is usually more effective to do BOLD, revert, discuss. Also if you are a new editor you may not be aware of Wikipedia policies or previous consensus, and you aren't required to know before editing.ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

If we are now going to start using Salford instead. Maybe a distinction between the city itself and the wider metropolitan area needs to be made. Might I suggest moving the City of Salford to Salford and Salford (settlement) to Salford (city)? Or Salford to Salford Metropolitan Borough and Salford (settlement) as kept? DragonofBatley (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest just leaving it as is, the settlement works as a broad-concept article and having a DAB at "Salford" would only confuse things. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Harraton ... and citation styles

I think this article needs some looking at uses really only one university study and reads like an advertisement DragonofBatley (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The citation style is OTT, like someone's undergraduate essay. The source is Vision of Britain, which is highly credible. I suspect that U of Portsmouth sb publisher= not author= – no doubt someone here has one put in the oven earlier that they can use to improve on the citation. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks John I'll have a little look at making some thorough adjustments to the article and others like it. I did so with other towns and village articles before like Stretton-on-Fosse and Oakenshaw. I'll take the source you mention as credible and find others DragonofBatley (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

According to their website:

A Vision of Britain through Time brings together historical surveys of Britain to create a record of how the country and its localities have changed.

It was created by Humphrey Southall and the Great Britain Historical GIS Project ("GIS" stands for "Geographical Information System"). We are based in the Department of Geography of the University of Portsmouth. More information about the project, and about historical applications of GIS technology, is available from our other web site at: www.gbhgis.org

AFAICS, they don't suggest a citation style so I'm not clear on who best to credit as author and www.gbhgis.org no longer works, but in searching I came across Q: What pages in the web site can I create permanent links to?, which may be helpful?

I had a look at a few "what links here" but the citation styles aren't great. Garstang Rural District is fairly typical of the not-so-terrible ones.

I presume you already know about the Victoria History series and the OS maps collection at the NLS? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

This article needs clarity to distinguish between on one hand the historic township and its description quoted in Vision of Britain (which the editor dismisses as "one university source", suggesting that they are unfamiliar with this major resource or hadn't followed the link to identify what was being cited), and on the other hand the present day locality which seems to have been one of 16 (later 18) named "villages" within the New Town development of Washington, Tyne and Wear (which doesn't get a mention at present). See this account. There seems no need to remove the mention of the former railway being a cycle/walking trail (this one), and it would be more constructive to tag uncontroversial, non-BLP, unsourced material as {{cn}}, giving other editors a nudge to improve on it, rather than rushing to delete. I don't see anything which was "advertising". As for the citation style being "OTT": no, it's one of several options, and was chosen by an earlier editor on the article. Not a problem, even if it does mean that editors contributing new sources need to do so carefully (but if in doubt add the content and source anyway, and someone else will tidy up). PamD 08:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Martin of Sheffield: who introduced the "OTT" (ie "sfn") citation style and may wish to comment. PamD 14:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Assuming that "OTT" means "over the top", I don't think that it's the case here. It's certainly not "like someone's undergraduate essay", as stated at the top of this thread. Shortened footnotes is a perfectly acceptable citation style, and if the article is to be changed to some other style, that should be discussed at its talk page per WP:CITEVAR. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Quite so. Perfectly valid citation style used in many featured articles. Some very strange ideas have been expressed here! And "like someone's undergraduate essay" may refer to the detailed, well-sourced, content about the mine and its disaster - just solid well-written, well-sourced, text. I would guess that most undergraduate essays would be far superior to many, many Wikipedia articles, so I wouldn't see it as a valid criticism! PamD 15:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Was just about to comment I made some realigning changes and added more sources to the article. Feel free to look at them and discuss or tweak them. I also added Harraton as forming part of Washington as a source mentions Washington and Harraton. Something about annexing or becoming part of. DragonofBatley (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of point missing going on, given DoB's OP. Never a good deed goes unpunished, I'll think hard before I help again.

Of course there is nothing wrong with Harvard style, I use it myself and, in the right context, is better than any of the alternatives. But would I use it for a brief article like this? For sources that are only used once? For a web-site? No. (But if I did, I'd at least take care to get the name of the author right.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The "undergraduate essay" remark referred not to the content (which is fine) but to using Harvard referencing throughout, because the Prof requires it. I'm in hole now, so I shall stop digging. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: in all fairness, you made some good points and input. Given PamD has also been involved in the editing of the article with some very helpful edits although (Albeit using the constant "careless" word likely directed at me???). I think you mostly added some good points to discussion. I think before I bought it up here. The article when reading read like an advertising website instead of a formal article. Using a lot of present and past tense. It reads better now thanks the edits made. DragonofBatley (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I came to the article 7 years ago when I was working on pit disasters. The article was a stub (see here) with only three references, one of which was a duplicate and none of which were formatted, only bare URLs. I last edited it 24 April 2015 (here) with a properly formatted set of citations and bibliography. It has since been mucked about with people adding ref.../ref type references and ignoring WP:CITEVAR. Rather than "OTT", a "dog's dinner" might be nearer the mark and I shall shortly give it a spruce up. Opinions vary, but personally I find a nice alphabetical list of sources easier to use than a random order with repeaded citations where the only difference is a page number. It's just more logical and nicer to the reader. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Martin, that's fair comment. BTW, I've changed the author= to that given on the VoB website, apart from spelling out GB.

How to reference this page:

GB Historical GIS / University of Portsmouth, History of Harraton, in Sunderland and County Durham | Map and description, A Vision of Britain through Time.

URL: http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/place/4208

Date accessed: 22nd January 2022

--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield: Having leapt to the defence of your citation style above, I now find I'm struggling with it. I'd added a couple of refs using the common <ref> </ref> form, and have now conscientiously tried to convert just one, for a start, to the sfn style. It seems a lot of work for one brief link to a website. Is this the way to do it, or what? Are we developing a split encyclopedia where there are "serious" articles which use sfn etc, and "popular" articles which don't? Have I done that ref right? Is it helpful for the "Bibliography" listing to include every website from which a fact or two was gleaned, in among the main long-form sources? I looked at Help:Shortened_footnotes but it doesn't really address web sources. Advice, please.PamD 09:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I looked at the two examples of sfn use in Help:Shortened_footnotes, hoping for models to follow: neither cites any web resources, and this one comes up spattered in red error messages. PamD 10:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I finished off some programming last night, then this morning was bell-ringing. Once the flurry of edits dies down I'll sort the mess out. @PamD: I notice you are still using named refs, I'll correct them to footnotes once I get a chance. I have a hospital appointment this afternoon so may not get it all done, I'll leave a note once I start. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield: The problem is that it is simple and quick to create a nicely formatted {{cite web}} reference using the Ref toolbar while editing, with minimal typing which can create typos, but as far as I can see there is no easy route to adding a sfn ref, and I'm not even sure what the approved style is for unauthored undated but totally reliable web sources like the one for the school (which I recently converted to an sfn ref as a start). Is there a "Guide For The Perplexed" to which you could direct me, as the Help page isn't helpful enough? PamD 11:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I've tidied up the references and added a bit more about mining. The school web reference doesn't have a sensible author by any definition, but does have a date, "Date last changed / confirmed 14 November 2018" well down on the page. Even without the date it (IMHO) is better to avoid things like "nd" which may not be understood by readers. {{snf|Harraton Primary School}} will work. Can't help with the toolbar, I've never used it. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@PamD: Have a look at East Linton railway station. This uses a variety of sources, both print and online, both with credited authors and anonymous. Those red error messages at the old version of NBR 224 and 420 Classes (and it is an old version, being from August 2011) are because the Citation Style 1 templates have changed enormously in the intervening ten years, such that parameters that were recommended practice at the time, such as |month= and |ref=harv have been (in turn) questioned, frowned upon, deprecated and obsoleted. Hence bot edits such as this one (to amend |month=) and this one (to remove |ref=harv). Might I ask what inspired you to look at such an old version of the article? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I looked at that old version because it is linked as an example of the use of short footnotes, at Help:Shortened_footnotes#Examples, as I mentioned above. I was trying to find some advice on using sfn citation style.

Looking at East Linton railway station ... interesting. It seems that some of the sources, eg the last one, aren't cited in the article, which seems unusual to someone used to using {{cite web}} etc and named references. But it's a useful example, thanks. PamD 23:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The two citations you mention used to be referenced, but the final section has been updated and the references removed leaving unused citations. In general though for short articles it may be preferable to use the heading "Bibliography" to encompass both cited works and further reading; arguments go both ways. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I updated it. I guess that version will start exhibiting red error messages if Trappist the monk (talk · contribs) amends the CS1 modules again. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

It would also be interesting to know when this parish was abolished, presumably before 1974 but UKBMD suggests as of 2004 it still exists. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Prior to 1894 all parishes were ecclesiastical though they performed civil functions as well. In that year the civil functions were moved to a civil parish. They, if you recall, Edward Heath pushed through the Local Government Act 1972 which created unparished areas and subsumed the old civil parish responsibilities into his Districts and Boroughs. So:

• The larger area was Durham Northern Registration District from 1.7.1938 until it was abolished on 1.4.2004 to become part of Central Durham registration district.
• Harraton was a civil parish within that district for all of its existence, however:
• 1.4.1974 (Heath) part of the parish was moved into Sunderland unparished area within the Sunderland Registration District and
• 1.4.2004 The rump appears to have been unparished by then.

So I'd guess it was death by a 1,000 cuts! HTH, but it probably doesn't. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Metropolitan Borough of Dudley - what's happened to it?

I've noticed that @Buttons13: has changed the entire layout infobox and it's crammed with a council lead instead of one like at Metropolitan Borough of Sandwell or Metropolitan Borough of Solihull. It looks a mess, totally informal on it not really covering the outlying towns of Dudley like Brierley Hill, Halesowen, Stourbridge and Kingswinford. It's a mess of boring text then a nice photo of Dudley and it's ethnicity, geography etc... Was it agreed on to change the entire article or made by one editor who felt it should look boring?

DragonofBatley (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I can't rollback edit anything on a phone to its previous article use as it has had way too many intermediate edits DragonofBatley (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, I have reinstated the removed original layout box which Button13 removed. It is better placed and more formal then their edit. Discard any interest. DragonofBatley (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, the article is about the area its self, the council is a sub topic of that. The council did have a separate article at Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council but was merged as generally per WP:UKDISTRICTS the council should generally be covered in the district article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Exactly Crouch, Swale thanks. I always find it a brilliant read on articles like Borough of Chesterfield and Blackburn with Darwen among other articles to see the names, councils, motto, ethnicity, grid reference, it's unitary or borough status etc in the tables and then the information about the boroughs settlements councils geography etc further below. I find it neat interesting and very formal. Then a clogged up council lead article which would be better placed at the bottom in a table or on a separate article. Dudley's till now looked like a let down of an article with that council dominant table and the removal of its towns and areas made it to me look like a council article then a geographical Unitary authority article covering the wider area. DragonofBatley (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

UK Districts says When district articles become large enough, details about the local authority (council) often get moved to a separate article. This should be avoided until there is enough content to support two articles as they can easily become forks or mirrors of each other. I would have expected that Dudley would qualify for two such articles. Personally I find articles clogged with trivia about the results of past local elections and the current state of the parties to be really annoying cruft and a serious failure to wp:think of the reader to satisfy a compulsive need to file everything into neat boxes. Having an article for the Council provides a home for that obsession, leaving the main article to tell readers something useful about the area. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I was just coming here to say the same: create (OK, I now see, re-create) Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (by overwriting the existing redirect): there are plenty of precedents in Category:Metropolitan district councils of England. Both the infoboxes which have been used in the article convey useful information but of a different nature: one about the Borough as an area of land and population of people, the other about the council as an elected legislature, and there is space for both articles and a usef or both infoboxes, as at City of Leeds and Leeds City Council. PamD 20:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

But what does "totally informal on it" mean, in the wording, above, "It looks a mess, totally informal on it not really covering the outlying towns ..."? I literally cannot understand what is intended. Is "informal" supposed to mean "uninformative"? PamD 20:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Most of the time when districts and their councils are split the information is largely duplicated or otherwise has information more or less directly applicable to both entities. Much of the time I see information about the more rural aspects in the district such as parishes and more urban ones such as wards in the council article but both aspects are directly relevant to both so in most cases can (and probably should) be covered in the district article. Are facts like waste collection specific to the council as opposed to the district? The 2nd sentence John quotes often applies, see South Hams and South Hams District Council for example. Districts like counties and parishes are legally recognized places so are always notable and unlike parishes often have larger and more artificial boundaries so are often split from their settlements but that doesn't mean the councils that run them need stand alone articles. The time it does make sense to split is when the district article is combined with another entity such as Isles of Scilly which is also an archipelago covered in the same article so Council of the Isles of Scilly makes sense or when the district doesn't have a separate article from its settlement like Plymouth and Plymouth City Council, see User:Crouch, Swale/District split for some examples and while Leeds, City of Leeds and Leeds City Council are 3 different articles, Hastings, Borough of Hastings and Hastings Borough Council are just 1! Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)