Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 5

Navenby

Hi, I started a page on Navenby, a village in Lincolnshire, last october. I just wondered if someone could give it a rating, and point me in the right direction to keep on improving it. Thanks! Seahamlass 11:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

A lot of work has obviously been done mostly by yourself but also with some others on this article. My immediate thoughts are that as many as possible of the external links in the External Links section should be converted to references (as advised in WP:UKCITIES and WP:EL.) Similarly, the in-text external links given (the ones that yield a number in square brackets in the text) should also be converted into references. That way, the article will immmediately become much more obviously sourced and verified. For help with referencing, you can read WP:References, WP:CITE, and WP:V. I've not read much of it in detail, but this point struck me as the most obvious to begin with. WP:UKCITIES would also be a good document to read and consider if you haven't done so already, as it gives some good advice on how to structure an article such as this so that it fits in well with wikipedia guidelines and hence increases its chance of gaining Good Article or even Featured Article status. Good luck!  DDStretch  (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Design of this project page

Can I suggest that including images within the section headings of this project page, though it looks pretty, isn't such a good idea because it causes problems with links to subheadings and the names that appear in edit summaries. As the images are all identical, they serve no purpose anyway. --Dr Greg (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Navenby

Considering that Navenby was a Bronze Age, Iron Age and Roman settlement, and is also mentioned in the Domesday Book, could it not be given a higher importance level than 'low'? Seahamlass 14:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC) [User:Seahamlass|Seahamlass]]

The importance scale is set up so that settlements are prioritised by the community for development and attention according to their population size. Thus the major urban areas and subdivisions of the UK recieve top priority, whilst hamlets of a 100 people are not as high on the list. The Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/Assessment page gives some pointers on how the assessment system works for UK geography.

However, don't let that fool you or put you off. Wormshill, a village of just 200, is a low priority article with Featured article status - the highest status the community can bestow upon an article. Navenby would benefit from adopting some of the style and layout of Wormshill, and other featured settlement articles like Stretford, Bath, Somerset, Blyth, Northumberland, Weymouth etc etc, all of which follow WP:UKCITIES as a guide.

Does that help? -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes - thanks! Seahamlass 15:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seahamlass (talk • contribs)

Template:England counties

There is discussion at Template talk:England counties about including some major divisions within the template. Wider comment would be apreciated. MRSC • Talk 15:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrexham

Hello,

Wrexham looks as if it needs some serious attention from project members. The material in the article seems to be confused, displaced and in some parts plain sloppy! There are breaches of core principles of Wikipedia, without even thinking of WP:UKCITIES!

Template:WrexhamCounty would benefit from some standardisation, whilst confusion between Wrexham (the town), the Wrexham Urban Area, Wrexham principal area and Wrexham (county borough) has confused me so much that I'm struggling working this out myself.

Help would be greatly appreciated. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Shaw and Crompton

Shaw and Crompton is a civil parish and not a town as stated in the lead. In the absence of a town charter, the LGA 72 s.245(6) refers. A reference has recently been provided, although it has been confirmed by the publisher that this is an obvious error. I am willing to provide copies of my correspondence with the North West Regional Assembly to this effect, but User:Jza84 (who I am beginning to suspect has ownership issues here) seems to have a dogged attachment to the word. This is currently a FA, so I feel accuracy is particularly important.

I would welcome the input of other editors as I am reluctant to refer to FAR if it can be avoided. Chrisieboy (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Lovely stuff! Just a note that I also raised this with the WikiProject Greater Manchester a few hours back, though took a slightly different approach (see diff). Says alot about us I think. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Strange as it may seem, wikipedia is based on the idea of verifiability and reliable sources, not accuracy per se. If you think that taking this article to FAR would change that fact, then you clearly don't understand much about the FA criteria; but if you think that's an appropriate way to try and resolve this impasse, then I suggest you nominate it straight away, so long as you're also prepared to abide any concensus that emerges there. If you're not, then it would be another waste of time. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I honestly find your regard for accuracy worrying. The four sources are hardly reliable. (1) A report discredited for our purposes, (2) A 1998 Oldham Education and Leisure publication, (3) A 1907 publication entitled Shaw Church in By-gone Days and (4) A 1967 Crompton Public Libraries publication. This is against (1) legal citation and (2) confirmation from the North West Regional Assembly to the contrary, both of which you can easily ascertain for yourself. However, I did not intend to continue the discussion here. Chrisieboy (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you ought to keep the discussion in one place? - Talk:Shaw and Crompton. -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The new local authority structures for Cheshire

It would be good to get some feedback on this. At present, two articles have been created that are about the not yet existing local uthorities planned for Cheshire: Cheshire East and Cheshire West and Chester. Already these have had to have their names changed as the names of the new authorities have changed, and I personally thought their creation at this time was slightly premature for that and other reasons. A lot of speculative election information has been added that in other articles would have gone into a separate article solely about the council that administered those areas. Now we have seen this morning two edits by a Historic Counties advocate which adds an extensive quote to both articles that seems to add little to the content other than show that the existing councils used the term "historic county" in their press release. Can I ask for advice about this? My reaction has been to remove this quote because it adds little to the content of the article. I am not sure whether this will provoke a re-insertion of the material.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether it provokes a reinsertion of the material or not, I think that you were right in deciding to remove that irrelevant quote. It added nothing to the article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 10:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Owain, who added it, seems to think it does add to the article. He hasn't (yet) reinstated it, but has commented on its removal on the talk page (and also taken care to add the qualifier "Ceremonial" to the county map which he had added previously and which my reversion had removed.)  DDStretch  (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been assured there is a guideline that states we should avoid linking within quotations - the purpose being that we shouldn't assume the speaker means certain terms we use here. To what "historic" boundaries was the speaker alluding to? Also, I believe half of Tameside was from Lancashire, with a further part from Yorkshire, West Riding.

I have no problem with a fresh wave of boundary reform to historic boundaries, but we should not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries, and we should report on this as and when (though I think it's unlikely to happen for practical reasons - particularly for major conurbations). Also, I'd be mindful of avoiding any soapboxing or adding material which doesn't add context. I'm with you guys - it should go, at least for the time being. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Opinions wanted on a matter that has cropped up regarding the History of Chester article

User:Wetman added some material to the totally inadequately referenced History of Chester article, and I posted a polite message on his talk page inviting him to add the references for it. I did this thinking that it would cause few problems given what he states in general terms on his user page. It provoked, after an appeal to another wikipedia article as a source (which I stated was not really a good idea), what I took to be a rather inappropriate response, both on his talk page and on Talk:History of Chester#Very High Standards. I have replied, but I would welcome comments from other editors, in particular, whether I have been somehow deficient in my actions about this. I was under the impression that to achieve GA or FA status, all articles should be appropriately referenced; that it was appropriate to ask for references for the facts Wetman had entered in this particular case; and that the "mediocre" status of the article with which Wetman labels it is largely because people have not been careful about sourcing or referencing facts when adding material before (there are other problems, too). I also consider the WP:OWN comment to be unsupportable, but would like others' views about this too.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw absolutely nothing wrong with your perfectly polite request for references. On the contary, I think that User:Wetman ought to be reconsidering his response to your request, and owes you an apology. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've also replied at Talk:History_of_Chester with simillar sentiments. -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Navenby - again

Done quite a bit more work on the page - as have other editors. I just wondered if someone would take a look and see if it was worth bumping it up from a Start page assessment? Thanks! Seahamlass 21:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged the article with some concerns. Input from other editors however is most welcome! -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

/How to write about rivers.

I've just written a draft/prototype page to fill the red link in the guidelines. Please let me know if I'm on the right lines.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping someone would get here before me!... It's looking good though! User:Rodw has contacted the UK Waterways project for feedback too ([1]). I think some example sections and the conversion of the infobox to a British river would be good next steps. I like it. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

List of the counties of the United Kingdom

Found this today, though seem to remember something not too dis-simillar was deleted around Christmas time. Had some assertions of "traditional counties" which I've since cleaned up, but would like some more input as to whether this is strictly needed or verifiable please. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it could be useful but needs some clean up/further explanation. eg I can't find any mention of Avon (county) which was a county from 1974-1996.— Rod ^talk 13:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It also describes unitary authorities (such as Luton) as "counties". Is that technically correct? --Dr Greg (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. Unitary Authorities are indeed Administrative Counties in their own right. Fingerpuppet (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think more clarification is needed in the article about that. Also, how does this work with the ceremonial and lieutenancy areas of the UK? I presume too that the metropolitan boroughs are not counties; though effectively UAs, they only had their county councils abolished rather than the statutory county boundaries. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a good point about abolished local government counties (Avon, Humberside etc) as it can be a resource for research and not just a snapshot of the immediate situation. An additional section at the end could be useful, showing when they were abolished and where their areas went (and citing the Orders; I'll have a list in my desk drawer somewhere). I'd not intend to take it back to the brief 1960's changed (there are limits!) I'll have a think about how to do that over the week.

I wrote the headnotes to the various lists. I aimed to give a very brief summary for each, of exactness and clarity but without turning the headnote into a full length article (and there are plenty of good articles on these subjects already).

Briefly, the metropolitan counties & Greater London were not abolished, only their county councils and so each is a county for the purposes of the LGA 1972. (I have noted in the main list whenever there is no county council.) However when unitary boroughs were stripped out in the 1990s', they were actually removed from the county and each became a county of itself (except in Berkshire for some reason). I hope I reflected that properly in the list.

Maybe there would be value in making a distinction between "metropolitan county" and "non-metropolitan county" in column 2. LG02 (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Crawley submitted for Peer Review

Hi everybody; I have submitted a Peer Review request for the Crawley article, which is currently at GA status. Ultimately I would like to submit this for FA consideration. I would be very grateful for any comments and suggestions from members. The rewrite of this ex-stub article was a joint effort between Tafkam and myself; we have tried to follow WP:UKCITIES guidelines at all times. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Guidance needed

I have spent many hours over the past few weeks adding extra touches to Navenby and I wondered if someone could give it a rating please. It has a B at the moment - but that was just given by an anonymous Wiki editor. Many thanks. --Seahamlass 13:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The next rating up from a grade B would be a "Good article" rating. To get this rating the article must go through the good article nomination process which is external from this project. To nominate the article please go to WP:GAC after ensuring you think the article meets all of the criteria set at WP:GACR. If you think it may not meet the criteria you should look on WP:GA to find an article with a similar subject for any guidence although I think the Navenby article looks very good. Good luck. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 16:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Greater Manchester

Greater Manchester is up for Good Article status. Anybody who has not significantly edited the article could you please take a look to see if you feel confident enough to review it? It could be the first metropolitan county to become higher than a grade B. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 20:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

English counties map

I wanted to make a proposal for conversion of the current Image:BlankMap-EnglandAdministrativeCounties.png English counties map from the vile pink one to a nicer one similar to the one currently used for the States of Germany such as Image:Deutschland Lage von Baden-Württemberg.svg. The current pink map is outdated, created when infoboxes used a rather foul pink colour and most have become grey now. Views would be welcome here thanks! _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 20:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The Germany maps look better than ours (which is a minor outrage!), and do believe this could be, or rather is the right way to go. Was there a reason why pink was chosen??

I could help change these maps but there are hundreds of them. I would only be willing to do this with support from other users. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Same colours/style as these ones? Joe D (t) 12:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Anything looks better than pink and red! I do like the German green ones though but the cream map would look ok without the detail. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 13:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

need for UK if country included

Hi all, I noticed from my watchlist that User:Camaeron has been adding United Kingdom to a lots of articles (related to buildings) where England is already included (and presumably this would also apply to Scotland, Wales etc). My own thought is that England is a well enough known country to provide the context, but I would be interested in the thoughts of others.— Rod ^talk 18:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ooh dear, this makes me sound so criminal! I just think that sovereign states are the most important component in an introduction especially in Geography related topics. England may be very well known and is often used as a synonym for the UK but not all that many people know where little Wales is. I am fully prepared to go back and revert every single edit if considered necessary. Sorry for not consulting you all first, I had never heard of you before Rod wrote to me! Sorry : S! --Camaeron (talk) 18:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem is that many people unfamiliar with the UK think the name of the entire country is England: I recall not too long ago a person from USA stating that they were going to spend some time on holiday in England, staying in Edinburgh for the entire time of their stay! One does need to be alert to the possibility of perpetuating a mistaken belief that would be distasteful at the very least to many quite reasonable people living in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. This sole use of England in articles may do this, even though we may think the extra information is not required because we think we are quite familiar with the complexities at work in this issue. I don't know what to suggest, but merely make that point as an issue to consider.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an issue that has been discussed at length in the past, and, I believe the outcome was in favour of the constituent country only for geographic demarcation. So, it is permissible (and what seems to be a very well established convention) to say "X is a place in Wales. However, it is also quite permissable to say "X is a place in Wales. It has been voted the best place to live in the United Kingdom - where citation allows of course. Every other encyclopedia I've seen also takes this stance. -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont mind both being added. I dont even mind it being shortened to UK but I find it very important. I have noticed pages about states of the USA state that they lie in USA. Otherwise people could also think that these states are independent. --Camaeron (talk) 18:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I am with Jza84 on this one in that we only need the country and not the state in articles, otherwise it looks very clumsy. Keith D (talk) 19:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Abbreviations should be spelt out in full on the first occation, so really UK has to be United Kingdom per the manual of style I'm afraid. I do think the UK is important, but the consensus seems to be against it for demarcation in the first sentence. I don't think the inclusion of "United Kingdom" is likely to last on those articles. There is a debate about Scotland's lead section about the United Kingdom, which you may be interested in at Talk:Scotland however. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the addition of United Kingdom in the text starts to look clumsy in some articles. Is there an appropriate category, template, header or footer which can be added to make the geography clearer to people who are not familiar with UK geography? I had a similar experience to ddstretch when touring in Scotland with Canadian friends.i.e. they thought it part of England.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 20:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion (if we're talking about the same one) is archived here. The outcome was that the constituent country must be mentioned, but there was also a significant minority in favour of mentioning the UK too, and I think that in the end we decided that we had to make mentioning the UK optional. Joe D (t) 12:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Maps

For those looking for maps of places in the uk this may be of interest: commons:User:Geni/OS_maps.Geni 18:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

These sound interesting - we could use one of your partial scans on Weston-super-Mare but what is the copyright status?— Rod ^talk 18:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Public domain. Orginal under crown copyright which expires after 50 years.Geni 19:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And the map you requested Image:Weston-super-maremap 1946.jpg in this case the original fell on a fold but other than that reasonable.Geni 20:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - added.— Rod ^talk 21:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)