Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/2009 local government structural changes task force

This is the talk page for WikiProject UK geography/2009 local government structural changes task force

Settlements
Just a thought, that all of the settlements within these areas will need updating to show the new details both in the infobox & text. Presumably we should also retain the existing details as part of the history section of the place. Keith D (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct. I think the scale of what we need to do is larger than many may think.  DDStretch    (talk)  23:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to put in a meaningful stint on Wilts. After the change has actually happened, I guess.  If I can get help from the original author's so much the better.Major_Clanger (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Warofdreams has said that the actual syntax of the Template:Infobox UK place shouldn't be difficult to change with regards to maps. We will, however, probably need somebody with access to the AWB to fix the districts in specific infoboxes (or we could make a bot request).


 * I also believe that the templates listed at Category:Templates for UK subdivision lookups are gonna need significant updating too. --Jza84 | Talk  00:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Application of talk page banner
As originaly discussed on the UKGEO talk page, which articles should have the template on their talk pages? Obviously all districts should, but what about towns and even villages? P.S. tagging the villages would be a lovely job for AWB :P  Jolly  Ω   Janner  16:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Navigation template
I thought it would be a good idea to have a navbox, so I made a very basic starting point in my sandbox.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  18:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I like it. :) --Jza84 | Talk  21:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Where's Cheshire in this? 8-)  DDStretch    (talk)  22:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not there. I guess I haven't thought of a way to describe the changes there (and Bedfordshire) yet. Feel free to edit it.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  22:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I added the abolished districts for Cheshire just now. That seems to fit in entirely with the title of the navbox. However, I guess some means of indicating what the new districts are would be best.  DDStretch    (talk)  22:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've started working on a more detailed navbox over at my sandbox. It's only part way there and totally open to amendment; is this the sort of thing you meant? Coldmachine Talk 22:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Do we add this box to the pages of the districts involved? David (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * On 1 April, yes. I don't think I'll be able to add all of them in under one minute at midnight. I could try adding the navbox before midnight, but blanking the navbox, so it doesn't appear on the articles then at 00:00 1 April 2009, I will edit the navbox, adding in the required content.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  16:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the kind of navbox we should use, although it needs a bit of fine tuning.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  23:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like that template might get very large. --Jza84 | Talk  23:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To make it smaller, we could use my version and add footnotes.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  00:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My personal preference is/was for the original that yourself (Jolly Janner) put together, reason being that it's just a navigational template to aid readers navigate between articles. The newer version, whilst perhaps more detailed, is effectively going to be a very large table beyond that of a normal navigation template and a repeat of the info at the main 2009 local gov changes article. --Jza84 | Talk  00:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Although it only lists districts that were abolished and not any entirely new areas.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  00:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose completing the template will demonstrate my concerns about length/size. --Jza84 | Talk  01:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Forgive this stupid question, but I feel it must be asked. May be its my nth very late night in a row, but here goes: What exactly is this template going to be used for? What articles would it appear on, and why? I think if we attend to that question, the question of what the content should be may resolve itself. Of course, what may be resolved is that I really am stupid to ask the question.  DDStretch    (talk)  01:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really decided on yet, but I'd imagen all the artickles that it links to. Not sure if it should be on the counties down the left-hand side or not.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  01:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll add a collapsible version so that the size isn't an issue. That may be a suitable alternative. Just give me a little time to get it completed and then take a look and see what you think. Coldmachine Talk 10:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(<-) Much better. That alleviates my concerns about sprawl/size. Looks good. --Jza84 | Talk  13:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Hi guys. As we will be switching to the Template:Infobox historic subdivision we can incoporate population changes over time through the PopulationFirst PopulationSecond and PopulationLast parameters. Likewise the area figures,

For PopulationFirst and AreaFirst these were the Registrar General's annual estimated population figures for mid 1973, and areas in 1974 from


 * Mid Bedfordshire: 94,750 124423 acre p.30
 * South Bedfordshire: 93,280 52383 acre p.30
 * Chester: 116,820 110729 acre p.35
 * Congleton: 75,460 52172 acre p.35
 * Crewe and Nantwich: 98,980 106431 acre p.35
 * Ellesmere Port (as it was then called): 82,080 20146 acre p.35
 * Macclesfield: 145,620 129162 acre p.35
 * Vale Royal: 108,880 94946 acre p.36
 * Caradon: 58,520 164072 acre p.38
 * Carrick: 71,430 113807 acre p.38
 * Kerrier: 78,080 116908 acre p.38
 * North Cornwall: 58,689 295200 acre p.38
 * Penwith: 51,690 74897 acre p.38
 * Restormel: 73,080 111502 acre p.38
 * Chester-le-Street: 48,730 16243 acre p.46
 * Derwentside: 91,460 66944 acre p.46
 * Durham: 87,100 46873 acre p.46
 * Easington: 107,300 35386 acre p.46
 * Sedgefield: 89,610 54306 acre p.47
 * Teesdale: 24,060 208311 acre p.47
 * Wear Valley: 64,130 124798 acre p.47
 * Alnwick: 27,990 266893 acre p.76
 * Berwick-upon-Tweed: 25,800 241196 acre p.76
 * Blyth Valley: 64,270 17374 acre p.76
 * Castle Morpeth: 47,730 152988 acre p.76
 * Tynedale: 54,550 548824 acre p.76
 * Wansbeck: 62,970 16382 acre p.77
 * Bridgnorth: 48,540 156584 acre p.84
 * N Shropshire: 47,940 167923 acre p.84
 * Oswestry: 31,720 63309 acre p.84
 * Shrewsbury & A: 83,460 148931 acre p.84
 * S Shropshire: 33,120 253905 acre p.84
 * Kennet: 66,200 236742 acre p.96
 * N Wiltshire: 100,220 192358 acre p.96
 * Salisbury: 103,770 248344 acre p.96
 * W Wiltshire: 90,900 127849 acre p.96

Lozleader (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a good call, yes. Question though (and it may be a big one): can we have the page number from the book for the population if possible? It's just it's a requirement now of GA and may as well get this right, right from the start. --Jza84 | Talk  21:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks. I pressume that the land area hasn't changed since then? I have already prepared the infoboxes for districts in Cornwall in my sandbox using the 2001 census population, but I will soon be adding this data, as well. Once again, thanks!  Jolly  Ω   Janner  22:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of them will probably have changed areas: bits and pieces of land get exchanged from time to time. Plus in coastal districts land can be eroded or accreted (if that is the word/spelling). I will add the page nos. now Lozleader (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you please tell me when you last "accessed" the source. I would like to add the retrieval dates to my inline citations.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  19:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Accessed" the book? Well, the post above is 15 January 2009, and I had it open in front of me as I was typing, so I suppose that will do for a date! Lozleader (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I thought this was the case - access dates are not needed for printed sources. --Jza84 | Talk  13:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I wasn't aware that access datse aren't needed for books at the time of posting. Sorry for wasting your time.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  16:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Notification and invitation on talk pages of relevant projects and county articles
I've just placed a notification and an invitation on the talk pages of all the projects and county articles mentioned on the main taskforce page. I included the individual county pages, as I thought it would help get to people who may be active but mot members of the project. The message (with suitable subject title) is given below:


 * 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 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)  22:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC) (on behalf of the taskforce)

I hope that is all right as a first wave of notification. DDStretch   (talk)  22:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, although, if I'm to be fussy, I don't like the use of "a number of", especialy twice in one sentence.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  22:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah well, it's done now. I guess two somes might have been better.  DDStretch    (talk)  22:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, we got a rather stuffy response from Andy Mabbett on The West Midlands Project‎‎, so is there anywhere else that might reach people from Shropshire better (and from Wiltshire as well)?  DDStretch    (talk)  23:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Put a notice on the article (yes article, not the talk page) about current events e.g. government structure changes. It's an extreme measure, but it should pull in more people. You could also try WikiProject UK geography/Announcements. Actualy, somebody just signed up, maybe you just need to let it wait a few days.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  00:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Category:Wikipedians in Shropshire
 * Category:Wikipedians in Wiltshire


 * The number of participants has doubled in the past two days!  Jolly  Ω   Janner  18:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Shropshire Council
Just to highlight the Shropshire Council wiki article which I have created. This is for the authority itself, not the area covered by it (which is satisfactorily covered by the main Shropshire article). The page is therefore similar to Isle of Wight Council for example. David (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

South Bedfordshire
As nobody seems to be taking on Bedfordshire, I've made a start with South Bedfordshire, at this userpage. The coat of arms and logo images are missing as I can't justify uploading them under fair use criteria for a mere userpage, but they are to appear when it becomes South Bedfordshire at 00:00:01 on 1 April! Also the categories at the bottom look weird because they are not live yet: we don't want userpages appearing in category lists.

I took out the "local attractions" which presumably will be listed at Central Bedfordshire and limited it to historical information, which I expanded.

I would welcome any suggestions or improvements: when it is up to scratch I will use it as a model for Mid Bedfordshire.

Incidentally, Template:East_of_England will also need editting to reflect the Beds changes.

Lozleader (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't need to worry about the second you upload it in, as Wikipedia only measure the minutes, thus giving us a 60 second slot for the updates.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  17:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Loads of time then :-) Lozleader (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Tonights the night!
Just to say peeps, I will be from (12 midnight tonight) start changing articles related to Bedfordshire Bleaney (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to copy and paste User:Lozleader/South Bedfordshire, User:Lozleader/Mid Bedfordshire.. they need the categories at the bottom of the page activated by deleting the colons at the front of each one.


 * I also did some changes at...
 * User:Lozleader/Bedfordshire


 * I'm pretty tired not sure if I'll still be up! Lozleader (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Lozleader, will do, and thankyou for your excellent work! Bleaney (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ditto with Cornwall.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  19:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna open up tabs on my browser, make the edits, and then press ctrl+s on all the tabs at exactly 00:00!  Jolly  Ω   Janner  20:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a thought: is it midnight GMT/UTC (which is what Wikpedia seems to run on) or BST? If the former you will be up till 1 a.m.! Lozleader (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thought about this one a bit and I'm gonna start making changes (including your sandboxes Lozleader) at midnight BST. Although this will be an hour earlier than wikipedia time, it will correspond to the actual time of the structural changes happening in England Bleaney (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ditto that. I have made all the necessary edits at 00:00.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  23:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Locator maps
Would it make sense to upload the 2009 locator maps as new versions of the old maps, rather than changing articles to point to the 2009 versions? --ascorbic (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This project page has a To Do List that says various things may need to be changed in Template:Infobox UK place. The 2009 locator maps were produced by User:Jza84 who probably had a plan, but he is on a long wikibreak.  It may need an admin to sort this out.  JonH (talk) 08:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC) (BTW, thanks and congratulations to the editors who made all the changes on 1 April.)


 * The easiest approach is to do as Ascorbic says. I've done Cornwall as an example; File:Cornwall outline map with UK.png now shows the current boundaries, while File:Cornwall outline map with UK (1974 - 2009).png shows the 1974–2009 boundaries.  It takes some time, so I'll step back and let someone else do the rest of them.  Using this approach means that the names of maps of current counties are consistent, and that only the small number of articles where we still want to show the old districts need to be changed. Warofdreams talk 15:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not know how to move image files, especially those in Commons which seem to be very complicated. But I now see that User:Nev1 has resolved this by changing templates such as Template:Location map United Kingdom Bedfordshire. JonH (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

AWB request
I do not have Auto-Wiki Browsrer installed on my laptop and I would like to add Template:Local government districts of England abolished in 2009 to all the articles listed in Category:English districts abolished in 2009 and Category:English unitary authorities created in 2009. Can somebody else please do this?  Jolly  Ω   Janner  15:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

What is there left to do here?
I am keen to help wrap up the work that is needed to be done here. I have done a lot of intensive work over the past few months on many articles, particularly updating infoboxes. Is there actually anything left to do with this project? And if not, should we close it down? Bleaney (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * From the thundering silence in answer to your question, it seems the project has already disbanded!Lozleader (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

2011 changes
I left this message at Talk:2009 structural changes to local government in England "Now that a decision has been made in relation to Norfolk and Devon should we move the bulk of text under the 'Further changes' heading to a new article (2011 structural changes to local government in England?) The Suffolk changes, when they are agreed, will presumably be in 2012 or later?" Lozleader (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Taskforce/workgroup like this needed for the 1996 (and 1975?) changes
We have a problem that an enormous number of civil parishes and other local jurisdictions have "changed hands" between larger jurisdictions that came, mutated, and went, sometimes more than once, and with some of the larger ones taking on highly confusing names (e.g. same as or nearly same as traditional counties but with divergent boundaries), plus the fact that many of the earlier jurisdictions actually still exist for specific purposes (registration counties, lieutenancy areas, etc.). A lot of the articles are covering this fairly well, but the more minor the place the less likely this is to be true, and very few of them provide maps that demonstrate boundary changes over time, which is apt to be vital information for a large class of readers of these articles, especially genealogists working mostly with pre-1975 records. This set of issues especially strongly affects Scottish toponymy, but I've run into pretty confusing messes with regard to England, too.

Maybe even just expand the scope of the extant taskforce to "Local government structural changes task force" without a date on it? Esp. since (see thread above) there have been further changes in 2011, and we can expect additional ones in the future. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)