Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Wards

There has been some discussion on the inclusion criteria for wards, see User talk:Davidstewartharvey#Westborough Ward as well as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 29#Wards v settlements, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 10#Proposed deletion of all articles on local government subdivisions wards, divisions etc. and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chalkwell Ward. @Davidstewartharvey, Onel5969, Keith D, Eopsid, Sparkle1, Editing with Eric, Rjensen, RexxS, DuncanHill, Sionk, Mutt Lunker, Elmidae, Crowsus, Doktorbuk, Pigsonthewing, Ralbegen, Peter James, MapReader, Barkeep49, Mccapra, DELETEDUSER4562910, and Number 57: from these discussions.

The question is if wards are notable or not and if they should have separate articles from settlements or parishes of the same name. As we know counties have articles and are always notable like Essex, districts are always notable and generally have separate articles from the settlement of the same name like Maldon/Maldon District and parishes are always notable (except perhaps pre 1974 urban parishes) but are combined with a settlement of the same name like Waltham Abbey. However wards may not be considered notable like these per WP:GEOLAND as they don't have their own local government but to preform electoral roles. GEOLAND excludes things like census tracts but as was pointed out in the proposal to delete all wards that wards are not census tracts. I'll propose the list of options below about inclusion. Sometimes it may be best to decide on a case by case basis due to article size etc.

• A, wards are treated as notable under WP:GEOLAND and considered legally recognized and should have separate articles from settlements of the same name namely Speke and Speke (Liverpool ward) are separate articles. This is similar to Parliament constituencies which always have separate articles even if the have the same name as a settlement or boundaries as a district.

  Arguments in favour, wards like constituencies have electoral roles and thus are likely to be considered legally recognized, the wards have census data and will often have an order to create or reform them. Because they tend to have contrived boundaries and change frequently unlike parishes which tend to remain stable for long periods and correspond to natural boundaries it may make them unsuitable to combine with settlements.

  Arguments against, many sources for them are primary sources and it doesn't appear they have the same importance as constituencies. Sources discussing the area etc that is more than trivial mentions may be hard come by. For urban ones in unparished areas often there is no census data or other formal boundaries for suburbs that were newly built as part of the larger town as opposed to villages that were absorbed into the town.

• B, wards are treated as notable but should be combined with settlements of the same name namely Chalkwell deals with the ward of the same name with the exception of those that have a parish of the same name with different boundaries for example Boxford parish[1] and Boxford ward[2] have different areas so should be split. This may also cover cases like Wampool where a ward is named after a hamlet which thus only has a tiny population compared to the ward.

  In favour, the more rural areas with parishes are more distinct and already have data for the parish which suggests splitting may be a good idea. As noted for recently built suburbs there may be no other formal boundaries etc so using the ward boundaries even if unstable or they exclude part of the suburb may be more effective.

  Against, it may still be more effective to cover wards in governance or "ward" sections of parish articles.

• C, wards are treated as notable but should be combined with settlements of the same name namely Chalkwell deals with the ward of the same name. Unlike B this also includes those with parishes with the same name but different boundaries. Like with Scotforth/Scotforth (parish) we would create separate articles if the ward excludes all of the suburb of which Brockley may fall into.

  In favour, as mentioned it may be more effective to cover wards in settlement/parish articles especially if there isn't much content in the articles.

  Against, as mentioned in the Castle Hill discussion ward facts may be unsuitable due to the instability and arbitrary nature of boundaries.

• D, wards are not presumed notable and must pass WP:GNG in order to be notable and otherwise should be merged into related articles or deleted.

  In favour, as mentioned many independent sources that would show notability are often difficult to find.

  Against, as noted wards like constituencies have electoral roles and thus are likely to be considered notable.

Discussion

Please case you're !votes and other discission here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• I think wards come under WP:GEOLAND 2. Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it. The smallest British legally recognised division is a parish. Wards are just sub divisions, unless they meet GNG and meet Wikipedia:V, should be either deleted or merged into the main article (i.e. parish). In the case of Westborough Ward and Milton Ward both are primary sourced, and without any secondary refs, in fact all the election data is unreferenced. In the case of Westborough this can easily fit into the Westcliff-on-Sea article as it is within its legally recognised borders defined in the local plan, however Milton falls within both Southend on Sea and Westcliff-on-Sea. Therefore I would vote d based on the above.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• D. First of all thank you User:Crouch, Swale for setting out a number of options. Obviously wards are populated but I wouldn't describe them "settlements" as such. A ward might cover a single settlement; some might cover more than one settlement; others might cover part of a settlement. Ward names and boundaries can frequently change. In most cases they are names given to areas containing roughly an equal number of voters within a local government district or parish and used for local government elections. They are not areas used for local governance, so my interpretation is they do not have the legal recognition required for presumed notability under GEOLAND. There are articles that have election results going back over many years, which some readers likely find of interest. The problem is they largely consist of data i.e. the election result and boundary changes, though there could be commentary but it hasn't been included in the article. The problem with these is they would not make a suitable merge to the same-named article on the settlement because of UNDUE weight e.g. Allerton (Liverpool ward) and Allerton, Liverpool. I think it's preferable wards are treated on a case-by-case basis under the GNG. Although we're discussing the UK here, I think we also need to consider that wards exist in other countries and ask ourselves why UK wards should have presumed notability, when those in other countries appear not to have. Rupples (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• D, but the whole topic of wards seems to be distinctly inconsistent at present. If wards are of interest to readers, I would think a list of wards for any given council would be an asset. Looking at the two cities cited above, there is no list of the wards of Southend, as far as I can see, while there is a list at Liverpool_City_Council#Council_wards. Do we expect readers to look for wards? There is an article Dingle (Liverpool ward), but it is not mentioned in Dingle (disambiguation). There is City Centre North (Liverpool ward), but no redirect from City Centre North. There is no entry for Lancaster Rural North, in which I vote. It would be helpful if it was a redirect to Lancashire County Council, and if there was a list of wards there. Ah, I now find List of electoral wards in Lancashire (by following a link at the bottom of the "Council elections in Lancashire" navbox): why isn't it mentioned in the article on the council, which just tells me there are 82 divisions? Why aren't there redirects from the ward names? PamD 22:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Pam. Definitely agree if we were to have wards, Lists are probably the way forward. Someone started to think about it, as there are Categories set up Category:Electoral wards of Southend-on-Sea but as some wards have not been set up, they don't appear.

  Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  I've now linked List of electoral wards in Lancashire#County council as a "See also" from Lancashire County Council#Elections, which seems a useful connection. PamD 16:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

D. Not independently notable, much too subject to change, often retaining the same name but with different CPs, even neighbourhoods. Belong as subsections in the relevant LA page. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

D. I've noticed a few wards pages as I've been working on the pages for districts and elections, and I've always thought they're an odd thing to have pages for. Whilst not census tracts in terms of WP:GEOLAND, they are analogous to them. The boundaries are reviewed every few years because the overarching objective is electoral equality, not community identity. Even where they share a name with a geographic community (village / suburb etc.), the ward will only rarely and co-incidentally be a good fit for the community. A page about a ward is therefore inherently contrived - there's not much you can say about it other than the election results, which can be quite adequately covered on the local authority elections pages. Stortford (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• A As the policy states, populated, legally recognised places are notable. Wards are established by acts of Parliament/Statutory Instruments so they are legally recognised. If consensus is against independent notability, then GEOLAND would need to be changed to reflect that. I agree a lot with what Pam says re lists of wards. That would probably be the most useful focus before seeking to develop individual articles which may well become redundant depending on list quality. This isn't just an issue for the UK though. There are wards articles for Brisbane City Council, Ottawa City Council and Toronto City Council (these are ones that I know of, there may well be others). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
• D Wards are subject to change at Boundary Commission reviews. As the Boundary Commission's boilerplate text says in their consultations and recommendations, When carrying out an electoral review the Commission has three main considerations: • Improving electoral equality by equalising the number of electors that each councillor represents. • Ensuring that the recommendations reflect community identity. • Providing arrangements that support effective and convenient local government. Our task is to strike the best balance between these three considerations when making our recommendations. To do this the BC will adjust boundaries and the numbers of councillors for wards, and even listen to local opinions about ward names, but it's impossible to find an appropriate number of communities of suitable sizes to satisfy all three considerations. As a result, communities and wards are not coterminous and though residents may engage with their councillors, it's questionable whether they feel any identity with their ward, see it as defining their community, or regard the boundaries as anything but arbitrary and changeable. The significance of the wards is that they return councillors, of which there are about 20,000 in England alone[3] - those councillors are not inherently notable and neither are the wards that elect them. NebY (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
• D Wards are arbitrary and keep changing. So articles would not be particularly useful and would require a lot of maintenance. JonH (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
• D - GNG trumps everything and I'm generally against notability criteria for different types of subjects in general on the basis of WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP. WaggersTALK 15:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
• A - having read GEOLAND again properly, and checked Geographical feature to make sure wards conform to the definition, I find Stevie fae Scotland's rationale above compelling. Wards should be assumed notable. On that basis I'm happy with option B but I think the encyclopaedic information about a ward (e.g. past elections, councillors, etc.) would interfere with the flow of an article about a settlement or parish, so A it is. WaggersTALK 07:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• Weak C they don't appear to be census tracts and can be useful for merging other NN articles to like what seems to have been done for the wards in Bristol which is a county, district and single unparished area. In larger unparished areas especially if they are the same as a district wards may be a useful breakdown however I agree they change a lot and aren't like parishes etc so I'm not strongly saying they are inherently notable and it looks like consensus is against it anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Lists of wards

The wife of the MP elected today is a councillor for Tyldesley ward. Not Tyldesley town, nor Tyldesley (ward) which is a Wigan ward, but Tyldesley ward of the Borough of Blackpool. In each election article such as 2023 Blackpool Council election there is a list of the results, ward by ward, such as 2023 Blackpool Council election#Tyldesley. But there is no list of wards in the Borough of Blackpool article, though I have just now added a section "Wards" in order to make a useful link to List of electoral wards in Lancashire#Blackpool, and also made a link from Blackpool Council#Elections, and added this ward to the Tyldesley dab page even though it only gets that list entry (with sources). It would be useful to have a list of wards, and, ideally a map of them, in each article on an admin unit which has wards (should it be the borough/district/county, or the council?). But we don't seem to do this very systematically (of course). PamD 16:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

New GSS template

Would there be much support for a combined GSS template to replace the separate English, Scottish, Welsh and NI district and county templates listed here?

Having just updated them all, it's driven home what a pain in the bum they are to maintain. They draw their information from the same source. But process it in needlessly different ways.

And a combined template also has the flexibility to include any area with a GSS code which the ONS includes in its population stats, including the UK, the nations, regions, and perhaps the city regions if/when the ONS eventually includes them.

My suggested fields would be:

• GSS population
• GSS area
• GSS density
• GSS year
• GSS reference

For the rank fields, we can either keep them separate or else have combined fields but separate the data within the template. The latter is straight forward enough if you're familiar with the templates. The GSS codes are helpfully separated first by letter (E for England, S for Scotland etc.) And then use different codes depending on the type of area e.g. E12 is a region, E08 is a metropolitan borough etc.

It wouldn't be necessary to go through and remove all the old template references. The old templates can be updated to point at the new GSS templates. E.g. | E09000016 = {GSS population|E09000016}

The ceremonial county templates would need to stay as they're not included the ONS publication. Dgp4004 (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

References

District template

Can a template be created that is similar to Template:RWS that links to a district by typing the short name, for example {{lgd|Stafford}} would go to the Borough of Stafford artcle. Maybe this could have a parameter:

• none = would link to the borough, Stafford
• 1 = linking to the council article, Stafford Borough Council
• 2 = Stafford borough
• 3 = Borough of Stafford
• 4 = Stafford (Staffordshire)

The template could automatically retrieve if it is a district, borough, city, etc.

I might try myself to do it, no clue how to but I can learn if somebody is able to help. Chocolateediter (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no consistency with article naming, like there is for "X railway station". We can link straight to the intended article. I'm not sure there is a problem to be solved here. Rcsprinter123 (collogue) 23:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not a problem to solve but a suggested tool for editors so that if you want to link to a specific district but don’t want to find for example if five of them are metropolitan boroughs, five use district and one has (unitary authority) in their article name.

They is a consistent use of piping these often 4 or 5 titles to a single word to merit the template’s creation. The railway station links also tend to do simular piping, that is the whole point of the stnlnk/ rws template. Unless the stnlnk template needs, in some users’ eyes, be removed and everybody forced to link to the exact title, removing the whole redirect concept.

The fact that they is less consistent naming of articles makes it worse to find the right link and an even more useful a template to create. The parameter can come along later for varying the display name.

I created redirects so that all the Local government districts (LGD) can be easier to find for building the template and maybe for the template to use, until then these are shorter and consistent link format for piping. Local government district redirects to the Districts of England article so I thought LGD would fit as a short template name as district goes to the international article. If England only uses the term local government district then LGD seems an appropriate and consistent acronym for a template.

I was a bit pushy with changing established links though sorry about that. Chocolateediter (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Too risky! As Rcsprinter says, there's no consistency in naming, or at least not enough (and trying to enforce naming consistency to make the template work would not be universally welcomed). Also, we don't have articles on every variant and some articles may be about another place of that name. So to use the template safely, you have to confirm the target, in which case you can aim straight at it anyway. NebY (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see what problem thus is trying to solve, really. PamD 03:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

When you have long-ish lists you have to think which is which borough, city or (district) when linking and a lot of the time you just want the short name. Could go through and create a consistent redirect for all districts but the parameter would be quite good to set for example to show the county.

As I said I have no clue how to make a template so I’d need talking through it. No worries if no body can be bothered, it’s just a suggestion. If anybody wants to do it and not teach me that would be great as I can be lazy, but then again I think I might create redirects anyways. Chocolateediter (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I see you've already created nearly 150 redirects,[4] such as London LGD, redirecting to City of London. You might do well to discuss your approach to creating such redirects here, in case there are concerns that their naming and/or targeting might direct readers inappropriately when searching. Broadly speaking, the convenience of an editor creating list articles must be secondary to the experience of readers. NebY (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

That illustrates the point very well, because the local authority for London could just as validly (and with a lot more power) be the Greater London Authority. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

So the editor making the list needs to check the dab page or primary topic to make sure they choose the right link to make (UK, current, if that is what they need) PamD 06:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13 concerning three of the "foo LGD" redirects that have been created, and I have asked there how the other 282 may be best considered, procedurally. NebY (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Noting that all 282 redirects have now been bundled into that discussion. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 14:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Parishes v other features

When a parish shares the same name as a settlement most of us know that we almost always have 1 article for both meanings like Sutton Cheney but I'm less sure about other types of places like parks and buildings, see Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about parishes#Parishes with the same name as other types of places. The article in question is Blenheim Park which User:Dudley Miles has removed the information. I think when it comes down to things like castles and other buildings it often makes sense to have separate article though this is often weaker if the parish only contains/contained the building its self and the building's grounds but when it comes down to parks often the parish will cover/have covered a similar area to the park so its probably best combined, thoughts? Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The county council page for Blenheim Parish Meeting gives its website address as www.blenheimpalace.com and the information that the clerk of the meeting is in the estate office of the palace. This intimate connection suggests to me that the parish should be covered in the article for the palace. I expect an interesting paragraph could be written about the history and any present-day consequences. JonH (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Brighton

Hi, just wanted to let you all know that I have revived WikiProject Brighton and invite any editors to join the project if you are interested! Have a great day, harrz ^talk 15:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Kent districts

There is Queenborough-in-Sheppey/Isle of Sheppey and Thanet District/Isle of Thanet and it seems that the districts cover/covered the same area as the islands so should probably be merged per User:Seav/Islands and administrative units similar to Isle of Portland that appears to be the same as the Portland parish (and former district) or the Isles of Scilly which also covers the unitary district. While I'm in favour of having separate articles for the likes of Cotswolds and Cotswold District which cover different areas and Wokingham (town and parish) and Borough of Wokingham (district) and Darlington (town and unparished area) and Borough of Darlington (district) of which the town and unparished area have a large percentage of the district yet are clearly different things and most other similar places around the world appear more often than not split, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 35#Policy clarifications: Lead sentences, unparished areas, and districts / settlements with the same name. See User:Seav/Islands and administrative units that supports this and my essay Wikipedia:Separate articles for administrative divisions to settlements.

For Queenborough-in-Sheppey the district and parish appear to cover the island however it does cover Deadman's Island but the likes of Madagascar have other islands. The unparished area also covered the island but most has now been parished but we have to be careful how we explain unparished areas due to their limited recognition so I would not say that the "Queenborough-in-Sheppey" now only covers a small part of the island. The district/parish article could be merged with Isle of Sheppey#Local government

For Thanet District although the district was newly created in 1974 it appears its the same as the Isle of Thanet per my A-Z Kent though its not completely clear. Unlike the problems with describing Wivenhoe as being in Colchester City Council which could easily happen if we had an article on the council instead of district it does seem like in the case of Thanet they are the same area of land so places could just be described as being in Thanet or Isle of Thanet without much complication since unlike Colchester they are the same area. As such per WP:UKDISTRICTS we can restore Thanet District Council that I merged a few years ago. A merger of the district to the island was mentioned at Talk:Thanet District in 2018, see Talk:Thanet District#Requested move 18 September 2018. At Talk:Thanet District#Outline of proposed changes to the article (and the 2 sections above) it seems that others have already suggested that the articles should be merged and also discussion at Talk:Isle of Thanet where it is claimed that the district is larger and includes land that was underwater at the time the Isle of Thanet was an island.

Thoughts on this? @Amakuru, DragonofBatley, Eopsid, Morwen, JMF, Snowded, and Stortford: Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Two observations:

1. The Colchester example underlines the value of having distinct articles for the district and for its council. If they really must be combined, then article should be named for the district and the council be a section of it, definitely not the other way round. (IMO, in any case there is great merit in tucking away into some dark corner the obsessive detail about which party had which seats in which ward in 1964, which appears to be the sum total of most 'council' articles.)
2. Permanent physical geography (well, fairly permanent in the case of Thanet ) should always have prime position, as parish and district boundaries do tend to come and go.

My 2¢ worth. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation within unitary areas

There are two parishes called "Brompton" in North Yorkshire. Their articles were previously named Brompton, Hambleton and Brompton, Scarborough, following WP:ENGLANDPLACE which says "When further disambiguation is required, districts should be used." in cases where [[placename, ceremonial county]] does not disambiguate.

But the districts no longer exist. WP:ENGLANDPLACE says "If there are multiple places of the same name within the same district, then parishes, wards, or lowercase compass directions should be used as appropriate to identify the relative locations.", with example Woolston, north Shropshire. Presumably this should also apply where there are multiple places of the same name within a UA.

These two were previously moved to Brompton, west North Yorkshire and Brompton, east North Yorkshire, complying with that instruction. This seems correct although odd-looking.

They have now been moved to Brompton, Northallerton and Brompton, Scarborough, North Yorkshire.

While looking into this I noticed that we also have Hambleton, Ryedale and Hambleton, Selby, two more North Yorkshire places disambiguated by defunct districts, and there may be many more, so this is a wider question than just the Bromptons.

What is our preferred way to disambiguate these places? Compass point in UA, or defunct (but still recognisable) district, or current electoral unit (Northallerton North and Brompton and Derwent Valley & Moor respectively according to Mapit - the latter is pretty meaningless as there are Derwent valleys up and down the country!), or a nearby town? Does WP:ENGLANDPLACE need any clarification or update to cover UAs?

@Chocolateediter and DragonofBatley:, the page movers, for info. PamD 07:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not think the lowercase compass direction is very helpful and should probably be removed as a possible disambiguator. I would go for the nearest large place as the disambiguator unless there is a natural disambiguator available such as "x on the Wolds". Keith D (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

What about the constituency, but they be changed on a more regular basis than we’d bother to keep changing it. Maybe if in a national park that might work.

Ultimately "near Xxxx" maybe better than "comma then place" as English has a habit of sounding like it is both in or near a place if the comma method is used. The "Brompton, Scarborough, North Yorkshire" link isn’t the best when the village and the parish are one article and the village goes by Brompton-by-Sawdon.

I understand if a county starts with a compass direction and a compass direction is also needed that it looks wrong, especially lowercase then uppercase looking like somebody put it the wrong way round. To be fare east-north-east is used when 16 points compass directions are need so east north comes up but only when east is also the next word. That is the rule, we can dance around it in cases like this by finding summit better.

Maybe in the guide put summit like "When the given county starts with a compass direction try finding other, preferably short, methods of disambiguating. …insert reason here … ". Chocolateediter (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Why not follow the Brompton by Sawdon Parish Council website? JonH (talk) 09:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a good solution for the Bromptons - the Nothallerton one can be Brompton, North Yorkshire and the Scarborough one Brompton by Sawdon, perhaps with appropriate hatnotes on both.

Regarding the Hambletons, the Ryedale one is a hamlet within a the parish of Kilburn High and Low and probably the best solution is to merge it into that article.

As for changing the naming convention for a general rule - that discussion should probably happen at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) but if these two examples are anything to go by, in most cases I suspect a case-by-case examination of the subjects can lead to some sensible solutions that avoid the need for disambiguation entirely. WaggersTALK 11:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I think I was worried by the fact that the parish is technically called "Brompton", and includes two villages one of which is "Brompton by Sawdon"! I've moved it. And have retargetted the redirect from the hyphenated version. Do we need some sensibly-named redirect which can appear in Category:Civil parishes in North Yorkshire, as "Brompton by Sawdon" is not really the parish name? Perhaps best gently ignored. Thanks @Chocolateediter for tweaks to the lead to make the moved article reasonable. PamD 12:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

But Brompton, North Yorkshire is not a good article title, as it is ambiguous. It now, correctly, points to the dab page (which could do with a bit of a tidyup). PamD 12:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

It has always been confusing and was once called Brompton in Allertonshire to distinguish it from nearby Brompton on Swale and Patrick Brompton near Richmond. Esemgee (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't work well for counties which already contain a compass point in their name, or for counties which contain districts with compass point names, but for for the rest it's fine. 'Townville, north Lancashire' and 'Townsville, south Lancashire' isn't confusing. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Would an adjectival form of a compass point be clearer? "Townville, eastern North Yorkshire", etc? Bazza 7 (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but personally I don't think it solves the issue. 'Townsville, near Examplebury' seems clearer A.D.Hope (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Remember that natural disambiguation needs to be commonly used like St Just in Penwith otherwise like Bray, Berkshire rather than Bray on Thames commas or brackets should be used. Using "Foo (near larger settlement) might also be a possibility, see Talk:Burton (near Neston)#Requested move 3 October 2020. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
• I don't find any issue with "[north/south etc] ceremonial county" if the civil parish or district is unavailable. However, "(near place)", as long as the nearest place is significant, seems to be the next best thing. Any natural dab would be preferred. DankJae 12:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Letchworth#Requested move 6 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Letchworth#Requested move 6 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. JuniperChill (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Sub-national geographic flag guideline

Given my last attempt to create a guideline on flags through an open discussion didn't work at all, I thought it might be easier to give everyone a pre-written guideline to comment on. I've written it to apply to all UK articles, but it could easily be amended to focus only on certain nations (England?). Let me know what you think:

Subnational geographic flags

The counties, principal areas, council areas, and other subnational regions of the United Kingdom use a variety of flags. In many areas, semi-official flags are in popular use; some of these have long histories, but the majority have been designed since 2000. These flags, particularly the historic county flags registered with the charity the Flag Institute, have since 2010 received some recognition from the British Government. For example, they do not need planning consent to be flown in England, and the British Government has marked Historic County Flag Day. Nevertheless, the exact status of these flags can be unclear.

The following guidelines are designed to address this uncertainty by standardising how Wikipedia editors handle the flags. In particular, they aim to avoid giving undue prominence to flags which may not be in widespread use, and to properly contextualise the history of a flag and the area it covers. The guidelines apply to any subnational geographic flag in United Kingdom, including the flags of counties, districts, settlements, and other regions.

Before creating an article for a subnational geographic flag, or including such a flag in the article about the area it represents, the following should be taken into consideration:

• To whom it belongs. In particular, flags based on the coat of arms of a council are usually the property of and represent that council, not the area it governs.
• Whether the physical flag is widely used, or if it primarily exists in an online database such as the Flag Institute’s Flag Registry. Flags which have an exclusively or primarily online existence are not typically as notable as those which are in physical use, and may not meet the threshold for inclusion in the encyclopedia.
• The area the flag represents. For example, if a flag was designed to represent an historic county, rather than its contemporary equivalent, then this should be explicitly noted. This is the case even if the flag was designed after the historic county was superseded for ceremonial or local government purposes.

When placing a flag in the article about the area it represents, the following should additionally be taken into consideration:

• Where in an article to place the flag. The article body is preferable to the infobox, as it allows for a fuller explanation of the flag, its context, and history. In particular, a flag should not be placed in the infobox if it represents a different area to that which the infobox covers.
• When placed in the article body, place the flag image close to text explaining (where known) when it was designed, the area it represents, and when and where it is flown. If the flag has its own article this section can be a shorter summary with a link to said article.

A.D.Hope (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft 2

Subnational geographic flags

The counties, principal areas, council areas, and other subnational regions of the United Kingdom use a variety of flags. However, the exact status of these flags can be unclear. The following guidelines are designed to address this uncertainty by standardising how Wikipedia editors handle the flags.

Before creating an article for a subnational geographic flag, or including such a flag in the article about the area it represents, consider whether the physical flag is in actual use. Flags which only exist online, or which have only limited physical use, may not meet the threshold for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Also, check who the flag belongs to; flags based on the coat of arms of a council are usually the property of and represent that council, not the area it governs.

When it is decided to include a flag on Wikipedia, try to include the following information in the article about it and/or in the body of the article about the area it represents:

• The history of the flag. For old flags, this may include details of its first recorded use and similar information. For new flags, this is likely to include details of how it was designed, for example by public competition.
• Where the flag is flown, whether inside or outside the area it represents.
• The occasions on which it is flown, for example on county days or at sports matches.

Avoid making explicit statements about the area a flag represents if this is unclear. For example, a flag may have been designed to represent an historic county but be flown from the offices of the council representing the modern county. We can leave the meaning of this ambiguous if sources do not provide clarity.

When choosing where to place a flag in the article about the area it represents, the article body is preferable to the infobox as it allows for a fuller explanation of the flag, its use, and history. In particular, a flag should not be placed in the infobox unless it unambiguously represents the same area as the infobox.

A.D.Hope (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Please start the discussion below this heading. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I've publicised the above on the Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland wikiproject pages and on the talk pages for Devon and Cornwall, as the last two have recently hosted flag discussions. Feel free to publicise it elsewhere. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope: You've said "the exact status of these flags can be unclear" (I agree), but I'd characterise the rest of the draft guideline, particularly the part about whether they should go in infoboxes, as being based on the flawed premise that each flag has an unambiguous territory to which it 'officially' belongs. As far as I can see, the whole issue of removing sub-national flags from infoboxes has largely been instigated by you, and has led to numerous discussions and reversions where other editors try and put them back but you keep on removing them. The fact that the Flag Institute (a voluntary enthusiasts' body) assigns each flag to a historic county does not preclude that flag from also validly representing other definitions of the county.

For example, the adoption of the Bedfordshire flag was sponsored by the High Sheriff of Bedfordshire, who acts on behalf of the ceremonial county, but you have removed the flag from the infobox on the basis that the flag belongs (according to the Flag Institute) to the historic definition of the county. In a previous discussion on this subject, you acknowledged that the Hertfordshire flag was explicitly released for public use by the county council which governs the non-metropolitan county (which is coterminous with the ceremonial one), yet you have multiple times removed the Hertfordshire flag from the infobox saying that the flag is for the historic county. The Nottinghamshire flag was designed in a competition by BBC Radio Nottingham - the flag is registered with the Flag Institute for the historic county, but I don't think it's credible to say that all involved in that competition understood the flag to be prepared solely for the historic definition of the county to the exclusion of all other definitions.

I would advocate a much less prescriptive approach. If the article about the county is called "X" and there's a flag called "Flag of X", let the flag go in the infobox. Just as most of our county articles have to explain that there are multiple definitions of the county (e.g. historic / local government / ceremonial), the article text can also discuss the origins of the flag, whether it was explicitly prepared for just one of those definitions or not, and the extent of common adoption / usage in the area. Stortford (talk) 08:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you've got my intent backwards, sorry. The premise of the guideline is that these flags are often ambigious and do not have official territories, which makes it necessary to include them in a way that allows their use and status to be explained. The practice of putting them in the infobox implies they are unambiguously the flags of the area the infobox represents (e.g. the ceremonial counties in England), but this isn't the case.

Bedfordshire is a good example of why the infobox is unsuitable. There's evidence that it represents the historic county, as it is listed as a historic county flag on the UK government's list, but because it was sponsored by the high sheriff there is also an argument that it represents the ceremonial county. It's entirely possible for it to represent both, but this needs a textual explanation with sources and that's best done in the body. The same goes for Hertfordshire, Nottinghamshire, and the other flags.

On the Flag Institute, its status can be overblown. It's just a charity, even if its registry has been referenced in government guidelines. It's useful as proof that a flag is considered to represent a historic county, but it doesn't trump everything else. If we have a source that shows the Cambridgeshire flag has been flown in Huntingdon, for example, we shouldn't describe this as wrong just because Huntingdon is outside the historic Cambridgeshire boundaries. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

If a flag unambiguously represents an area we have an article for, then the flag should be within the infobox. If it's ambiguous though, I agree that it is better explained in prose and not included in the infobox. That should allow for more nuance and give readers a better understanding of the situation. I also don't think we should be prescribing flags to things when the lifespan doesn't cross over. If the flag is a recent adoption, it shouldn't be prescribed to the historic or ceremonial county without good reason. To take an example, the Flag of Orkney wasn't adopted until 2007 so it shouldn't be used to represent anything before that (particularly because there was a previous flag which was declined official recognition). It's fine in the Orkney article because nothing has changed there but, if it had, as is the case with other historic counties, it would only be appropriate within the infobox of the modern usage. That wouldn't preclude a mention in the article on the older entity though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the 2021 Jenrick press release or attached PDF can be taken as a reliable source for the flags representing "historic counties" as defined in the Historic counties of England article. It uses the phrase "historic county", but we know that's not a widely understood term. It also uses the phrase "historic flags", suggesting some ambiguity as to whether it's the flags or the counties the author thinks are historic. And the same press release states that Jenrick "wrote to all councils across Great Britain, urging them to proudly raise their flag" (my emphasis), which could equally be interpreted as evidence that the counties he is referring to are the modern administrative council areas. I suspect that the apparent contradiction can be explained by the fact that caring about the distinction between different definitions of county is extremely niche and not in most people's heads when they hear the phrase "historic county", so Jenrick and the press release author probably have a more nebulous and inclusive concept of county, and their use of the phrase "historic county" is entirely led by it being called "historic county flag day". But that would be my interpretation of the source, and given that we don't interpret sources on Wikipedia, I'd suggest not trying to use this one as evidence for what kind of county a flag represents. Joe D (t) 10:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Well this is it – it's hard to pin down exactly which flavour of county these flags represent, so as a general rule it's better to simply lay out what we know about them rather than trying to interpret that information one way or another.

You're talking about this Jenrick press release, I assume? The language in it is a bit of a mess, as you point out – a council's flag would typically be its heraldic banner rather than any of these flags, for example. I think it's fair to say that the UK government wants to promote the historic counties somehow and has come to rely on the Flag Institute's registry of county flags in order to do so, but I wouldn't go further than that. It would be inappropriate for us to claim that the flags are official just because they're in the FI registry, for example. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The press release is a nonsense and we should ignore it. Some group - presumably the Flag Institute - came up with a bunch of flags for historic counties to assert something about historic counties still existing. They don't, and that is a matter for the legislature. Counties such as Middlesex no longer exist. Some official looked at the lobbying and thought "we can do something here" and had a flag day, with flags for historic counties that have overlapping borders (why are there 52 flags when there were only 39 historic counties for instance), but excluding current ceremonial counties (where is Greater London? Indeed, where is historic county London?) The idea is to make it look like Government is doing something about sense of community (an executive function); but it does not create the flags, nor the counties nor anything else (a legislative function). It is not the department's finest hour, because they went waltzing into an issue they don't understand well, and sided with a group that wants to ignore the effect of legislation passed by parliament that abolished and altered county borders - but it makes not a wit of difference. The executive does not have the power to make these flags. Those are mostly modern flags of historic counties, some of which no longer exist, and others of which now have different borders. It is a highly problematic list of itself. It would be a fool's errand to try to use that source for absolutely anything at all. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you about the Jenrick press release, and in terms of how these flags should be included in articles I don't think it's particularly relevant anyway. Sources which explain how a particular flag was designed and how it is currently used will be much more useful. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I think we should try and downplay these county flags simply because a lot of the modern ones are ugly and they arent in widespread use. Putting them in infoboxes for the counties they represent gives them undue prominence. Eopsid (talk) 10:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Whether a flag is "ugly" is both subjective and irrelevant. All we should care about is use - if there is evidence for a flag of e.g. Nottinghamshire being independently used (i.e. not mentions in lists or databases of flags) to represent Nottinghamshire then it should be included in the infobox for Nottinghamshire. If there is no such evidence then it should not be included.

In the real world few people know (and even fewer care) about the distinction between historic, ceremonial, administrative or any other type of county; almost nobody knows (and again even fewer care) "ceremonial county" and "historic county" are not exact synonyms. Absent explicit evidence that the person/organisation using the flag is doing so to represent a specific one of those then it is safe to assume that it is being used to represent e.g. Nottinghamshire as it applies to the real world today. So if you see a flag of Nottinghamshire flown in an area within all of the historic, ceremonial and administrative counties of Nottinghamshire it is, absent evidence to the contrary, most likely to be representing both the ceremonial and administrative counties. The only exception is use by county councils - if Nottinghamshire County Council fly the flag of Nottinghamshire it is most likely being used to represent the administrative county, but if Nottingham City Council fly the same flag it is most likely being used to represent the ceremonial county. If both those organisations regularly fly that flag, then it should be used in infoboxes for at least the administrative and ceremonial counties. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy is clear on this, we don't recognise the difference between so called historic. ceremonial etc counties and treat them as a single entity. I don't know why this keeps being ignored. G-13114 (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

This wikiproject has advice/a guideline on how to write about the counties, but it isn't a policy. It does recognise a difference between the historic counties and the current ceremonial counties, as it states the former no longer exist, but also states that they should be covered in a single article where possible.

In any case, when it comes to writing about groups that do recognise the historic counties we have to reflect their position, not impose our guideline on them. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with assuming why a body might fly a flag, which is why I prefer the 'put it in the body' approach. It's fine for us to say 'the flag has been flown from Nottingham Council House by Nottingham City Council', with a source, but we shouldn't infer anything from that unless the council have stated their intent somewhere. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft 2 discussion

@Stortford, @Stevie fae Scotland, @Steinsky, @Sirfurboy, @Eopsid, @Thryduulf, and @G-13114, I've written a second draft of the guideline based on your feedback. If you (or anyone else) have further suggestions or critiques I'd be very happy to hear them. Thanks, A.D.Hope (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

That's mostly good but I'm not sure about two points:

• flags based on the coat of arms of a council are usually the property of and represent that council, not the area it governs. I'm sure there is at least one case of a council explicitly granting permission to use the flag based on their arms to represent its area and (but I'm less certain of this) there are cases when such a flag is used to represent the council's area with no official comment from the council (so probably de facto rather than de jure representation of the area).
• In particular, a flag should not be placed in the infobox unless it unambiguously represents the same area as the infobox. I disagree with this. If a flag is commonly used to represent an area with that name it should be in the infobox unless it unambiguously does not refer to that area. e.g. if the flag of Fooshire is in common use but it is ambiguous whether it represents the area of the ceremonial or administrative county by that name then it should be included in both infoboxes. In the real world many (maybe most) people flying the flag will not know (and fewer will care about) the difference between two - if you asked someone flying it which area they using it to represent you'd get blank looks and answers like "yes" or "both". Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. On the first point, 'usually' is meant to indicate that this may not always be the case. It's less of an issue now, but before the new wave of county flags was designed it was fairly common to use a council's armorial banner to represent the county generally, hence the specific warning.

On the second, an example might best demonstrate the issue. In the Lancashire article, the infobox is primarily about the ceremonial county. The flag was designed to represent the historic county and has been flown in areas within the historic boundaries but outside the ceremonial county. Putting the flag in the infobox could therefore imply that the flag only or primarily represents the ceremonial county, which is not the case. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Unless it's being flown in areas within the ceremonial county but outside the historic county then you can't say it isn't being used to represent the former. If the flag is commonly used to represent multiple areas it should appear in the infobox for all of those areas, even if one is more common than the others. Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

In the case you outline, we also couldn't say that the flag is being flown to represent the ceremonial county without a source explicitly stating so. Even where a source does exist, it won't necessarily confirm that the flag is primarily used to represent the ceremonial county. This ambiguity is why I think the body is the best place to cover the flags.

We generally don't have separate articles for the historic and current counties/principal areas/etc.; the main exception is for the historic counties that have been entirely superseded. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I personally have no further comments. Thanks for your work on this. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Considering I've seen multiple attempts to re-add the flags by various and the proposer in many cases the sole reverter, maybe this discussion is very unrepresented and the wall of text is off-putting. It would override discussions with more input such as at Cornwall. Would be open to a simpler suggestion of changing the infobox caption to allow for specification/context if needed. We shouldn't minimise these flags because of personal opinion on their ugliness or modernity, if they're used, they're used. If such use is significant then readers would expect it in the infobox. DankJae 12:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  It's a persistent problem that these flag discussion do not reach a conclusion – even the one with more input at Cornwall didn't. This discussion has been advertised at Talk:Cornwall but does not seem to have attracted any input from that direction, and as you can see there's been very little follow-up discussion here after the initial responses.

  I'm tempted to assume that the flags just aren't a priority for most editors. When they are discussed it tends to be in isolation, and those discussions don't lead to a consensus. Perhaps the consensus is to have no consensus, although that will mean having to deal with each flag on a case-by-case basis which will be onerous. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  I opted out of this for a while because I didn't have time/will to go through all of this. May be a more direct RfC on "should county flags be in infoboxes" may raise more engagement.

  In terms of case-by-case, there is also a case to group flags based on how old they're used. For example flags made very recently to little fanfare can be grouped together, but much more longer standing/popular flags like Cornwall's and Devon's may need to be considered separate.

  Once again, all I know is that many IPs and other editors have edit warred the flags in, and appear to not know about nor participated in these discussions. I don't think its because they're classed as not a priority but rather repeating past arguments and discussions gets tiring, and the previous consensus was overriden before this was approved. DankJae 13:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  The discussion at Talk:Cornwall included an RfC on whether that flag should be in the infobox, but it didn't reach a conclusion. A new RfC on the flags in general could be better, but it could also just go over old ground and be inconclusive itself.

  Part of the reason I proposed the guideline above without prior discussion was to avoid that sort of energy-sapping debate; my intent was to focus editors' attention on a single position and see if it could gain consensus. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for York

York has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ancient parishes of Northamptonshire

Template:Ancient parishes of Northamptonshire has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Joe D (t) 19:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Potential to streamline UK places maintenance using Wikidata

Hi project, prompted by revisiting the UK Wikipedians' "complete todo list" page for the first time in at least a decade, and noticing that it had instructions to add population data to place articles with some very out of date broken links to sources for the data [5], I got thinking about whether there are any better ways to add and maintain up-to-date population data.

I've started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox UK place#Potential to use Wikidata here to make our lives easier?, with a proposal for an update to the Infobox that you might have views on.

(If nobody has raised any objections, I'll be bold and have a go at making it happen next week.)

Cheers, Joe D (t) 15:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ulshaw Bridge#Requested move 19 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ulshaw Bridge#Requested move 19 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aprilajune (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Counties - ceremonial or historic

I've just been signposted to the archived discussion on use of flags in county infoboxes, after I brought this up on the How To Write About Counties subpage. Personally I err towards including (non-council) county flags in the infobox, with an explanation in the body if needed. As previously discussed, a lot of these flags are not only supported by councils (which I appreciate do not always cover entire counties), ceremonial officers and the flag institute, but also with some government releases and planning permission implying these hold official status - this has been largely discussed in the above archived discussion. As far as I can tell part of the ongoing discussion is to as to whether they represent historic or ceremonial counties, which rather begs the question which of those are the infoboxes and articles intended to represent. Evidently predominantly the current ceremonial county, but I note most county pages include both a 'historic' and 'ceremonial' map again within the infobox as well as dates of establishment etc, and the lack of separate page for the former entities leads me to assume that whilst predominantly about the current county, there is nothing to prevent historic discussion. Would a compromise which covers all bases perhaps to include those flags which are unambiguous (ie leaving out those which haven't had any even indirect recognition) in infoboxes, but with caveat of maybe labelling them as "historic flag of fooshire"? ~~~~ BryceIII (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:UKCOUNTIES states we don’t usually recognise historic counties as existing as separate from the modern ones, nor with their former borders. So the county articles cover both, and naturally the modern county is prioritised. As it has been argued the flag technically is only for the historic county, it therefore cannot be in the modern-focused infobox. The discussion is still recent and not fully concluded. I did also raise the idea of an altered caption in the template. DankJae 13:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

There are editors here who would die in a ditch rather than see flags in county infoboxes. I say pick a fight you can win. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Reading both this comment and your one on the 'How to write about counties' subpage, I think your position is based on two slight (and very understandable) misconceptions.

The first is that the county flags have official status. They don't, really, despite being mentioned in the British government's 'Flying Flags' guideline. The Flag Institute is an independent charity, and its registry carries no legal weight. The flag authority for England and Wales is the Earl Marshal, and as far as I know he hasn't taken any steps to officially recognise the county flags.

It is clear, however, that many of these unofficial flags are in popular use and some do have a degree of recognition from local councils etc. Personally, I don't think this is enough to warrant a place in the infobox, but it's certainly enough to warrant inclusion in the enyclopedia.

The second thing is that the flags themselves are mostly not historic, with most being designed after 2000. I think I'm right in saying that several were created with the intent of representing an historic county – Lancashire's has certainly been flown in what's now Greater Manchester – but describing them as 'historic flags' wouldn't be accurate except in the few cases where they are.

I do think the county flags are quite a knotty subject to untangle, and they're related to the counties discussion which is even knottier. It's why I've become quite focussed on establishing what the flags actually are, as I think it's only once we've done that that we'll be able to establish a proper approach to them. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Coordinates and "region:GB"

Many of the article this project is interested in have coordinates, for settlements, areas, buildings etc. But a lot of them don't have the "region:GB" parameter in {{coord}}, so when the reader clicks on the coords and gets to GeoHack they aren't offered UK-specific links, and don't get easily to OS mapping (via Bing or UK Streetmap) etc. (There are also problems of over-precision, but that's another story).

I don't know much about bots and their operation, but I could imagine a really useful bot with an algorithm like

• Select an item on a UK geographical entity. (How to identify: either category tree, or of interest to this wikiproject?)
• Does it have coords? If not, ignore
• Are they displayed in the title (to focus on coords which represent the place itself, and eliminate the case where the article mentions that the place is twinned with somewhere in Australia and gives its coords)? If not, ignore
• Do the coords include "region:GB"? If so, ignore
• Do the coords include "type:" (or any other commonly-used parameters of {{coord}} which go in the same slot)? If so, then add "region:GB_" immediately before "type:"; if not, add "region:GB|" immediately before "display".

Or something like that.

Would it be a good idea? Is there a bot enthusiast out there who'd be interested in this?

I've just realised that my ultra-careful approach there, only looking at coords which are displayed in the title line, wouldn't actually help with the case which has brought this to my mind today, where a list has a lot of coords - I was looking at Listed buildings in Yealand Conyers, one of @Peter I. Vardy:'s heroic collection of similar lists. Hmm. But I leave this here as a suggestion for a future bot or AWB project or any other approach to help make our clickable coordinates more useful for our readers. And at the very least a reminder to you all to include that "region:GB" in any coords you add. Any thoughts? PamD 11:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Wolverhampton

I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this, but I'm half asleep so bear with me. Can some admin semi-protect Wolverhampton as it is under serious attack from vandals right now? G-13114 (talk) 08:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Done Requested at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection using Wikipedia:Twinkle. PamD 08:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks G-13114 (talk) 13:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of A508 road for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A508 road, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A508 road until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Thank you. Roads4117 (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The result was to keep the article. Roads4117 (talk) 07:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Road lengths

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Websites for road lengths, of which may be of interest to this WikiProject. Roads4117 (talk) 07:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)