User talk:Senra/Archive 4

Sortable tables
Just to let you know I fully support the idea of converting the parish lists into tables.Population data, area and a parish/village summary is an excellent idea. Dr.  Blofeld  08:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thank you. I had a conversation with here which was triggered by this diff. I am a little busy at the moment helping new users and trying to finish an article of my own but I will get round to List of civil parishes in Cambridgeshire in the next week or so and we can move on from there --Senra (Talk) 10:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of a table something like |Photograph |  Parish  |  Area  |  Population | Notes|

 Dr.  Blofeld  12:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally I would leave out the villages (only Worcestershire has these (for part of the article) at present, and it would be a herculean task to include them for the whole country. Additionally, it opens arguments as to what is or isn't a village; why is such and such a place included but somewhere else isn't, etc.  For the larger parishes (some, such as Shrewsbury, Bracknell, Weston super Mare or Salisbury, have populations of up to 80,000) you could be talking of dozens of suburbs.
 * Especially if the lists are going sortable (which I support), I think we need to include the current local government area (so that you can also sort by district). I also think the pre 1973 local government area is useful (as this allows you to sort by former authority also).  There has been repeated support for including status—town, city, common lands (only a very small number of these)—and I don't think it is sustainable to exclude this.
 * In summary, I would go for |Image|Parish|Status|Population|District|Former authority|Notes|
 * Skinsmoke (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Gulp! But anyway, I still have my head down. I will address this within the next week or so as stated above (in the meantime, I am hoping the columns do not increase much too more - he he) --Senra (Talk) 23:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy with Skinsmoke's suggestion. If the parish contains a handful of villages though I think they could be listed in a column although we don't want it too bloated. BTW, Senra this is absolutely beautiful. Dr.  Blofeld  10:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Work-in-progress
The source of this table is an excel spreadsheet so it it relatively easy for me to add/delete columns --Senra (Talk) 09:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

--Senra (Talk) 22:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments on work-in-progress
I suspect converting the Formerly to a 4 letter wikilinked code such as NERD and MAUD to take up less space? Alternatively, I could put the references back in but these would not sort very well. Perhaps the references to formerly could go in the district column? What do you think? Also, area might be a useful column but we already have too many columns (IMHO) --Senra (Talk) 09:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. Agree on the rainbow pic, by the way!  Can you work it into the Cambridgeshire images?  On balance I think I'd leave out the area (ha) and keep to the first option.  We have to be careful that the table will still display on smaller resolutions and, though it would be a useful addition, I think the other columns are more important.  Bear in mind that the references will not only refer to the former districts, but will also cite the population figures and any changes (I usually try to cite the statutory instrument creating the parish, if it's available).  Unless they have their own column, the table begins to look very messy, whereas if they are separate, using  , they can be kept as a very narrow column (see the metropolitan counties or Cheshire).  Not sure about the four letter coding for the former authorities.  The problem I see is that we need to keep the table as easy to read as possible for the casual reader.  Are they going to want to keep looking up what the four letter code means (some of the bigger districts can have dozens of former authorities).  It's a possibility, but on balance I think I would stick with Newmarket Rural District , rather than NERD.
 * I've only just found your email, by the way (it had got lost in amongst a pile of spam I hadn't deleted). I should get round to letting you have the Cambridgeshire stuff this weekend.
 * Incidentally, I'd cite population figures to a common source for all counties, using the original at Office for National Statistics, rather than individual county councils. Many counties don't have thiese available on their websites (and very few have the area calculations), and even those that do tend to disappear or change urls with regular frequency (Lancashire County Council revamped their website, for instance, last year, and the whole lot vanished!).  I'll include the Cambridgeshire references in the email.  Skinsmoke (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good, just what I had envisioned. Maybe you have area data too? Dr.  Blofeld  10:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no area data held. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Version 4 is up. I am not saving previous versions. If you want me to you should let me know. Population figures removed as per Skinsmoke above and area column deleted. yes I like the rainbow pick, however, my own view on image selection (for this list) is that it should be based on the infobox image in the main article referenced. For example, in the case of Cambridge it is easy. For others, such as Bourn there is no image in the infobox but even then, I feel the cell should be blank to reflect this. My selection criteria will generate quite a few village signposts as in Witchford but again, this will allow other editors to spot this and edit the source article accordingly. Concensus please. Does anyone have a tool that can scan a list of articles and extract the image from the infobox? --Senra (Talk) 19:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Can we proceed on this please? --Senra (Talk) 18:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You can find images of most villages or parish areas on geograph if they are missing. Dr.  Blofeld  19:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Will comment fully tomorrow. Skinsmoke (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. Was somewhat tied up last night.
 * (1) The first thing is that, per Manual of Style, columns of figures (Population) should be right justified. Thousands whould always be in the format "108,863", not "108863".  To right justify you need to add "align="right" to each entry in that column.  Unfortunately, we cannot do that for the whole column in one go, as the heading then becomes right justified, which is against the Manual of Style.
 * (2) The status should be civil parish rather than village. Under the most recent legislation, a parish council has the right to adopt the status of village (just as previously they could adopt the status of town; they can also adopt community or neighbourhood status).  To date, none of the Cambridgeshire parishes has adopted village status.
 * (3) The term civil parish should be used to distinguish from ecclesiastical parish (it also cuts down the number of people adding such and such a place, which may be an ecclesiastical parish but is no longer, or never has been, a civil parish.
 * (4) The unparished areas in Peterborough need to be added
 * (5) The status of Cambridge is unparished area, not city.  City status is held by the district, not the unparished area.  True, the two are at present coterminous but, should the boundary of the district be changed to include one or more parishes from South Cambridgeshire the city status will continues to be held by the whole of the expanded district, not by the unparished area within the district.  There are civil parishes which have city status (Ely is an example).
 * (6) The images look a mess.  They should be resized to a common size (100 px is usually used for lists and is the size used for those articles that have achieved featured list status on Wikipedia.  It is better in a list of this sort to avoid images in portrait format, sticking with landscape format.  This is one reason why it is not always best to use the image from the article on the village/town/parish.  In addition, the images on this page should be of sufficient quality to display well at the lower resolution.  An image that is acceptable on the village page at 250 px may well not work at 100 px.  The images on this page have to stand or fall on their appropriateness for this page, not for whether they are included on the article for the area concerned.  There may be many reasons why an image has not been used on the article page, not least that it may not have been available at the time an image was selected (or the person adding it didn't know where to look, or was simply adding an image they had taken themself).  Bear in mind, it is likely that images on article pages will change in the future, meaning that the two will not be synchronised anyway.  Leaving an image blank when one is available, simply because there is no image on the article page, is just sheer bloody stupidity!
 * (7) I am not sure how you have managed to get the irritating vertical line within the column marked Parish.  This needs to be got rid of.  I suspect there is something in the mark-up you have used that has produced this.  Why not use the simpler mark-up utilised on List of civil parishes in Cheshire.  You seem to be attempting to reinvent the wheel, for no apparent reason.  Surely a case of if it ain't broke, don't mend it.
 * (8) The citations would look better in a Refs column than tagged on to the district name.  Citations are needed for the population figures.
 * (9) It would be better to be able to sort by former district (as is already the case on the other pages that have been upgraded: see List of civil parishes in Cheshire).  By reducing the image column to an auto-determined size (fixed by having all images at 100 px), and allowing all other columns to be auto-determined (rather than imposing a column width), there will be sufficient space to accommodate the extra column.
 * I've illustrated what I mean by doing the first six areas in the format utilised at List of civil parishes in Cheshire:-

A civil parish is a subnational entity, forming the lowest unit of local government in England. There are 267 civil parishes in the ceremonial county of Cambridgeshire, most of the county being parished; Cambridge is completely unparished; Fenland, East Cambridgeshire, South Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire are entirely parished. At the 2001 census, there were 497,820 people living in the 267 parishes, accounting for 70.2 per cent of the county's population.


 * Oh well. No one has every got away with calling me stupid and you will be no exception. It is all yours my friend. Enjoy! I will make three changes today then I am dropping this. I will aligh=right numbers, change status and add ref column, then it is all yours to do as you wish or otherwise. I will post the spreadsheet to your email after making those changes. Have fun --Senra (Talk) 13:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, I don't think I did call you stupid. If I had thought you were stupid I wouldn't have spent so much time on this!  Skinsmoke (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

History
Parishes arose from Church of England divisions, and were originally purely ecclesiastical divisions. Over time they acquired civil administration powers.

The Highways Act 1555 made parishes responsible for the upkeep of roads. Every adult inhabitant of the parish was obliged to work four days a year on the roads, providing their own tools, carts and horses; the work was overseen by an unpaid local appointee, the Surveyor of Highways.

The poor were looked after by the monasteries, until their dissolution. In 1572, magistrates were given power to 'survey the poor' and impose taxes for their relief. This system was made more formal by the Poor Law Act 1601, which made parishes responsible for administering the Poor Law; overseers were appointed to charge a rate to support the poor of the parish. The 19th century saw an increase in the responsibility of parishes, although the Poor Law powers were transferred to Poor Law Unions. The Public Health Act 1872 grouped parishes into Rural Sanitary Districts, based on the Poor Law Unions; these subsequently formed the basis for Rural Districts.

Parishes were run by vestries, meeting annually to appoint officials, and were generally identical to ecclesiastical parishes, although some townships in large parishes administered the Poor Law themselves; under the Parishes Act 1882, all extra-parochial areas and townships that levied a separate rate became independent civil parishes.

Civil parishes in their modern sense date from the Local Government Act 1894, which abolished vestries; established elected parish councils in all rural parishes with more than 300 electors; grouped rural parishes into Rural Districts; and aligned parish boundaries with county and borough boundaries. Urban civil parishes continued to exist, and were generally coterminous with the Urban District, Municipal Borough or County Borough in which they were situated; many large towns contained a number of parishes, and these were usually merged into one. Parish councils were not formed in urban areas, and the only function of the parish was to elect guardians to Poor Law Unions; with the abolition of the Poor Law system in 1930 the parishes had only a nominal existence.

The Local Government Act 1972 retained civil parishes in rural areas, and many former Urban Districts and Municipal Boroughs that were being abolished, were replaced by new successor parishes; urban areas that were considered too large to be single parishes became unparished areas.

The current position
Recent governments have encouraged the formation of town and parish councils in unparished areas, and the Local Government and Rating Act 1997 gave local residents the right to demand the creation of a new civil parish.

A parish council can become a town council unilaterally, simply by resolution; and a civil parish can also gain city status, but only if that is granted by the Crown. The chairman of a town or city council is called a mayor. The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 introduced alternative names: a parish council can now choose to be called a community; village; or neighbourhood council.

List of civil parishes and unparished areas

 * Skinsmoke (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)