Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 8

Leeds/City of Leeds

I was wondering if there are any other opinions on the Leeds article as there appears to be a number of new editors expressing opinions on this and a possible merge with the City of Leeds article. See Talk:Leeds. Keith D (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

A CfD that has been apparently agreed and which affects a lot of categories concerning parishes in England

I draw people's attention to this CfD about Parishes, which doesn't seem to have been advertised anywhere (though the rules don't seem to say that they have to be: see WT:CFD#Enquiry about probable limited discussion leading to inappropriate closure and action, where I have raised the issue. The general decision seems all right except in one respect: the use of "in" as in "Civil parishes in ...", which I think leads to some very clumsy wording in the case of Isle of Wight ("Civil parishes in (the) Isle of Wight" would surely be better phrased as "Civil parishes of (the) Isle of Wight", which is why I imagine that form of wording was used in the first place.) I guess it is livable with, but it would have been better to have had a greater number of informed opinions on which to close the discussion (only really two or three were in favour of the change to parishes in England, by my reading out of a small number of comments, and the changes were not advertised anywhere on any category pages or here.)  DDStretch  (talk) 02:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"changes were not advertised anywhere on any category pages or here". On the contrary, Category:Parishes of the United Kingdom was tagged,[1] as were all the others. Hesperian 02:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. Thanks for pointi8ng it out. The problem is that an Infobox was written that automatically created many categories, and the names of those categories were not the best, and so were not on many people's watchlists. That's why the CfD notices were missed. The taskforce I want to set up would/will address that matter along with others.  DDStretch  (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

On the page it was being discussed, it was closed as a "technical closure", which I presumed meant it would be done manualy or bit by bit with a huge discussion. I didn't hear anything about that. My guess is that the bot malfunctioned. Jolly Ω Janner 02:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It was a technical closure except in the case of England, when it was agreed, and the bot is busy going through all the categories making name changes according to what the discussion closed as being. the closing editor thinks his decision to allow the changes to go through for England should stand. I really wish it could have been advertised more widely, as there are matters concerning that Infobox and the naming of civil parishes I wanted to have a wider discussion about in this project with a view to improving matters. It could all have been done in one centralised place.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Just for your information, I updated the England and Wales civil parish infobox, as some parishes weren't appearing changed, because they had the category hidden in the infobox. There might be more infoboxes that need/don't need updating. Jolly Ω Janner 02:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It is that infobox that is the main cause of the problem I have with the CfD, as it would have been far better to dissociate the automatic appending of the category by that Infobox and then remove some redundant categories it created (such as Category:Parishes in Cheshire, before any CfD was actioned, and having a better advertised CfD would have enabled that to have happened. There is the problem of any category for the Isle of Wight now being, to be considtent, "Civil Parishes in (the) Isle of Wight" when the old wording would have been far more acceptable grammatically.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Leicester

This article is in a bad state - a really bad state. Anybody else willing to give it a little Xmas TLC in the form of WP:UKCITIES? --Jza84 |  Talk  03:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The demography of Leicester seems to be a hot topic, so that's probably the most important thing to change. While usually I'd be inclined to ignore 2006 estimates, does anyone think they'd be useful here? Would a generic demography section such as one from Heywood, Greater Manchester#Demography be sufficient? And can the dialect section go completely? Nev1 (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I lived in the place for 16 years and once owned a book on the dialect. I don't have it anymore, but the dialect section seems very similar on reading it, and the strange bracketed numbers makes me think it may be just plagiarized from the book: I say delete the dialect section. The entire article really is in a bad state, but I'm not sure I want to devote too much time to it myself.  DDStretch  (talk) 04:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:GBthumb nominated for deletion

I hadn't seen any previous discussion but noticed Template:GBthumb has been nominated for deletion. Discussion is at: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:GBthumb.— Rod ^talk 14:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Going live with the taskforce?

Although more could be done to set it up, do people think it would be a good idea to "go live" with this taskforce now (Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/2009 local government structural changes task force), and add suitable notifications to all relevant projects? If anyone can think of any more suitable projects and places where it could be announced, it would be good to add them as soon as possible. We probably need to get it "on the road" now.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm still keen on adding the following to key talk pages:

Any objection? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

A very good idea, in my opinion.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Same here, although I would prefer a different icon. Can't think of one off-hand though. Jolly Ω Janner 02:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm already preparing my first infobox for a district in Cornwall. Am I right in thinking that, although the changes do not take place until April, we are going to start converting infoboxs for districts to historical ones? If not, I'll just save them on my computer. Jolly Ω Janner 01:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd personally say hang back til April. Although saving in a sandbox sounds an excellent idea yes! --Jza84 |  Talk  01:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll store them in a sandbox, so other people can see them. In the mean time, I need to get my head around the infobox and improve it. Jolly Ω Janner 01:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd also create them and keep them in a sandbox until the time they should be rolled out. We do need a team of people who are prepared to do this, to minimize the extent to which out of date information is present after the changes have happened. Perhaps we need a section on the taskforce noting when certain things have been prepared and that a named editor or named editors are prepared to do the noted changes? If all goes well on other matters today, I'll post the notices on the relevant projects and assume that we go live then. Do we need some use of AWB to put the notices Jza84 has prepared for the individual articles?  DDStretch  (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd imagen AWB would help, but some of it can easily be done by hand. AWB adds the templates to articles that are within a category. I don't think there's a category for all places that are going to be affected, so it would have to be done in stages. Starting with Category:Local government districts in Cornwall, there are only six, so you might as well do it by hand. Jolly Ω Janner 14:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct that they may be able to be done by hand. However, I thought (probably mistakenly) that the notice could be placed on many more pages that needed editing as a result of the changes, such as the principal towns/cities etc. That was probably my mistake, however.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Towns in Cornwall and maybe Category:Villages in Cornwall. Althought perhaps villages is taking it too far. What's your opinion? Jolly Ω Janner 14:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, my own opinion is that we probably need as many editors to help as we can manage. For Cheshire, there will be quite a lot to do. If we put the notice on all villages, we could at least maximize our chances of getting as many helpers as possible, though it might encourage other, less helpful, attention. Towns might be enough. May be we need more to comment on this now?  DDStretch  (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should discus it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/2009 local government structural changes task force? Jolly Ω Janner 16:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

ONS "Urban Area"

I've written an article Milton Keynes urban area which might be relevant elsewhere, particularly to the "population of" disputes. Comments and improvements welcome as it is a bit ungainly as it stands.

We don't have a generic ONS Urban area article: I think we should but it would be difficult to write without breaching the ONS copyright... For the OS definition of an Urban Area, see the notes tab on the Excel version of KS01 Usual resident population: Census 2001, Key Statistics for urban areas. Thoughts? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of having an article about Milton Keynes urban area? Jolly Ω Janner 01:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Because in all the lists of settlements by population, MK (and Telford) are qualified that the urban area "has" to be used, as if this is a necessary evil. So it needs explanation. Also, it's a hook to hang the urban sub-areas on, because the ONS has used existing names but the area covered is not the same as that which people associate with those names.

Actually, I think we could usefully have a lot more: for example "Cardiff Urban Area" because that is the real population of Cardiff, not the sub-area which maps to its boundary in 1908 or whatever. Unfortunately some editors are stuck in the past and won't accept the ONS measure as the more valid one. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by "valid" or "real". The ONS "urban area" is a definition of the contiguous built-up area. That is useful, valid and real for some purposes, but not all. For example, I have experience of Bristol. The Bristol urban area extends well beyond the City of Bristol administrative area, particularly into South Gloucestershire (for example, Filton, Bradley Stoke and Kingswood). In geographical terms, that is important. But it is also important to know that those areas are administered by a different local authority, and, to many residents of those areas, it is important to them that they are not seen to live "in Bristol". That is not an "outdated" view, it is a reflection of a real current sentiment, and the fact that some others may see it as "illogical", for some purposes, is not relevant. Similar arguments will apply in other areas. In terms of WP articles, it is not necessary, and in my view not desirable, to establish a new article in every case where an ONS urban area extends across local authority boundaries - in many cases this can be covered adequately in existing articles and unnecessary new articles would be confusing. However, in some cases, where the urban areas or conurbations are extensive and/or the position is complex, there may be a need for such articles - the need should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ghmyrtle - ultimately such an article still needs to meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and some urban areas will do so more than others. waggers (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There is also an article Greater Glasgow. There are a number of discussions as to whether such a region officially exists, although there is an official definition for NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.Pyrotec (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Underwatched article

I've just removed some spam and nonsense from the Sutton Scotney article, added by the same anon IP in four edits over the past 18 months. I have left a note on the user's talk but I'm not around much, so it would be good if some members of this project could add the article to their watchlist. Thryduulf (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm watching it now. waggers (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested Move for Norfolk

A RM has been proposed involving Norfolk; The other page affected is Norfolk (disambiguation); and a relevant page, for which a page-move is not being proposed, but whose presence brought about the call for a page move is Norfolk, Virginia. Discussion has been initiated on Talk:Norfolk (disambiguation)#Requested_move. Please comment for or against the move. I was not the proposer.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Announcement: The 2009 Structural Changes in Local Government in England: A Taskforce

1. On 1 April, 2009, a number of changes will occur that will affect a number of counties and districts in England, including some which fall within the remit of your project and/or county.
2. The changes will necessitate a large number of changes to various articles on wikipedia.
3. New articles may have to be written, old ones may have to be changed because they will then describe abolished former districts, etc, and numerous changes will have to be made to templates, category names, and articles about individual settlements to update information about local government.
4. Because of this the Uk Geography Project has set up a specific taskforce to identify the changes to be made and then to coordinate the work of preparing for the changes and then implementing them when the changes occur on 1 April.
5. The name of the taskforce is Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/2009 local government structural changes task force or WP:2009ENGLAND.
6. You are invited to join this taskforce to help us all improve wikipedia in these areas by making sure the information is kept updated, and accurate.

Many thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC) (on behalf of the taskforce)

Three more blocks of changes being proposed to categories concerning (civil) parishes in the UK

I have just noticed that today, another three blocks of changes have been proposed for (civil) parishes within the UK. They are Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 28#Subcategories of Category:Civil parishes in Cheshire, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 28#Category:Parishes of the United Kingdom, and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 28#Subcategories of Category:Category:Parishes of Wales. Members of this project may wish to comment or express their views, once way or the other, about these changes.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I gave the situation some thought and wondered if we should start from Category:Municipalities by country down. Agathoclea (talk) 11:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The nomination came through again unnoticed on the 10th of January. As a result we have a nearly empty category as there are only two communities actually categorized as such. Is there any chance we can automate this from the infobox? Agathoclea (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I was busy elsewhere, and haven't noticed. Can you summarize what has happened, or what the resulting changes are? I think I must divert my sttention to this more.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

this CFD resulted in the renaming of Parishes of Wales to Category:Communities in Wales and likewise for Ceredigion. Useful categories I think but only two articles in both categories actually fit the description of a Community all other were about church parishes/old churches or similar. My idea would be to get the infobox autofilling the new categories (I took the liberty of creating the subcategories for the other counties. Agathoclea (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox UK district

I was going to use Template:Infobox UK district for the article about South Hams instead of the gastly table used, but I found out that it has been deprecated without any explanation and that I'm to use UK settlement infobox instead. Is this is a wise decision? Using the district infobox seems simpler and more concise. The other one seems as though it will be giving too much detailed and unecessary information about a district. Jolly Ω Janner 01:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I know for metropolitan boroughs and city-districts, we've been using Template:Infobox settlement. See Preston or Newcastle-upon-Tyne as examples. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The South Hams is very rural — just a collection of villages and a few towns spread across rural landscape. I think it is quite different in comparison with Preston and Newcastle. Jolly Ω Janner 02:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's still possible to extract simillar data and input it into this infobox effectively. I think there was a discussion about 18 months ago about a planned switch over to Infobox settlement for all districts in England (and maybe Wales). --Jza84 |  Talk  02:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of the (rural) districts that I've seen, do not use a templated infobox, but rather a table as seen in South Hams. Jolly Ω Janner 02:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I remember the previous discussions as well and as a result used Infobox settlement for the non-metropolitan districts of Somerset eg West Somerset which is quite rural.— Rod ^talk 08:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

{{Infobox Settlement}}'s documentation states clearly that the template "can be used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, etc.". In what way does that not meet your needs? You may omit any of the infobox's parameters you feel are not needed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It meets my needs of information, but so does the UK district infobox. There are so many parameters that I would spend a lot of time deciding which ones to omit. Jolly Ω Janner 14:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I have now used the infobox settlement for the South Hams. If you think it is a good example of an infobox, then we could create the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about districts, which currently appears as a red link on the UKGEO page. Jolly Ω Janner 22:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

London

I'm a bit concerned about the London article. It's currently a GA, but even from a cursory glance at the lead I'm confident that this article would fail a GA-review. We have several outstanding "citation needed" tags, as well as dead links and uncited claims. London is a Top priority for this project, and is one of the most important cities in human history. Perhaps this project could apply some collective TLC? --Jza84 |  Talk  15:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get round to do some editing there. I remember helping The helpfulone when he was trying to get it to FA, so I don't know what's happened since then. I don't think we should go down the path of delisting it, because if/when it is ready to be nominated as GA-class again, we would struggle in finding someone to review such a huge article unless we can breed super humans. Jolly Ω Janner 23:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Some changes to the civil parish infobox

There is a need for this project to review the matter of the civil parish infobox. However, there are two changes that can be done to reduce some problems immediately. I've made some suggestions on Template talk:Infobox England and Wales civil parish. Comments are welcome.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to merge the article City of Leeds into the article Leeds

Any input at Talk:Leeds would be appreciated. Thanks, —Jeremy (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This sort of argument is raging all over the English pages of Wikipedia, and the battle is being fought out page by page with different results for different local authorities. Can we please have some consistency. Personally, I don't mind which way it goes (a single article for the entire district or metropolitan district; or separate articles for the core area and for the entire district), but for heaven's sake lets make a decision one way or the other.

I had thought a policy had been established to have two articles, but I have searched for over five hours to find it, only to come across numerous examples of unresolved discussions.

So, to get the ball rolling my Proposal is :-

1. For English districts the article should be named after the official name ("East Northamptonshire" not "East Northamptonshire District" or "East Northamptonshire (district)")
2. Where the district is substantially different from the urban core of the same name there should be separate articles for the two entities. The article on the urban core should, for example, be named simply "Leeds" whilst that on the local government district should use the format "District of Daventry", or where borough status is held "Borough of Milton Keynes", or where city status is held "City of Leeds". City status should take priority over borough status. In the case of metropolitan boroughs which do not have city status the full title should be used ("Metropolitan Borough of Stockport").
3. When referring to the location of a place in a local government authority the introductory form used should be "Newton is a village in the District of East Northamptonshire in Northamptonshire, England", or where borough status is held "Newton is a village in the Borough of Milton Keynes in Buckinghamshire, England", or where city status is held "Newton is a village in the City of Leeds in West Yorkshire, England". In the case of metropolitan boroughs which do not have city status the introductory form should be "Newton is a village in the Metropolitan Borough of Stockport in Greater Manchester, England" and in the case of London boroughs "Newton is a village in the London Borough of Redbridge". For Cornwall, the form used should be "Newton is a village in the District of Penwith in Cornwall, England, UK". For the unitary districts of Herefordshire, East Riding of Yorkshire and Rutland the form used should be "Newton is a village in the County of Rutland, England". For the unitary authority of Bristol the form should be "Newton is a village in the City of Bristol, England." For the cities of London and Westminster the form used should be "Newton is a village in the City of London". The terms area, hamlet, town, civil parish or city can be substituted for, or added to, village. The county quoted should be the Ceremonial County.

This I think sets out what is believed to be the status quo (if I'm wrong please say so), but hopefully in a way that can be clearly understood and referred to.

Skinsmoke (talk) 04:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like it should be. In Wales though I find a lot of articles placing villages in parishes of certain "hundreds" - entities long gone. Agathoclea (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I suspect you will find a "Traditional Counties" supporter active on those articles, and I understand that some of them dispute that the old Hundreds system were ever abolished, and that might explain the additions. However, I believe that for all intents and purposes, they have become defunct and are de facto no longer relevant to the current administrative set ups (when did the last Hundred courts that are mentioned actually sit?) It is a bit like arguing that some of the old members of the Heptarchy were never formally abolished (or at least that no record of them having been formally abolished can be found), and so saying that certain villages are currently in the Kingdom of Northumbria, or Hwicce, and so on, is appropriate.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

One that's occured to me would be to add to Section (3) :-

For the unitary authority of the Isle of Wight the form should be "Newton is a village on the Isle of Wight, England"

Skinsmoke (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of reliable sources or verification and so I do not support any change to the current situation. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and City status doesn't not nullify Borough status - city status is (often) an add on to borough status. City status is honorific, borough status makes structural and ceremonial changes to local government. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And just to add to the general confusion, there are examples where city status has not been awarded to the boroughs, but to the like-named settlements, for example Preston (the district) does not hold that status (despite Preston City Council governing the area), but Preston (the settlement). Fingerpuppet (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is Jza84. Reliable sources or verification for what? This is not a proposal to add anything and there is no information to verify. It is a proposal to bring together the supposed styles operating in Wikipedia into a version which is clearly set out and understandable. If you don't like any of the proposals and want to change any say which ones and we can then consider them.

I accept the point that City status does not nullify Borough status, and the proposed policy doesn't claim that it does. It simply says that City status should take precedence. After all, do you really want an article to read "Didsbury is an area in the Borough and City of Manchester in Greater Manchester, England"? I think most people would expect "Didsbury is an area in the City of Manchester in Greater Manchester, England".

I have checked the articles for the three (I think I've got them all) cities where city status was not formally granted to the borough. Preston, Wolverhampton and Brighton and Hove all infer in their introductions that the whole of the local authority has city status, and indeed none of them make any mention of the charters bestowing city status on the town or towns. All three authorities appear to treat city status as applying to the whole borough. Perhaps the appropriate place to deal with the anomalies is with a paragraph under the appropriate governance sections within each article. Incidentally, the proposed policy wouldn't change the wording of those three articles at all!

Skinsmoke (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not just those three - Lichfield has that status, not Lichfield (district) for example. The text of the charters in those cases ("The Town of Preston shall have the status of a City") differs from others ("The Borough of Sunderland shall have the status of a City"), whilst Newport's reads "The Town of Newport in the County Borough of Newport...shall have the status of a City". List of cities in the United Kingdom has the full list of entities holding the status. It's especially interesting that there are examples of settlements where city status was awarded to the town that have expanded outside the local authority boundaries (such as Wolverhampton), and the letters patent imply that these areas are also part of the city. What relevance does that lot have here? Well, simply that care needs to be taken before renaming any article to the proposed standards. Fingerpuppet (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources and verification are required for all contributions to wikipedia, that is what I am stating and what policy insists. That we make changes to policy based on no clear evidence other than personal preference is not something I would be willing to enforce upon Wikipedia. Indeed, is there real need to make a change/formal convention here (if it's not broke....)? --Jza84 |  Talk  20:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Skinsmoke's proposal is not a change, it's simply putting the existing convention into writing. By and large, local government districts are very much distinct entities from the settlements they're named after, and therefore as a rule two articles are called for. In the very rare cases where they are coterminous then one will do. That's not a change, it's the way we currently do things. waggers (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

In general I support the proposal at the top of this section, but I do have a problem with the use of the word "City". The problem being that most people don't appreciate city status applied to a whole district/borough and think of it as applying only to the urban core. Therefore I think whenever we refer to "City of X" an appropriate form of words is needed to avoid confusion. Maybe "City of X district", or something similar, within body text. I don't really like the idea of an article about a partly-rural district being called "City of X". --Dr Greg (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and that's what's already recommended at WP:UKCITIES. When a settlement is outlying to the urban core/city HQ/pre-1974 extent it's important to qualify what is meant by the "City of X" IMHO. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note Fingerpuppet. Lichfield isn't quite the same as I understand city status is held by the civil parish (as is the case with Ripon, Ely, Hexham, Truro and possibly others), and not by the district. Similarly Bath and Salisbury, where city status is held by charter trustees rather than the district (presumably why they are still districts as obtaining borough status would have led to the abolition of the charter trustees and transfer of city status to the district or loss of city status entirely). I'd discounted Newport as it is in Wales (not that I have anything against our Celtic neighbours). Skinsmoke (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jza84. Though not necessarily something that explicitly needs citing (unless challenged), it should always be possible to verify statements like "X is a Y in Z" with reliable published sources. This will remain true regardless of any guideline agreed on by the members of a Wikiproject, so discussion on a case-by-case basis, though often tiresome, cannot be avoided. —Jeremy (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Dullingham East Cambs

I used to live not far from here. I have added some rather boring extra info to the article. Since it is a stub I saw no harm on editing it-- the discussion page is empty so I assumed I would hardly get much feedback had I asked before.

It's not perfect and I can add much more but would very much appreciate feedback from you all before I start adding more content to UK geography project. I know that region fairly well and will read the guidelines etc, but as I say I saw no harm in amending a stub if for no other reason than to get someone else to correct it!

Best wishes

SiTrew 2009-Jan-xxvii 2142 GMT —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs) 21:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Dundee FA status

It was mentioned in the Dundee talk page that the article no longer met many of the criteria for FA back in 2007. I imagine the requirements have either changed significantly or the article has degraded through subsequent editing. I've therefore nominated it for FA review. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Catfish Jim and the soapdish has nominated Dundee 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alert

Would it be useful to set up an article alert on the project page - this picks up anything tagged for the project which is FA, FAR, GA, AfD, CfD etc nominated & updated every 24 hrs or so? Details are at: User:B. Wolterding/Article alerts.— Rod ^talk 11:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have set it up for the Cheshire Project (it was very easy to do), and so far it seems to be working all right. Consequently, I'm about to try to advertise it more. I think it is potentially very useful, so I would say, "Go for it!".  DDStretch  (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

OK I've added it below the todo list (can be moved) & not set any parameters for appearance - but it should start showing the list in the next day or two.— Rod ^talk 12:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sweet. Jolly Ω Janner 12:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I added "display-box" to the parameters of the call in the Cheshire Project one. My reading of the instructions was that a new sub-page is created, and the box displyed the link to the new page. (see WP:CHES#Article Changes with box including link leading to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cheshire/Article alerts)  DDStretch  (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I did it on Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset without any parameters & it created Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset/Article alerts automatically & just displays a list on the main project page - feel free to change the parameters here.— Rod ^talk 13:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I probably need to change the Cheshire one, then.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

South West Coast Path

South West Coast Path has now been a stable GA for over a year, with recent additions particularly in relation to some places in Cornwall. Apart from a few sections without citations I was wondering what others think would be needed to achieve the Featured article criteria? Would anyone from this wikiproject be interested in working on getting the South West Coast Path article to FA? I've started a discussion on Talk:South West Coast Path and comments are probably best put there.— Rod ^talk 11:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Counties

Wikipedia has three or four different guidelines on placenames, so some of us have been trying to merge WP:PLACES into the other guidelines. As part of this, the long-standing text on the Counties of Britain has been moved to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)/Counties, with a cross-reference. Comments are welcome at WT:PLACES#Counties of Britain.

Since this text is a largely frozen relic of a discussion with editors some of whom have since been banned, it does look it could be summarized in a simpler form at WP:NC (settlements): not changed in guidance, but put in the form Use administrative counties when talking about the present day, except... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you intend to mean administrative counties, which is a specific technical term for entities that existed in between the ancient counties and the metropolitan counties and nometropolitian counties (or, alternatively, the ceremonial counties). I think the term you probably intended was ceremonial counties (i.e., the ones still in existence). They went (roughly):

• foundation—1894: Ancient Counties
• 1894—1974: Administrative Counties
• 1974—continues: Ceremonial Counties (Met. and NonMet. Counties)

Would ceremonial counties be the more correct term you intended?  DDStretch  (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The guideline referred to says: We should use the current, administrative, county, by which it means the current administrative unit: West Yorkshire, not Yorkshire. I'm not English myself, and have only the most contingent feelings; if this is wrong, or there is no consensus it is right, it is probably better to write a new guideline expressing how things are now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah! There may be some room for confusion, then. The matter could be clarified somewhat if we (including me) were more careful in distinguishing between, say "the current, administrative county" and "the administrative county" (with or without capitalization). The terms "ancient county", "administrative county", and "metropolitan/nonmetropolitan county" ("ceremonial county" are fairly well-used technical terms for the name of county-level areas as they existed during various periods of history. I would be astounded if the sentence you quoted wasn't intended to mean the unitary authorities or the county-level units that are the current ones. The situation is complex, not completely uniform, and so there may well be a need to revise the wording Local government in England summarizes the situation for England, one of the countries of the United Kingdom (the situation is a bit different in the three other countries: Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.  DDStretch  (talk) 03:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Peterborough

Image 1

Image 2

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Peterborough#Images to decide what image of Peterborough Cathedral to use in the article (see right for the choices). Currently the opinion is split 2-1, but more opinions are probably needed. Nev1 (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we continue discussing changing the image as it's still there...the proposed image has been changed... GrumpyGuts (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

New project proposal - Norfolk & Suffolk

Hi all

I have proposed a new project "Wikiproject Norfolk & Suffolk" and would appreciate any support that I can get for getting this through.

I did think of making it a task force, but that would limit action as it would have to belong to a parent.

Many thanks--Chaosdruid (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Just to update - I have added a discussion page for the project scope as there has been call for both expanding and reducing it in the project proposals page.

Page to discuss the project scope here

Many thanks--Chaosdruid (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Images of England refs

As you may know there are thousands of England related articles which use Images of England (IoE) which lists all of the listed buildings. They have recently changed the format of the URLs returned by their database, meaning that each unique building number is the same, but any "string" in the URL which includes "search/details" will only work if the reader is already logged in to IoE for anyone else it presents a blank screen. If this section of the URL is replaced with "Details/Default" it works for everyone with no need to log in. As an example try comparing this with this one which both target information about St Andrews Church in Chew Stoke with the item number 32965 but the first one fails & the second one works. I have asked whether it would be possible for a Bot to update all of these but if not it presents a fairly major job - including for many articles at GA & FA which now show up on the link checker as having broken links.— Rod ^talk 18:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The template {{IoEentry}} uses the correct format so articles using that template or {{IoE}} are not affected by this change. Keith D (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JL-Bot 4.— Rod ^talk 20:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

FAs (and possibly GAs) should be ok as the link checker tool flagged up the urls with the search field in even before they stopped working, however a bot to correct other pages would certainly be a good idea. Nev1 (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about that as the links would have been fine at the time of FAC, but will have become broken in the last few days, when the change was made. For example Chew Stoke (an FA) when run on this link checker shows code 200 and an error for IoE citations "100.0% signal, 2 words, score: 2 The file is extremely small (515 bytes)." Grade I listed buildings in Bristol (a Featured list) has the same error message lots of times.— Rod ^talk 23:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Feet and inches

Manual of Style question: How do we express measurements in feet and inches?

• 4 feet 7 inches (2.17 m)
• 4 7/12 feet (2.17 m)
• 4.583 feet (2.17 m)
• 55 inches (2.17 m)

I stumbled across a few measurements like this in Hurstpierpoint. They do not look right, but I could not decide how to treat them. MortimerCat (talk) 10:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The only one that I don't like is "4 7/12 feet (2.17 m)". I consider that all the rest have valid use in particular circumstances; and Hurstpierpoint looks fine to me, apart from the lack of metric equivalents for units such as "4 feet 7 inches".Pyrotec (talk) 11:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have my reservations about 4.583 feet too. Does anyone have a ruler marked like that? Are there any precedents for its legitimate use? --Derek Andrews (talk) 12:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It is the sort of measurements that you might see on an engineering drawing, that was originally drawn in feet and inches and then "metricated" sometime in the last 30 to 540 years. I have a metre rule, with inches and 1/10 inches on it and a tape measure that will measure 4ft 7 in. I guess I would have to use one of them :-) Pyrotec (talk) 12:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Check out Template:Convert. That seems to suggest the correct format is 6 feet 5 inches (2.0 m). Skinsmoke (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Good answer. Thanks ++ MortimerCat (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Peterborough - The Arts

There is a new concensus to replace one of the images on the discussion page for Peterborough. The objection is that the Royal Albert Hall is of (inter)national importance and resembles Peterborough Cathedral, but RAH is not even in Peterborough and there is a new picture of a theater within the city to replace it. We need some input... GrumpyGuts (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

	Current	Proposed
- The Arts

Errr! Do they have theaters in Peterborough, or is it theatres? :-) I can understand the reason for not wanting the RAH.Pyrotec (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry my spelling isn't very accurate. The discussion has taken a new turn; it is to use both images, but the arts section needs expanding GrumpyGuts (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Cathedral towns

Could i ask for people's comments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_10#Category:Towns_with_cathedrals_in_the_United_Kingdom? The purpose of this was to list all current towns with cathedrals until i strangely found there were some villages and an island with a cathedral (within the UK). Now decisions need to bemade on whether to rename it and what scope it should cover. Simply south (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

PrimroseGuy redirects

User:PrimroseGuy created a lot of inappropriate redirects from village names to county articles. He seems to have left around Feb 2007, and a lot of the redirects are still in place. Some have been stubbed, some have been converted to better redirects (e.g. to a parish or directly related article). The rest are at User:Sjorford/PrimroseGuy redirects.

I was going to list them at WP:RFD, but given that there are less than 100, we might as well go ahead and stubbify them all. If anybody wants to jump in and cover their region, be my guest, otherwise it'll be a while before I work through them. — sjorford++ 11:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll take the Somerset ones - probably improving redirects to civil parishes as the ones I've looked at so far aren't notable enough for their own articles. Would you like people to indicate on your sandbox page when they are sorted?— Rod ^talk 11:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes please - and as you say, a lot of them can probably be redirected to a parish if they are too insignificant to warrant their own page. — sjorford++ 14:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The two Cheshire villages don't seem notable enough on their own, so WP:CHES has decided to redirect them to the approriate civil parishes. One has already been done, the second will be done in the next few days, but first an article needs to created for the civil parish Windyharbour is in (that's being taken care of by Ddstretch). Nev1 (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I've created a stub for Wychnor, and redirected a few to parishes (not notable enough for separate articles, with the possible exception of Wyfordby which was formerly a separate parish - I'm not sure if Yarlsber is notable enough for a redirect as it is possibly only a farm). —Snigbrook 23:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:48, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

National Nature Reserve articles

Wikipedia has a number of articles on National Nature Reserves in England, as well as the parent article. Many of them are named .... NNR, for example Derbyshire Dales NNR. I don't find that a particularly helpful way to name the articles, since not everyone is used to the NNR abbreviation. Do you have any suggestions? Should they all be renamed? What would the Derbyshire Dales example become, given that there is also a Derbyshire Dales constituency. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I moved Derbyshire Dales NNR to Derbyshire Dales National Nature Reserve and suggest that the same should happen to the others. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, and it's backed up by policy: "Acronyms should be used in page naming if the subject is almost exclusively known only by its acronym and is widely known and used in that form". Better get moving those pages. Nev1 (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved them myself, so any that had NNR in their title now reads "...National Nature Reserve". The National Nature Reserves in England article doesn't have the updated links though. If anyone thinks they should be moved back for whatever reason, leave a note here and I'll delete the redirects and take care of tidying up. Nev1 (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That's great. Thanks very much. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting climate data

For Plymouth, should I use data from the BBC or the Hong Kong Observatory. I think that Plymouth has been using data from the Hong Kong Observatory for atleast the past year and, upon the BBC's data discovery, I was intrigued. Jolly Ω Janner 23:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

British Isles rename?

British Isles has been requested to be renamed to something else at WP:RM, see Talk:British Isles. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Mass move of articles from "..., Hampshire" to "..., Southampton"

I know this isn't the first time this has come up and it won't be the last - a user has taken it upon himself perform the above move without discussion (which I reverted), and has now put in a requested move to repeat their mass move - the discussion is at Talk:Shirley, Hampshire (not sure why they picked on that particular article). Note that the proposal is to apply the move to Southampton suburb articles only - they don't seem interested in addressing the inconsistency that would cause with other unitary authorities, nor do they state why Southampton should be an exception to the general rule. Personally I don't oppose the idea of changing the naming convention for settlements and suburbs within unitary authorities, but it should surely be one rule for all rather than each area deciding to go it alone with a different convention. waggers (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The RM succeeded, and it's pretty clear the naming convention at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#England needs updating as it doesn't come anywhere close to current practice. Please discuss at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Disambiguation_for_English_city_suburbs. waggers (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

missing coordinates

I've been working my way through Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset/Cleanup listing (should we have a similar automatically generated listing for this wikiproject?) & it includes articles tagged with missing coordinates ie Category:Somerset articles missing geocoordinate data. When working on this I noticed the hidden categories Category:United Kingdom articles missing geocoordinate data and Category:England articles missing geocoordinate data (I'm sure there must be similar for NI, Wales & Scotland). It would be great if members of county wikiprojects could eyeball these lists & refine the tags eg {{coord missing|United Kingdom}} or {{coord missing|England}} by changing them to {{coord missing|County}} where County = specific wikiprojects or (even better) add the relevant coordinates.— Rod ^talk 13:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Severn Barrage

I hope you feel this is appropriate at the project? I've nominated Severn Barrage at Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive largely because an important proposed development like this needs a better article & to reduce the mass of cleanup tags. If you feel it is appropriate you could support the proposal, which, if successful, should bring the article to the attention of a wider collection of editors.— Rod ^talk 16:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Poll: autoformatting and date linking

This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Maps in infoboxes

After the administrative changes rolled out on 1 April, the boundaries of some local authorities have changed. WP:2009ENGLAND was set up as a task force of WP:UKGEO to update wikipedia's articles after the change. According to the project page, new maps have been made, but it appears that they haven't been added to the infoboxes. Does anyone know how to solve this? Nev1 (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what's happening in other counties, but as for Cornwall's settlements (example), a new version of the map used has simply been uploaded over the existing map. Hope that helps! Jolly Ω Janner 01:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I worked out how to sort it, all that had to be done was change the map used in "Template:Location map United Kingdom [county name]" for each affected county, such as I did in this instance. Cornwall had me a bit confused as the new image didn't seem to be different to the one already used, but now I see it's because the old image had been overwritten. All maps should now be up to date. Nev1 (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

(For future reference, note that the above works provided the new map is exactly the same scale and location as the old map. If not, the numbers in the template would need changing. I'm assuming all the new maps have been prepared so that new numbers aren't necessary. --Dr Greg (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

Good point, everything seems to be ok for now, but I'll double check with User:Jza84 (who made them) when he's next active. Nev1 (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for Input

On the article M54 motorway, User:Jenuk1985 has continued to remove my additions to the routebox, which can be seen here [2]. However, the user has seen it fit to remove them and revert it back to the basic version seen at present. Now as far as I know, there is no 'defined' standard on these kind of routeboxes, someone has just added them all to all the motorway articles to be improved upon. I cite the one in use on the FA M62 motorway, which itself has been modified somewhat to include coordinates. I really think this user is being unreasonable, but being aware of the 3RR I cannot undo the unconstructive edit. Essentially, as far as I see it, what is the rationale for removing useful information? I would appreciate input. Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It was an inappropriate, non standard and confusing exit list, as I stated in my edit summaries. The M62 motorway one is standard so I'm not sure why you are citing this? Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I posted this before you replied on your talk page, clearly this has been resolved now. Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Good, so we can put an end to this? Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Although I still think the American version looks better, in my personal opinion only. Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Local chapter for the Wikimedia Foundation

We are Wikimedia UK - the group of local Wikimedians helping the Foundation to create "a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge". Love Wikipedia? Based in the UK? Can you support us in projects such as generating free-content photographs, freeing up archive material and media relations? Or are there other projects you'd like us to help with? if so, please click here to Join up, Donate and Get Involved

AndrewRT(Talk) 21:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Categories on redirects

I have just stumbled upon the redirect page Terwick (you end up at Rogate then have to use the redirect link to get back again). This redirect page has been given a category of Villages in West Sussex. In the category list, the hamlet of Terwick appears in italics.

I think this is a great idea, it means the category can be complete with all the tiny hamlets mentioned - all the tiny places that only qualify for a redirect to the parish. But before I start categorising all the redirects, I wanted to check first. Should these redirects be categorised, or will someone come along later saying "Do not put categories on redirects". ++ MortimerCat (talk) 06:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Blackpool

This article is a real mess, and needs a bit of WP:UKCITIES and TLC. Just a nudge :) --Jza84 |  Talk  09:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation and embedded audio files

I wrote about the formatting of pronunciation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Pronunciation a couple of weeks ago. I've just come across Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/Embedded Audio Pronunciations and the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 4#Embedded audio as a guide to pronunciation. So I'm coming here to reach consensus before I continue editing.

I think the sound recordings are great, very accessible. But IPA transcriptions give more information.

First I want to try and explain what the IPA transcription is giving. There's a key difference between a phonemic transcription and a phonetic transcription. When we use the symbols at Wikipedia:IPA for English, we are giving phonemic information about how the word would be correctly pronounced in any common accent of English. This is shown between slashes. When you record a file, you show how the word is pronounced in a particular accent. This is phonetic information and would be shown in square brackets. Durham currently shows it well, with the generic phonemic transcription, and then a phonetic transcription of how that sounds when a local says it.

Think about Whitby. When I transcribe it using our phonemic system, the first sound is /hw/. In a recording from an RP speaker or from a local, the first sound will be [w]. Some accents have a difference between wine and whine. With a transcription, we know how to say the word correctly in these accents (ie the first sound is [hw]). But recordings don't provide that information.

So, the main points I want to make are:

• The IPA transcription is more generic, so it should come first.
• The following example is actually wrong because it links a phonemic transcription to a phonetic recording:
  London (pronounced /ˈlʌndən/ ) is ...

I was using "listen" with the sound files, but now see that "pronunciation" has been used as a convention.

So I'd like to propose the following as the new convention:
Birmingham ({{Pron-en|ˈbɝːmɪŋəm}}, pronunciation^ⓘ) is ...

Where a respelling is provided, I've left these in, giving:
Birmingham ({{Pron-en|ˈbɝːmɪŋəm}}, BəR-ming-əm, pronunciation^ⓘ) is ...

We should also think about what to do when there is more than one standard pronunciation, eg Coventry. The current sound file is in fact illustrating the first transcription. Maybe:
Coventry ({{Pron-en|ˈkɒvəntri}}, pronunciation^ⓘ, or /'kʌvəntri/) is ...

BTW, I'm using the Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary as my source for transcriptions. Gailtb (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Durham

Does anyone have information whether Durham is still a city? As the City of Durham was abolished on its merger into the new County Durham unitary authority, has Durham not followed Rochester in losing city status? The article at City of Durham states The district was abolished as part of the 2009 structural changes to local government in England although it will retain its city charter, but there is no citation for this and as far as I can see The County Durham (Structural Change) Order 2008 makes no mention of preserving city status. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

See the Schedule to The Local Government (Structural Changes) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Other Provision) Order 2009 (SI 2009/837). I have added this as a source at City of Durham, which should now really be merged into Durham proper. Chrisieboy (talk) 10:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for that Chrisieboy. Skinsmoke (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

OS Grid Refs

Does anyone know what has happened to the OS gridref conversion at rhaworth.com, used for example via the {{gbmappingsmall}} template? Pterre (talk) 09:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Welsh County Boroughs

There's currently a discussion you may like to participate in at Wikipedia talk:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board#Renaming of key Welsh county articles. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Cowes

Proposed splitting Cowes to Cowes and East Cowes. See Talk:Cowes. Simply south (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

And now Carlisle

And now Chrisieboy has moved Carlisle and City of Carlisle against all consensus here, and with no support on the articles themselves and has removed citations that disagree with their personal POV. Can someone put it all back please? I would, but I tend to make a pig's ear of the whole thing. Fingerpuppet (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Er, hang on a minute. I have discussed everything on the talk page, where you have been free to contribute (but, as usual, chose not to). Which "citations that disagree with [my] personal POV" have I removed exactly? I was rather under the impression that I had added a source. Chrisieboy (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

As usual? Am I meant to follow you around?

You demanded a citation on the talk page. You got one.

"It lies at the heart of the wider City of Carlisle, a local government district" had a citation from a valid, high quality source. You've left half the sentence in, which no longer makes sense as the district that happens to have the same name is not "10 miles south" of the Scottish border, but right up against it. Or alternatively, is more like 20 miles south of the border, depending on where you measure it to. The district is also not "located at the confluence of the rivers Eden, Caldew and Petteril", as parts of it are somewhere near 35km distant. But then accuracy and consensus don't appear to matter to you, do they? I give up. You're not worth any more of my time, and I have better things to do than deal with agenda-pushers who fail entirely to see the massive holes in their personal POV, and choose to completely ignore everything that anyone shows them differently, and to spout inaccuracies and half-truths when it suits them. Fingerpuppet (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Please check though, I think you will find I haven't removed any sources; there were 15 and now there are 16. Chrisieboy (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I totally object to any such move made by Christieboy and share the concerns of Fingerpuppet entirely. This isn't good practice. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

And I totally object to the fact that you have just reverted the changes (citing WP:BRD) without any attempt to engage in discussion whatsoever. Chrisieboy (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Pratt!

I have seen a Pratt in the United Kingdom but i can't remember where though possibly the Orkney or Shetland Islands. Could anyone help? Simply south (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a Pratt's Bottom near Orpington (well between Biggin Hill & Orpington.Pyrotec (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Pratt's Bottom perhaps - its useful to look these sorts of things up at List of United Kingdom locations & then fix the hundreds of red links & links which need dab pages.— Rod ^talk 21:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought that might come up but actually i saw a Prat\Pratt on an old map from the 90s n a hamlet or something there and possibly another in the west country. And yes, i am not talking about an idiot. Simply south (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked up "Pratt" in the Ordnance Survey National Atlas of Great Britain (1968 edition), and Pratt's Bottom was all I could find. I also used the Oxford Dictionary of English Place-names (2nd edition) and again no Pratt is mentioned, but Pratt's Bottom was. The Oxford Dictionary of English Place-names states that the name is linked to a family of that name, known in that area since the 14th century. Thanks Rod, your wikipedia source conforms with my search; I did not know it was there, I will bookmark it for future use. Pyrotec (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure now. I think i mixed it up with twat! Simply south (talk) 10:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean Twatt - see Twatt, Orkney & Twatt, Shetland.— Rod ^talk 11:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)