Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography

Archives

 * /Archive 1 – 2005
 * /UK or home nations in introductions – August 2006
 * /Archive 2 – 2006 – Feb 2007
 * /Archive 3 – Feb 2007 – Oct 2007
 * /Archive 4 – Oct 2007 – Feb 2008
 * /Archive 5 – Feb 2008 – March 2008
 * /Archive 6 – March 2008 – June 2008
 * /Archive 7 – June 2008 – Dec 2008
 * /Archive 8 – Jan 2009 – May 2009
 * /Archive 9 – June 2009 – July 2009
 * /Archive 10 – August 2009 – February 2010
 * /Archive 11 – March 2010 – January 2011
 * /Archive 12 – January 2011 – March 2012
 * /Archive 13 – April 2012 – April 2013
 * /Archive 14 – May 2013 – August 2013
 * /Archive 15 – August 2013 – April 2014
 * /Archive 16 – April 2014 – August 2015
 * /Archive 17 – August 2015 – September 2017
 * /Archive 18 – December 2017 – October 2019
 * /Archive 19 – October 2019 – April 2021
 * /Archive 20 – April 2021 – May 2021
 * /Archive 21 – May 2021 – August 2021
 * /Archive 22 – August 2021 – October 2021
 * /Archive 23 – August 2021 – October 2021 (Historic counties discussion)
 * /Archive 24 – October 2021 – January 2022
 * /Archive 25 – January 2022 – June 2022
 * /Archive 26 – April 2022 – September 2022
 * /Archive 27 – September 2022 – October 2022
 * /Archive 28 – October 2022 – May 2023
 * /Archive 29 – June 2023
 * /Archive 30 – June 2023 – July 2023
 * /Archive 31 – June 2023 – July 2023
 * /Archive 32 – June 2023 – August 2023
 * /Archive 33 – August 2023 – September 2023
 * /Archive 34 – September 2023
 * /Archive 35 – September 2023
 * /Archive 36 – September 2023
 * From old WikiProject UK subdivisions
 * English districts

Disagreement on Christchurch article re:settlement definition
There is a dispute at the article for Christchurch, Dorset over whether, how, and in how much detail, the article should cover Bournemouth Airport – a major employer which was in the now defunct borough of Christchurch, but some distance outside the built-up area in a neighbouring parish. This is essentially a difference of opinion on how to handle the ambiguity around defining settlements. If you think you can help resolve this, join the discussion at Talk:Christchurch,_Dorset. Thanks, Joe D (t)

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

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

Draft 2
A.D.Hope (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

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


 * I've publicised the above on the Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland wikiproject pages and on the talk pages for Devon and Cornwall, as the last two have recently hosted flag discussions. Feel free to publicise it elsewhere. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @A.D.Hope: You've said "the exact status of these flags can be unclear" (I agree), but I'd characterise the rest of the draft guideline, particularly the part about whether they should go in infoboxes, as being based on the flawed premise that each flag has an unambiguous territory to which it 'officially' belongs. As far as I can see, the whole issue of removing sub-national flags from infoboxes has largely been instigated by you, and has led to numerous discussions and reversions where other editors try and put them back but you keep on removing them. The fact that the Flag Institute (a voluntary enthusiasts' body) assigns each flag to a historic county does not preclude that flag from also validly representing other definitions of the county.
 * For example, the adoption of the Bedfordshire flag was sponsored by the High Sheriff of Bedfordshire, who acts on behalf of the ceremonial county, but you have removed the flag from the infobox on the basis that the flag belongs (according to the Flag Institute) to the historic definition of the county. In a previous discussion on this subject, you acknowledged that the Hertfordshire flag was explicitly released for public use by the county council which governs the non-metropolitan county (which is coterminous with the ceremonial one), yet you have multiple times removed the Hertfordshire flag from the infobox saying that the flag is for the historic county. The Nottinghamshire flag was designed in a competition by BBC Radio Nottingham - the flag is registered with the Flag Institute for the historic county, but I don't think it's credible to say that all involved in that competition understood the flag to be prepared solely for the historic definition of the county to the exclusion of all other definitions.
 * I would advocate a much less prescriptive approach. If the article about the county is called "X" and there's a flag called "Flag of X", let the flag go in the infobox. Just as most of our county articles have to explain that there are multiple definitions of the county (e.g. historic / local government / ceremonial), the article text can also discuss the origins of the flag, whether it was explicitly prepared for just one of those definitions or not, and the extent of common adoption / usage in the area. Stortford (talk) 08:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you've got my intent backwards, sorry. The premise of the guideline is that these flags are often ambigious and do not have official territories, which makes it necessary to include them in a way that allows their use and status to be explained. The practice of putting them in the infobox implies they are unambiguously the flags of the area the infobox represents (e.g. the ceremonial counties in England), but this isn't the case.
 * Bedfordshire is a good example of why the infobox is unsuitable. There's evidence that it represents the historic county, as it is listed as a historic county flag on the UK government's list, but because it was sponsored by the high sheriff there is also an argument that it represents the ceremonial county. It's entirely possible for it to represent both, but this needs a textual explanation with sources and that's best done in the body. The same goes for Hertfordshire, Nottinghamshire, and the other flags.
 * On the Flag Institute, its status can be overblown. It's just a charity, even if its registry has been referenced in government guidelines. It's useful as proof that a flag is considered to represent a historic county, but it doesn't trump everything else. If we have a source that shows the Cambridgeshire flag has been flown in Huntingdon, for example, we shouldn't describe this as wrong just because Huntingdon is outside the historic Cambridgeshire boundaries. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If a flag unambiguously represents an area we have an article for, then the flag should be within the infobox. If it's ambiguous though, I agree that it is better explained in prose and not included in the infobox. That should allow for more nuance and give readers a better understanding of the situation. I also don't think we should be prescribing flags to things when the lifespan doesn't cross over. If the flag is a recent adoption, it shouldn't be prescribed to the historic or ceremonial county without good reason. To take an example, the Flag of Orkney wasn't adopted until 2007 so it shouldn't be used to represent anything before that (particularly because there was a previous flag which was declined official recognition). It's fine in the Orkney article because nothing has changed there but, if it had, as is the case with other historic counties, it would only be appropriate within the infobox of the modern usage. That wouldn't preclude a mention in the article on the older entity though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think the 2021 Jenrick press release or attached PDF can be taken as a reliable source for the flags representing "historic counties" as defined in the Historic counties of England article. It uses the phrase "historic county", but we know that's not a widely understood term. It also uses the phrase "historic flags", suggesting some ambiguity as to whether it's the flags or the counties the author thinks are historic. And the same press release states that Jenrick "wrote to all councils across Great Britain, urging them to proudly raise their flag" (my emphasis), which could equally be interpreted as evidence that the counties he is referring to are the modern administrative council areas. I suspect that the apparent contradiction can be explained by the fact that caring about the distinction between different definitions of county is extremely niche and not in most people's heads when they hear the phrase "historic county", so Jenrick and the press release author probably have a more nebulous and inclusive concept of county, and their use of the phrase "historic county" is entirely led by it being called "historic county flag day". But that would be my interpretation of the source, and given that we don't interpret sources on Wikipedia, I'd suggest not trying to use this one as evidence for what kind of county a flag represents. Joe D (t) 10:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well this is it – it's hard to pin down exactly which flavour of county these flags represent, so as a general rule it's better to simply lay out what we know about them rather than trying to interpret that information one way or another.
 * You're talking about this Jenrick press release, I assume? The language in it is a bit of a mess, as you point out – a council's flag would typically be its heraldic banner rather than any of these flags, for example. I think it's fair to say that the UK government wants to promote the historic counties somehow and has come to rely on the Flag Institute's registry of county flags in order to do so, but I wouldn't go further than that. It would be inappropriate for us to claim that the flags are official just because they're in the FI registry, for example. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The press release is a nonsense and we should ignore it. Some group - presumably the Flag Institute - came up with a bunch of flags for historic counties to assert something about historic counties still existing. They don't, and that is a matter for the legislature. Counties such as Middlesex no longer exist. Some official looked at the lobbying and thought "we can do something here" and had a flag day, with flags for historic counties that have overlapping borders (why are there 52 flags when there were only 39 historic counties for instance), but excluding current ceremonial counties (where is Greater London? Indeed, where is historic county London?) The idea is to make it look like Government is doing something about sense of community (an executive function); but it does not create the flags, nor the counties nor anything else (a legislative function). It is not the department's finest hour, because they went waltzing into an issue they don't understand well, and sided with a group that wants to ignore the effect of legislation passed by parliament that abolished and altered county borders - but it makes not a wit of difference. The executive does not have the power to make these flags. Those are mostly modern flags of historic counties, some of which no longer exist, and others of which now have different borders. It is a highly problematic list of itself. It would be a fool's errand to try to use that source for absolutely anything at all. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with you about the Jenrick press release, and in terms of how these flags should be included in articles I don't think it's particularly relevant anyway. Sources which explain how a particular flag was designed and how it is currently used will be much more useful. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I think we should try and downplay these county flags simply because a lot of the modern ones are ugly and they arent in widespread use. Putting them in infoboxes for the counties they represent gives them undue prominence. Eopsid (talk) 10:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Whether a flag is "ugly" is both subjective and irrelevant. All we should care about is use - if there is evidence for a flag of e.g. Nottinghamshire being independently used (i.e. not mentions in lists or databases of flags) to represent Nottinghamshire then it should be included in the infobox for Nottinghamshire. If there is no such evidence then it should not be included.
 * In the real world few people know (and even fewer care) about the distinction between historic, ceremonial, administrative or any other type of county; almost nobody knows (and again even fewer care) "ceremonial county" and "historic county" are not exact synonyms. Absent explicit evidence that the person/organisation using the flag is doing so to represent a specific one of those then it is safe to assume that it is being used to represent e.g. Nottinghamshire as it applies to the real world today. So if you see a flag of Nottinghamshire flown in an area within all of the historic, ceremonial and administrative counties of Nottinghamshire it is, absent evidence to the contrary, most likely to be representing both the ceremonial and administrative counties. The only exception is use by county councils - if Nottinghamshire County Council fly the flag of Nottinghamshire it is most likely being used to represent the administrative county, but if Nottingham City Council fly the same flag it is most likely being used to represent the ceremonial county. If both those organisations regularly fly that flag, then it should be used in infoboxes for at least the administrative and ceremonial counties. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's policy is clear on this, we don't recognise the difference between so called historic. ceremonial etc counties and treat them as a single entity. I don't know why this keeps being ignored. G-13114 (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This wikiproject has advice/a guideline on how to write about the counties, but it isn't a policy. It does recognise a difference between the historic counties and the current ceremonial counties, as it states the former no longer exist, but also states that they should be covered in a single article where possible.
 * In any case, when it comes to writing about groups that do recognise the historic counties we have to reflect their position, not impose our guideline on them. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm uncomfortable with assuming why a body might fly a flag, which is why I prefer the 'put it in the body' approach. It's fine for us to say 'the flag has been flown from Nottingham Council House by Nottingham City Council', with a source, but we shouldn't infer anything from that unless the council have stated their intent somewhere. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft 2 discussion
@Stortford, @Stevie fae Scotland, @Steinsky, @Sirfurboy, @Eopsid, @Thryduulf, and @G-13114, I've written a second draft of the guideline based on your feedback. If you (or anyone else) have further suggestions or critiques I'd be very happy to hear them. Thanks, A.D.Hope (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * That's mostly good but I'm not sure about two points:
 * I'm sure there is at least one case of a council explicitly granting permission to use the flag based on their arms to represent its area and (but I'm less certain of this) there are cases when such a flag is used to represent the council's area with no official comment from the council (so probably de facto rather than de jure representation of the area).
 * I disagree with this. If a flag is commonly used to represent an area with that name it should be in the infobox unless it unambiguously does not refer to that area. e.g. if the flag of Fooshire is in common use but it is ambiguous whether it represents the area of the ceremonial or administrative county by that name then it should be included in both infoboxes. In the real world many (maybe most) people flying the flag will not know (and fewer will care about) the difference between two - if you asked someone flying it which area they using it to represent you'd get blank looks and answers like "yes" or "both". Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. On the first point, 'usually' is meant to indicate that this may not always be the case. It's less of an issue now, but before the new wave of county flags was designed it was fairly common to use a council's armorial banner to represent the county generally, hence the specific warning.
 * On the second, an example might best demonstrate the issue. In the Lancashire article, the infobox is primarily about the ceremonial county. The flag was designed to represent the historic county and has been flown in areas within the historic boundaries but outside the ceremonial county. Putting the flag in the infobox could therefore imply that the flag only or primarily represents the ceremonial county, which is not the case. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Unless it's being flown in areas within the ceremonial county but outside the historic county then you can't say it isn't being used to represent the former. If the flag is commonly used to represent multiple areas it should appear in the infobox for all of those areas, even if one is more common than the others. Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In the case you outline, we also couldn't say that the flag is being flown to represent the ceremonial county without a source explicitly stating so. Even where a source does exist, it won't necessarily confirm that the flag is primarily used to represent the ceremonial county. This ambiguity is why I think the body is the best place to cover the flags.
 * We generally don't have separate articles for the historic and current counties/principal areas/etc.; the main exception is for the historic counties that have been entirely superseded. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I personally have no further comments. Thanks for your work on this. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Considering I've seen multiple attempts to re-add the flags by various and the proposer in many cases the sole reverter, maybe this discussion is very unrepresented and the wall of text is off-putting. It would override discussions with more input such as at Cornwall. Would be open to a simpler suggestion of changing the infobox caption to allow for specification/context if needed. We shouldn't minimise these flags because of personal opinion on their ugliness or modernity, if they're used, they're used. If such use is significant then readers would expect it in the infobox.  Dank Jae  12:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a persistent problem that these flag discussion do not reach a conclusion – even the one with more input at Cornwall didn't. This discussion has been advertised at Talk:Cornwall but does not seem to have attracted any input from that direction, and as you can see there's been very little follow-up discussion here after the initial responses.
 * I'm tempted to assume that the flags just aren't a priority for most editors. When they are discussed it tends to be in isolation, and those discussions don't lead to a consensus. Perhaps the consensus is to have no consensus, although that will mean having to deal with each flag on a case-by-case basis which will be onerous. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I opted out of this for a while because I didn't have time/will to go through all of this. May be a more direct RfC on "should county flags be in infoboxes" may raise more engagement.
 * In terms of case-by-case, there is also a case to group flags based on how old they're used. For example flags made very recently to little fanfare can be grouped together, but much more longer standing/popular flags like Cornwall's and Devon's may need to be considered separate.
 * Once again, all I know is that many IPs and other editors have edit warred the flags in, and appear to not know about nor participated in these discussions. I don't think its because they're classed as not a priority but rather repeating past arguments and discussions gets tiring, and the previous consensus was overriden before this was approved.  Dank Jae  13:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The discussion at Talk:Cornwall included an RfC on whether that flag should be in the infobox, but it didn't reach a conclusion. A new RfC on the flags in general could be better, but it could also just go over old ground and be inconclusive itself.
 * Part of the reason I proposed the guideline above without prior discussion was to avoid that sort of energy-sapping debate; my intent was to focus editors' attention on a single position and see if it could gain consensus. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thoughts on this?  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 20:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Two observations:
 * The Colchester example underlines the value of having distinct articles for the district and for its council. If they really must be combined, then article should be named for the district and the council be a section of it, definitely not the other way round. (IMO, in any case there is great merit in tucking away into some dark corner the obsessive detail about which party had which seats in which ward in 1964, which appears to be the sum total of most 'council' articles.)
 * Permanent physical geography (well, fairly permanent in the case of Thanet ) should always have prime position, as parish and district boundaries do tend to come and go.
 * My 2¢ worth. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

, the page movers, for info. Pam D  07:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I do not think the lowercase compass direction is very helpful and should probably be removed as a possible disambiguator. I would go for the nearest large place as the disambiguator unless there is a natural disambiguator available such as "x on the Wolds". Keith D (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What about the constituency, but they be changed on a more regular basis than we’d bother to keep changing it. Maybe if in a national park that might work.
 * Ultimately "near Xxxx" maybe better than "comma then place" as English has a habit of sounding like it is both in or near a place if the comma method is used. The "Brompton, Scarborough, North Yorkshire" link isn’t the best when the village and the parish are one article and the village goes by Brompton-by-Sawdon.
 * I understand if a county starts with a compass direction and a compass direction is also needed that it looks wrong, especially lowercase then uppercase looking like somebody put it the wrong way round. To be fare east-north-east is used when 16 points compass directions are need so east north comes up but only when east is also the next word. That is the rule, we can dance around it in cases like this by finding summit better.
 * Maybe in the guide put summit like "When the given county starts with a compass direction try finding other, preferably short, methods of disambiguating. …insert reason here … ". Chocolateediter (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Why not follow the Brompton by Sawdon Parish Council website? JonH (talk) 09:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good solution for the Bromptons - the Nothallerton one can be Brompton, North Yorkshire and the Scarborough one Brompton by Sawdon, perhaps with appropriate hatnotes on both.
 * Regarding the Hambletons, the Ryedale one is a hamlet within a the parish of Kilburn High and Low and probably the best solution is to merge it into that article.
 * As for changing the naming convention for a general rule - that discussion should probably happen at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) but if these two examples are anything to go by, in most cases I suspect a case-by-case examination of the subjects can lead to some sensible solutions that avoid the need for disambiguation entirely. WaggersTALK  11:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I was worried by the fact that the parish is technically called "Brompton", and includes two villages one of which is "Brompton by Sawdon"! I've moved it. And have retargetted the redirect from the hyphenated version. Do we need some sensibly-named redirect which can appear in Category:Civil parishes in North Yorkshire, as "Brompton by Sawdon" is not really the parish name? Perhaps best gently ignored. Thanks @Chocolateediter for tweaks to the lead to make the moved article reasonable. Pam  D  12:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But Brompton, North Yorkshire is not a good article title, as it is ambiguous. It now, correctly, points to the dab page (which could do with a bit of a tidyup). Pam  D  12:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It has always been confusing and was once called Brompton in Allertonshire to distinguish it from nearby Brompton on Swale and Patrick Brompton near Richmond. Esemgee (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't work well for counties which already contain a compass point in their name, or for counties which contain districts with compass point names, but for for the rest it's fine. 'Townville, north Lancashire' and 'Townsville, south Lancashire' isn't confusing. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Would an adjectival form of a compass point be clearer? "Townville, eastern North Yorkshire", etc? Bazza 7 (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I see where you're coming from, but personally I don't think it solves the issue. 'Townsville, near Examplebury' seems clearer A.D.Hope (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


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

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

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