Talk:Coventry

Undiscussed split
recently decided to split this article up into Coventry and City of Coventry, without any discussion. I have reverted these changes, as such a drastic change cannot take place without being discussed on the talk page. I for one cannot see any justification for this split, and I would like to point out that similar proposals to split up Birmingham and split up Wolverhampton both failed to get consensus. I propose that this article remains as a singular entity, and City of Coventry gets redirected here. G-13114 (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * So what's the difference between a City of Peterborough article and a City of Coventry article? Both contain civil parishes and cover larger areas then the main city centres? If anyone has an issue with the split it appears to be just you (@G-13114). I actually asked @Crouch, Swale to do some necessary checks and he says they pass all the checks for single entity. I actually asked another editor and it was done by experienced geographic editors. Not just an anon or a new user with no experience? But I'll leave this page to be discussed but I don't see anything wrong with it. Like a separate borough article for Rugby exists and Bromsgrove do. DragonofBatley (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree a split probably should have been discussed but now that its been done we might as well discuss it here. In terms of the points it does contain parishes and did experience significant boundary changes in 1974 however Allesley is part of the BUA, Keresley isn't. I'd weakly say a split makes sense here.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Crouch, Swale, just out of curiosity. Would a split for Birmingham and Manchester be worth looking at as they contain civil parishes (Sutton Coldfield and New Frankley) and (Ringway)? Just wondering DragonofBatley (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd lean towards splitting those but if they are to be done they need to be discussed, there was a discussion at Talk:Birmingham that you started last year that most people disagreed with. With major articles when splitting (or in particular moving) normally its a good idea to post a comment on the talk page or tag the article with split and if no one objects for a few weeks its normally fine to go ahead. G-13114 has a reasonable point that Birmingham clearly failed to gain consensus (despite being similar) though Wolverhampton which has a weaker case due to not having parishes/other unparished areas and no 1974 boundary changes was more or less even for/against.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What about Manchester? DragonofBatley (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also I'd propose a split for Derby and Nottingham due to them incorporating more areas and coverage such as Bulwell and Mickleover? Lincoln might be a weak one but Foston parish council do meet in the city district and the city has some notable areas. Not sure with Norwich, Ipswich and Gloucester though DragonofBatley (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support the split, it makes perfect sense. See City of Sheffield, City of Leeds, City of Sunderland, City of Lancaster to name just a few. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What does the presence of civil parishes have to do with anything? How is that an argument for splitting? The city of Sheffield contains large areas of rural land which Coventry doesn't, so I fail to see that that s a precedent. G-13114 (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw this in NPP but it doesn't seem like there is much in the way of evident support, so I have reverted back while the discussion takes place. The split state can be assessed within the article history, or . Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose a split as there is not sufficient difference between the 2 to have 2 articles to maintain which cover essentially the same area. There should only be a split where there is significant differences, such as City of Leeds which includes several town in addition to Leeds. Civil parishes are irrelevant as these can be formed as part of the settlement. Keith D (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Keith D. I'm not sure how "Coventry" and "City of Coventry" are different from one another, it's not like the city boundaries contain any other towns, and the presence of suburban parishes really means nothing. G-13114 (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Having parishes (and for that matter boundary changes in 1974) is important in that Coventry can deal with the settlement and unparished area while City of Coventry deals with the district. Not having parishes or 1974 boundary changes doesn't prevent a split though, see Fareham with Borough of Fareham dealing with the unparished area and pre 1974 district. I think we should still split this and have a distinction though I agree it is marginal.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is duplication, the district is the settlement and some minor areas, there is nothing that cannot be covered in a single article. Keith D (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * If there's a consensus I'll split in the next week or so but there may well not be.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Currently there is no consensus for the proposal. Keith D (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Recent split of articles
The recent split between Coventry and the City of Coventry was made primarily because the city contains civil parishes and has slightly different population figures. I split the City of Worcester and Worcester articles too inline with WP:Towns and WP:Geoland. I hadn't discussed this because it seemed less relevant to and that civil parishes also alter the overall coverage of a borough/district. It helps to bring readers to the main borough and to the main settlement for same reason. City of Peterborough and City of York were created. To differentiate between the main settlement and the settlements in that borough under the same name as the main settlement. Like City of Salford, City of Lichfield and City of Lancaster. Most containing parishes and non civil parishes. The drastic changes are made to reflect the recent splits and the discussion with splitting articles is something I could have done but then a lot of editors would be likely to be against it unless it happens. Feel free to discuss the splits but they are legally recognized and I did ask @Crouch, Swale to also background check them so it was two and not one editor making these changes. DragonofBatley (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The place to discuss a major change to an article is the talk page of that article, rather than one other editor's talk page. Your reasoning above, where you say "then a lot of editors would be likely to be against it unless it happens" seems to be "I knew other people would oppose it so I didn't ask": not the way this collaborative encyclopedia works. Pam  D  18:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with you. This takes nothing away from User:Crouch, Swale, whose opinion is much valued and respected. Rupples (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Infobox collage caption
@PamD. Requesting your opinion on the change I've made to the infobox caption. Rather than using clockwise, which needs 'working out' and in my view is not entirely appropriate, I prefer the easier to read 'top or upper/middle/bottom or lower' set up. Pinging you because you recently raised this specific issue on Rochdale. Rupples (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC) Others' opinions, of course, welcome. Rupples (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Agree. We only need to use "clockwise" if the images aren't in neat rows, eg there's a tall one spanning two or more rows. The natural way to read them is row by row, like words in text. Pam  D  04:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Archiving
I've just set up automatic archiving of this talk page, using the default setting of archiving anything over 90 days old. There seems to have been no previous discussion of archiving (ie the idea hasn't been proposed and rejected), so I think this should be uncontroversial. Nothing will be lost. I was recently pinged to this page, and trying to find the relevant item while scrolling on a mobile phone was painful, having to get past 17 years of conversations.

Nothing has been archived yet, apparently the bot will be along in a few days to take action and populate the first archive file. (I got my information from Help:Archiving (plain and simple)).

I hope this is uncontroversial, but it's reversible if not. Pam D  08:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Category - Former civil parishes in the West Midlands (county)
The addition of category:Former civil parishes in the West Midlands (county) seems incorrect as it would be in Warwickshire when it was a civil parish, so I would expect it to be in category:Former civil parishes in Warwickshire. Keith D (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Per Category:Former civil parishes in England and as normal unless the category is something like "Districts of X" rather than "Districts in X" we normally categorize by the area the former thing is currently not when it functioned. The former CP was indeed in Warwickshire when it existed but all of its area is now in the West Midlands so that's the correct category today.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 20:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems a rather strange decision, was there any talk about this? This would mean moving them around each time there is a reorganisation. Keith D (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Under that logic most of Category:Disused railway stations in Cumbria would be in Cumberland or Westmorland categories. In all the years I've been categorizing things here and on Commons I'd always thought this was correct unless you're talking about a category like Category:Former districts of Berkshire which Abingdon Rural District is in despite now being in Oxfordshire though its also in Category:History of Oxfordshire. Civil parishes aren't really tied to a county unlike districts so we go by the current location.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)