Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 26

Leeds and Bradford infoboxes
For some reason Leeds and Bradford still use the infobox for districts even though the districts have separate articles, all such as Wakefield other than Sheffield (that was recently split) use the standard Infobox UK place rather than one for districts, I made | this edit to Bradford but it was reverted by User:DragonofBatley. I suggest using the BUASD population figures.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

, the reason I reverted wasn't because you made the changes to the buas it's because you changed my new recent montage of Bradford lead photo to the older and more crammed one...if you made those changes then why did you touch the main lead photo? It was Bradfords older photo and I made a new one which had a better photo of the town hall and cathedral etc then that last crammed one...by all means rechange it back to your edit but please may I ask you leave the new photo added alone? Thanks DragonofBatley (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've made the change to Bradford again but kept the 2021 montage, I have also done this with Leeds. Both infoboxes could benefit from more information added but with Leeds I didn't keep it as the information was apparently for the district. If someone makes an edit but there is a small problem with the edit (in this case using an older image when a newer one exists) you generally should just make the fix to the problem rather than reverting the entire edit.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I oppose the changing of the infoboxes as it is the metropolitan borough that has city status. The lead on the Leeds article describes it as the largest city in West Yorkshire, yet the infobox proceeds to describe only the central settlement, not the city. When a user wishes to read about Leeds, Bradford or Sheffield, it is most likely they wish to learn about the city, which includes their neighbouring towns and villages within the municipality.

To solve I propose that either the UK place infobox is modified to allow numerous area and population (and therefore density) statistics for various definitions, and also government information, OR the previous generic infobox is restored, but making clear the area and population for the settlement.

Compare the information in the infoboxes for Leeds, Bradford and Sheffield to those for London, Hamburg or Sao Paulo. The UK infobox is not informative enough for major cities. Green450 (talk) 08:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I support modifying the infobox to allow the district (and for Sheffield the wider BUA) but I'd dispute that readers are likely wanting the wider city population, most readers probably won't be aware of the precise details of the districts and will just want to know the actual population of the settlement rather than a district, how many readers will know that Stocksbridge is part of Sheefield "city" even though its not in the BUASD or even BUA but Brinsworth part of Sheffield BUA and BUASD isn't?  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is there is no definitive answer to what the settlement is. BUASDs arent settlements. People on Wikipedia only started calling them settlements because of the now long deleted List of settlements in the united kingdom article. Eopsid (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Since in this case it would not be the BUA (West Yorkshire Built-up Area) the "Bradford" BUASD seems like the best fit for the "settlement" of Bradford. The lead of Bradford says its the "second-largest subdivision of the West Yorkshire Built-up Area after Leeds" and just before mentions the BUASD population. It then goes on to mention the district population. As I mentioned here the ONS does state that people wanting the town its self should use the BUASDs (though that link is now dead). While some BUASDs may be arbitrary Bradford looks OK. If a BUASD looked a bit arbitrary by its inclusion of another distinct settlement such as Kesgrave now including Martlesham Heath it could be stated in the text but this is far more often with districts/parishes.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I dont think we should be using the BUASD figure for Leeds or Bradford. I think we should mention the City/District population and say that it forms part of a larger built-up area and that the district includes the surrounding rural area and seperate villages. Its a bit of an awkward one here because both Leeds/Bradford are only part of the West Yorkshire Urban Area but their districts include a lot outside it. So there's lots of differing opinions on what's the real Bradford... Eopsid (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

WEST BRIDGFORD
User is arguing about excluding suburb of Nottingham from the lead for West Bridgford basing it on the county football team being based in the town and using suburb. Arguing it holds true with no sources.

We all know Large medium or small are subjective but the user is now just WP:Editwarring and causing disruptive editing to the page. I've given good specific arguements but they are falling on deaths ears for a new editor trying to change a long established lead which has gone unchallenged till now.

,, , , or any other editors. Mind chiming in on this debate.

DragonofBatley (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey I never said that West Bridgford is not one town and Nottingham is not another (city), I am saying that within a Greater Nottingham setting, West Bridgton is a suburb particularly when considering that there is no green land separating the settlements. It is continuous not counting the River Trent. Sportspop (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * West Bridgford is part of Nottingham BUA but is a BUASD so perhaps "West Bridgford is a town that is part of the Nottingham Urban Area".  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Crouch Swale I'd agree with the suggestion you've proposed if Sportspop does too. And again the Trent seperates them, it's like Gray's is seperate from Dartford by the Thames both in Essex (Gray's) and Kent (Dartford) same with Nottingham and West Bridgford. is that a good example put? DragonofBatley (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is more of a gap and also West Thurrock between Grays and Dartford, maybe somewhat Salford and Manchester.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

To try and resolve the issues between myself and, I've linked both the urban area of Nottingham and linked the page "commuter town or suburb" to the lead which is similar to a suburb but still represent the town as a seperate entity. If Sportspop is happy enough with my proposed edit, then I see no need to continue edit warring on the page or further issues on this page DragonofBatley (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep more than happy to go along with the proposal. Obviously "suburb" was more a suggestion but I am happy to switch the wording. Maybe the Urban Area (BUA) was what I meant from the beginning. Thanks, and thanks also to all the others who have helped on this thread. Sportspop (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC on sorting churches
Members of this project may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Categorization Pam  D  06:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

1991 ethnicity tables
Editors are invited to contribute to talk:Milton Keynes, as it may become relevant to other articles too. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The immediate issue has been resolved, though somewhat unsatisfactorily IMO because the contributing editor realised that that the data they wanted to add actually referred to the UA and not to the "city" itself. So it leaves open the question of whether it is appropriate to retrofit 30-year-old data into settlement articles full stop. Personally I don't think so. IMO, only the most recent census data should be included in articles. [If anyone really thinks that historic ethnicity data is useful to Wikipedia then let them hive it off to a subsidiary "Ethnicity of Camford" article (as is currently the case for Slough and (following the BRD discussion) is planned for MK.] My tuppence worth anyway. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a note that several articles in Category:Demographics of England have this sort of data. JonH (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I had missed that. Having a dedicated subsdiary article for demographics is a far better solution than clogging up the main article. As is often the case. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

District councils
I have started a discussion on district councils that are missing, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom for missing council articles, note that for Milton Keynes there are 4 articles, Milton Keynes, Borough of Milton Keynes, Milton Keynes urban area and Milton Keynes Council while for Hastings there is only 1!  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 20:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Mustn't forget Milton Keynes (civil parish). Cheer up, it confused the ONS too.
 * But then again, MK is rather larger than Hastings, BoMK is much larger.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As WikiProject UK geography/How to write about districts notes it should normally be avoided to have an article on district and district council as such articles end up duplicating most content. Since with Eastbourne the district is combined with the settlement it makes sense to have an article at Eastbourne Borough Council but since Borough of Milton Keynes exists separate Milton Keynes Council is essentially redundant so should probably be merged. This would also apply with the likes of Mid Suffolk where the district name only exists as a district but not with the likes of Isles of Scilly/Council of the Isles of Scilly where the district is combined with the archipelago as well as ceremonial counties like Rutland.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact I've been coming round to the same conclusion, but don't really know how to tackle it. The area of the Borough is quite a bit larger than the urban area, so it is a useful article to have and would, I believe, would be the primary topic. It provides a framework for the rural villages and town(s). Most of the material at the Council article is turgid elections stuff that really is best left where it is, parked where it doesn't get in the way. So my inclination is to let sleeping dogs lie and tip-toe quietly away. Maybe I'm just too close to the topic to look at it dispassionately? Just to make life entertaining, the Borough of MK is imminently to become City of MK, so wording will become even more complicated. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Minworth
It just came to my attention that the Minworth article was (until I carried out a bit of a clean up) a whole mess with completely irrelevant information (and likely violating WP:NPOV). What's particularly worth noting though is that the infobox contained an image of a flag, and a website apparently of a so-called "Minworth village council." [] I personally doubt the legal legitimacy of a village council, but opinions of others would be welcomed. ,, , , . Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There seems to have been "Minworth Council School" but I can't otherwise find "Minworth Council". The website URL appears dead. It was a parish until 1931 but no current council appears to exist.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Archived version of "village council" website looks decidedly iffy: https://web.archive.org/web/20220226192732/https://minworthcouncil.wixsite.com/minworth/the-minworth-village-council Pam  D  22:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And a high probability of a wp:COPYVIO for the flag. (Unless of course it is a WP:NOR or WP:HOAX violation.) Off with its head! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a Minworthian had a political agenda, and wanted it to get attention via Wikipedia by using it as a seemingly reliable source. It could also simply be a case of vandalism as before I did a sweep up, "official language," "Government" and "denonym" (which stated "Brummie") were in the infobox (which was "country" as opposed to "UK place"), and one of the sentences stated that Minworth was "one of the only villages with a village council, village flag and village head" (how could we not have known that all this time there has been a place stuck in Medieval England?) Who knows, but I think we can all agree that there's something fishy with it, and the legality is very questionable. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 09:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Being named "Minworth Council School" does not mean that there was a "Minworth Council", but that the school was run by the council and located in Minworth. Which council is concerned will depend upon date: until 1974 it would be Warwickshire County Council; between 1974 and 1986 West Midlands County Council; since 1986, Birmingham City Council. England does not have "village councils" - there are parish councils except in unparished areas (some towns and most cities). Until 1974, Minworth was within the municipal borough of Sutton Coldfield, the town council of which doubled as a parish council for the whole area, as indeed it still does. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 07:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The "council" is clearly a joke/hoax/spoof and we can safely remove any mention of it. Pam  D  07:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like the user in question is back to add his new Minworth site. Koncorde (talk) 10:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This draft Draft:British progressive party may give some more context as to where this is going. Seems entirely promotional. Koncorde (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Parish councils may call themselves 'village councils' if they choose to do so. G-13114 (talk) 10:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is, Minworth is in the CP of Sutton Coldfield as opposed to being a CP itself, so it's unlikely that any sort of legally-recognised (local government) "council" exists. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 11:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Reconstituted districts
Municipal Borough of Scunthorpe, County Borough of Southend-on-Sea, County Borough of Ipswich and Fareham Urban District were all reconstituted with the same boundaries in 1974 yet these articles exist for the older districts. With Scunthorpe it was abolished in 1996 and there was an article at Scunthorpe (borough) so perhaps the municipal borough could be moved to Borough of Scunthorpe and Scunthorpe (borough) redirect there. With Southend it could be moved to City of Southend-on-Sea. With Ipswich the county borough article could be moved to Borough of Ipswich and Ipswich (borough) (and older article) redirect there, Municipal Borough of Ipswich should probably also be merged as I don't think its normal to have separate articles for when a municipal borough becomes a county borough. Fareham Urban District could just redirect to Borough of Fareham. As a model look at Template:London Government Act 1963 where all districts have separate articles with the exception of Municipal Borough of Harrow which redirects to London Borough of Harrow as its boundaries didn't change.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Fareham and Scunthorpe ✅.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Would it be worthwhile to add something to WP:UKDISTRICTS specifying that if the district boundaries were unchanged in 1974 (or 1965 in the case of Harrow) and we have a separate article from the settlement that we have the article about the district all time rather than just post 1974 (or 1965) for example Metropolitan Borough of Islington and London Borough of Islington are separate as there was a merger but Municipal Borough of Harrow redirects to London Borough of Harrow as the boundaries were unchanged. This would also apply to districts not named after settlements (or named after multiple settlements). If there are subsequent boundary changes we still generally keep 1 article, York may be an exception. This would help resolve the problems with scope and link targets raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive/WikiProject UK subdivisions. This doesn't really concern if such districts should be split or not from their settlement but what should be done if it is decided to do so. Examples:


 * Borough of Chorley and Municipal Borough of Chorley, major boundary changes so current borough only from 1974, if older district doesn't have a separate article it should redirects to the settlement namely Municipal Borough of Wokingham goes to Wokingham not Borough of Wokingham, unparished area category given to settlement Chorley
 * Borough of Blackpool, no changes in 1974 so older County Borough of Blackpool redirects to current district and thus does not get a separate article, unparished area category given to district
 * Borough of Slough, changes in 1974 that may qualify as major so Municipal Borough of Slough exists, there were some changes in 1995 but stayed as a non-metropolitan district so 1 article from 1974-present, unparished area category given to settlement Slough
 * City of Gloucester, no changes in 1974 but Quedgeley parish moved in 1991, if split district should deal with the pre-1974 County Borough of Gloucester as well however the settlement should deal with the unparished area (the pre-1991 boundaries) and should have the unparished area category
 * Epsom and Ewell, no changes in 1974 so deals with the older Municipal Borough of Epsom and Ewell as well and is given the unparished area category
 * Blaby District, same boundaries as older Blaby Rural District so deals with pre-1974 as well
 * Stevenage, no major changes in 1974 so if split would also deal with the older urban district.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Solihull, possible advertising?
I've just had to revert 3 separate edits on Solihull as an anon made some rather commercial sounding notes as can be seen here [] and here []. I think this is an anon attempting to advertise and their using articles from 2013 and 2014 which are over 8 and 9 years old. Solihull hasn't kept its affluent status in recent polls and these are more for people buying housing and living then anything really wiki related as per WP: Advertising, Wikipedia isn't a advertising site.

I think page protection or edit with registered accounts only might be needed should these anons or newer accounts start making edits like these. Affluent only means to live and buy or rent. Doesn't mean a town status or massive importance to its history. Thoughts? DragonofBatley (talk) 01:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It depends on the references used. I don't really see advertising in the text but it needs a better reference, maybe this one Solihull appears to be an affluent place to live for most residents and has pockets of deprivation.  Where are these "polls" you refer to? 188.28.160.34 (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Just delete the IP's edits, as you have, and move on. They are clearly inappropriate for the article, especially the lead, referenced or not. This is an encyclopedia not a tourism guide book. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. Page protection is only required (and will only be approved) where there is evidence of significant and sustained disruption. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

To add to this a new user called is trying to put me down as a troll and malicious. This user has been here less then two hours and I've been here years? Am I missing the point here? DragonofBatley (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Use of the word "major" in cities?
I have noticed in the past couple of edits, Birmingham and Manchester have had major added to their leads. Major is from a neutral point of view. Subjective just like using small, medium sized or large town. We should be keeping it to just is a city or town or cathedral city or market town or minster town etc...using words like Small medium large or major is imo and from a pov of a reader. Subjective. Just because statistics use those terms doesn't make them reliable. Unless Manchester City Council for example woke up one day and said.

"Welcome to England's second major city, Manchester". And other headlines or businesses use that logo major city. Then it could be seen as reliable but as they don't. It's subjective surely? DragonofBatley (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't see the problem. There might be an issue with the cut-off point but if you take half a million residents as a rough dividing line you get Birmingham, Leeds, Glasgow, Sheffield, Bradford (yes, that one surprised me) and Manchester as major cities.  Compare them to St David's (1,841), St Asaph (3,355) or the City of London (7.375) and they are clearly, with no POV major. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


 * , but then it's contradicting an article. Using words like Small, Large, Medium size or major are not officially used. Yes places like Coventry Bristol and Newcastle were counties in their own right and cities although only Bristol remains one. But using major for cities is subjective. Large is classed as subjective and wiki should really avoid using small medium size large and major and just say town or city. Unless a cathedral or minster gave it a different status or the town has a market charter or was built on industrial only. Then terms like market, industrial, cathedral, minster or seaside works in those titles even port which helped form a town or is a major part of a town.


 * I'd avoid using those four terms above small medium sized large or major. They don't add anything of value that market cathedral port or seaside do. DragonofBatley (talk) 11:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Major I agree is an odd addition (if only because it alludes to the existence of a minor), unless used in conjunction with an industry or similar (but that typically wouldn't be the first sentence). "Large" or similar terms I have less of an issue with per WP:BLUESKY and MOS:WTW. Koncorde (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Or major would easily be interpreted with a county then a city. Like Major city for London would cover all of London and not just central London. Same with Leeds, it would cover all of West Yorkshire and not Leeds alone despite Bradford and Wakefield already being cities. DragonofBatley (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Major" has exactly the same issue as the deprecated "large", it is subjective editorialising. If the lead and infoboxes are written properly, the majorness (or otherwise) should be evident and we don't need to state what should be obvious. It is just a WP:PEACOCK term, a redundant noise word. Delete. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I just don't understand how you think a city of nigh on a million people is not major. It's not subjective since the census records population.  Talking about counties is irrelevant, the adjective is being applied to the noun "city", so it is absolutely clear that we are talking about major UK cities as against minor UK cities.
 * Problems are more in what counts as the city. Newcastle would usually be considered a major British city but it has much smaller boundaries than say Bradford. Cities can have multiple definitions. As another user said major has the exact same problems as large which we advise against using. Eopsid (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


 * A city is a metropolitan borough, non-metropolitan district or parish council to which letters patent have been granted by The Queen conferring city status upon them. The Lord Chancellor's office maintains a list of cities.  Simple and non-controversial.  Any place calling itself a city that is on the list may fall foul of the Advertising Standards Authority as did Rochester in 2010.  Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, city is just enough for a city article. Cathedral or port is only used if the city was made one with a cathedral (like Lincoln, York, Wakefield, Lichfield and Canterbury for example). Whereas cities that grew around ports like (Hull, Sunderland, Liverpool, Lancaster and Bristol) are able to use ports as those helped with the city grow although most of those cities have a cathedral or minster. But cities like Manchester, Salford, Brum, Preston, Newport etc became cities because of it being awarded by queen or king. Cities seem to have a different way of getting the status from old times then now. Most were because of a cathedral or royal patent.

But towns and villages established with market charters, beaches, ports, industrial heritage or new town acts have the ability to use towns market industrial minster etc because those terms are used to describe the town and enhance them.

Major like many said with small medium and large are often subjective and redundant as they don't add to the article but a size of it which is usually subjective or takes up space in lead. DragonofBatley (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You keep saying "subjective", but it's not. It may be redundant but anyone comparing 1,000 population to 1,000,000 can spot which is the major city.  Argue on the basis of fact. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The word "major" is subjective. Your argument is analogous to saying "anyone comparing someone three feet tall and a seven-footer can spot which is the tall guy". The difficulty here, as with my counter-example, is in the indeterminate area in between. At what population does a city become "major"? Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In short: Major is a value judgement as it typically refers to more than just scale of land mass or population (it generally implies importance). Large, in contrast, is an observation. Major would only find suitable in narrative sense when talking about a city or region being a "major industrial" area or similar in the relevant section. Koncorde (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict] By Chinese standards, a city of only one million is an 'also ran'. By Icelandic standards, it is megalopolis. Let the article speak for itself, we don't need to spoon-feed our readers. I'm not saying the MoS has no case, but this is the wrong solution. Is there some way of capturing the idea of a regional capital? [a bit difficult when we don't officially have regions any more]. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Final comments. (1) We are talking about UK cities, not Chinese or Icelandic, so that is a red herring.  (2) When I was called XXXX major at school it didn't mean I was more important that my brother, merely the first born, and therefore larger.  I'm sure my brother wouldn't thank you for implying that "minor" meant he was insignificant!  As regards "indeterminate areas", well you don't apply any adjective to them, it's only the ones that are significantly larger that the average that warrant "major".  Enough said, I responded in good faith to 's rather weird assertions, and I'm now finished with this rather protracted and frankly ridiculous bit of wikilawyering. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Per your edit summary indicating the use of a dictionary: Major: important, serious, or significant. or "greater or more important; main." or more important, bigger, or more serious than others of the same type or greater in dignity, rank, importance, or interest or greater in number, quantity, or extent - so, yes, please extend our apologies. We just used Snr/Jnr to denote and older / younger sibling. There hasn't been an ounce of wikilawyering going on. Koncorde (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd try to avoid subjective terms like with WP:SUBJECTIVECAT since providing date like population etc provides readers with this kind of information so they can make their own mind up.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's specifically for categories, and there is (uncomfortably for some) an ONS definition of Major Town or City and also an ONS definition for Town size if we so wished. Small	5000 – 20 000, Medium 20 000 – 75 000, Large 75 000 – 225 000. Koncorde (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well at least now we have an objective measure, reliably sourced. Up to now, the words have been used arbitrarily and subjectively. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Would suggest the "Major" definition isn't used even with the presence of the ONS source in the lede. Reading the definition, it is a specific type of categorisation which splits the "town" from the district or authority population, and differs from BUA and BUASD in some cases. A list of names is provided at the bottom once you scroll through and, for an example, looking at my home town of St Helens it seems to be excluding contiguous built up areas of Eccleston, Haydock and Lea Green for some reason. Some of that is new property development, so the 2011 data isn't aligning with the present day OS map. Exclusion of Haydock makes less sense - but presumably that is because it's the BUASD rather than BUA. In short: it's liable to conflict given metrics, and should be reserved for population / geographical portions of articles when discussing things like BUA / Urban Areas and so on. Koncorde (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Railway stations
There's an RfC which may be of interest: Wikipedia_talk:Notability. Pam D  07:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Autogenerated short descriptions for settlements
Hello everybody! I noticed that a fair few UK Georgraphy settlement articles, e.g. Gorleston-on-Sea, Ponteland, Canvey Island and Chatteris, have the autogenerated short description "Human settlement in England", which I personally think sounds a bit odd. I've changed a couple, and I'd quite like to go through as many as I can and add "proper" short descriptions, but I thought it was best to check on here to see if anyone wouldn't want me to, or if anyone has particular advice/ideas relating to making a custom short description for each settlement. Thanks everyone! I'd love to hear your opinions. – DirkJandeGeer щи 18:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Good idea to get rid of the auto-generated one and replace it with something that matches what the place is. Keith D (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Just for information there are currently 18,833 articles using infobox UK place that do not have a local short description template. Keith D (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Human settlement" covers everything from a hamlet to a major city. Can you think of a better default? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds a good idea. Could it be semi-automated: search for phrase "is a(n)" followed by "village/town/city/civil parish/hamlet" in first 10(?) words of article (allowing for "large"/"ancient"/"port"/"market" etc), check categories to work upwards to a county, then add short description "[Village/Town/City?civil parish/Hamlet] in [County], England"? Then use some clever algorithm to identify "matches", where we have two or more disambiguated placenames so that we have two "Warton"s with SD "Warton, Lancashire", needing manual intervention. (Or possibly not needed, as the article titles will tend to have the necessary disambiguation (Warton, Lancaster and Warton, Fylde), and the SD is only intended to complement the title in clarifying what the article is about). It wouldn't solve every case but would get us a long way, could then look at the ones where the bot/script couldn't find those words in lead and do those manually (or possibly fix their articles if they have seriously weird lead sentences!) (Ah, there might be some "Formally/Formerly/Locally/Previously called/known as" wordings to navigate round... ) Pam  D  08:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at the identifiable "settlements" from this project's FAs brings up a couple more points (and I fixed a few SDs on the way - some had the default, some were over-long):
 * "is the largest (/oldest?/???est) ... town..." is another format to look out for, not just " is a/an";
 * It would be helpful if this project could agree whether the SD should
 * (a) include the whole phrase "village and civil parish", "civil parish and town" etc, or just
 * (b) the one stated first, or
 * (c) the one other than "civil parish", which is a meaningless term to many readers of the encyclopedia and is probably redundant for the purpose of SD which is to identify the article to distinguish it from others and show the reader whether it's the article they are looking for. Pam  D  09:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would always include civil parish as that clarifies if it is just covering the settlement or a wider area. Keith D (talk) 12:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Short descriptions shouldn't exceed 40 characters and "civil parish " consumes a valuable 13 of them, so should, in my opinion, be avoided if there's an alternative such as village/hamlet/town. If the article is about a civil parish and nothing else, abbreviate to "parish".
 * However, before we consider a robot editing 18,833 articles, shouldn't we first consider if can't be changed to supply an better automatic short description that makes use of  and whatever map the template has already automatically decided to use? That could vastly reduce the number of articles that need to override the default.  Dr Greg  talk  13:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think a good place to start would be "Settlement in England" rather than "Human settlement in England", as "human" sounds a bit alien in the current context, although if there's consensus somewhere for "human" then fair enough.
 * If we could get consensus for the automatic short description to be "Settlement in ((county)), " I think that'd be good as it would make the SDs more regionally specific, but a problem with that is that the different types of counties could make that too complicated.
 * I had a look at the markup for and it seems that if type is specified, that type is used in the short description. (I tested this at Gorleston-on-Sea and it seemed to work, setting the SD to "Town in England"). So the reason a lot of articles still have the "Human settlement in England" SD is probably because a lot of them don't have a specified type. If anyone knows how to check how many pages there are with  template but without a  value, that'd be brilliant.
 * All the best everyone! – DirkJandeGeer щи 14:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * according to https://bambots.brucemyers.com/TemplateParam.php?wiki=enwiki&template=Infobox+UK+place, type is defined on 776 of the 24 837 pages which include . – DirkJandeGeer щи 14:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at the code for it has already been done.  The logic is:
 * If there is alread a SD, don't replace it
 * IF is defined, then unlink it, uppercase the first letter and output it ELSE output "Human Settlement"
 * output "in"
 * IF is defined, then unlink it and output it ELSE output "the United Kingdom"
 * So all that's needed is to ensure the and (preferably) fields are filled in. Fully parsed code below (finally!)   Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Martin of Sheffield, that's really helpful! – DirkJandeGeer щи 14:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Looking at the FAs it seems our established practice is to include the county as well as the country - and it will certainly disambiguate many pairs/groups of articles. Who makes decisions as to what goes into that formula shown above? Where would a discussion be needed in order to alter it to include County where present in the infobox? Pam  D  07:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Do we need to absolutely disambiguate in the SD? If I look up "Rochester", then "Town in England" distinguishes it from "City in Western New York State" or "Village in England".  Remember the SD is short and a hint, not a complete article! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Martin of Sheffield having the county in the short description might have non-disambiguation uses, "X is a town in Northamptonshire, England" could be useful because if you'd not heard of that town before, knowing its county would give you a slightly better idea where it is. Have a good one! – DirkJandeGeer щи 15:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Another thought: how many UK settlements don't have an infobox (ie no scope to autogenerate a SD)? Possibly not a lot, but do we know? Pam  D  07:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Should we establish a formula for UK place short descriptions?
I think if we establish a formula through consensus for short descriptions for place articles in the UK, then we can figure out the best way to try and implement that formula across those articles which don't yet have a unique short description. I quite like "[type] in [county], [country]", e.g. Godmanchester's SD would be "Town in Cambridgeshire, England". Would you guys support that as a formula for short descriptions? As mentioned above, including civil parish status as well as settlement type i.e. " X is a village and civil parish in Cornwall" would in many cases push descriptions over the 40 character recommendation, would it be better to leave "civil parish" out of the SD when another term like "village" applies to the given place? Or only include it when it doesn't go over the recommended limit? I'd love to hear everyone's opinions, have a good one! – DirkJandeGeer щи 15:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 40 is not an absolute, but just a suggestion, civil parish is important and would not push the limit in most cases. You can drop the "X is a " from the start. Keith D (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes you're correct, "X is a " shouldn't have been there, I'll correct that. You're right that civil parish is important, and thinking about it even the longer ones under this formula, like "Village and civil parish in Northamptonshire" aren't much over the suggested length (given example is 44 characters). So perhaps a better formula would be "[type] [and civil parish] in [county], [country]", do you guys think that could work for a standard Short Description? All the best! – DirkJandeGeer щи 18:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

New temperature peak
For the keen among us, the Met Office has released a report on last Tuesday's event. Many articles report a maximum temperature record which has almost certainly been broken. Citation: John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

York
Per most district's article's scope should be from 1974 onward however unlike the likes of Gloucester mentions transfers but doesn't state any districts were abolished while the order for York does. With both Gloucester and York the boundaries were not changed in 1974 so were reconstituted. If is is decided to create an article on the pre 1996 York district (which would include the county borough with the same boundaries) perhaps it could be at York (abolished 1996) or City of York (abolished 1996) with City of York dealing with the current district similar to Bury, Greater Manchester (settlement) County Borough of Bury (pre 1974) and Metropolitan Borough of Bury (post 1974). Thoughts? .  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why that couldn't work DragonofBatley (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Why do we need separate articles covering the same area? One article will do and make things less complicated. Keith D (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree we do not want separate articles covering the same area - although we might well need separate articles for different councils covering the same area (e.g North Yorkshire County Council and North Yorkshire Council). But if you read WP:UKDISTRICTS, York does seem to be anomalous, so unless there is a proposal to amend WP:UKDISTRICTS, perhaps the discussion on York should be on that article's talk page.  See my post at Talk:York yesterday.--Mhockey (talk) 08:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I was pointing out that information (and wikilinks to) for the pre 1996 district should go to York if a separate article on the older district is not deemed necessary. All other districts like Borough of Wokingham deal with post 1974 (ignoring the likes of Brighton and Hove that were later merged with a different name and those like Epsom and Ewell that were reconstituted with the same boundaries in 1974) unlike the order for Gloucester that started "transfers" as opposed to a district being abolished the York one mentions that the pre 1996 district was abolished.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've drafted an article which deals only with the newer district but mentions the older one at the end.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Should the "geographically large area" (no 6) criteria at WikiProject UK geography/How to write about districts be removed? I don't think this criteria is helpful and is a bit arbitrary, Corby for example is ranked 230 while Birmingham is 144 now Corby settlement is much smaller so the test should be relative to the settlement rather than relative to other districts. I think the 1st 3 criteria (and my "District is not clearly larger than settlement" criteria at User:Crouch, Swale/District split) is sufficient to deal with geographical area. If people think this is helpful I can add it to my tables but otherwise I don't really think we need it. Maybe right at the beginning it could have been helpful but once you know the uncontroversial splits it probably becomes unnecessary. On a related note I have recently added former districts to my tables, some like Hove perhaps could be split. Thoughts on removing the "geographically large area" criteria? .  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ as there was no objections or suggestions to add it to my tables.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 10:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

London and Greater London merge proposal
There's a proposal at Talk:London to merge Greater London into London. NebY (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * This could do with input from more editors. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Districts councils merges
Per WikiProject UK geography/How to write about districts I would suggest merging district councils that the name only exists as a district council like South Hams/South Hams District Council and when the district already has a separate article from the place it is named after for example Dover/Dover District/Dover District Council. Most such council articles just duplicate the district article or otherwise have things like elections/wards that should also be covered in the district's article.

I would make an immediate exception for


 * Districts that are combined with their settlement such as Eastbourne/Eastbourne Borough Council, Crawley Borough Council, Gosport Borough Council, Hastings Borough Council, City of Lincoln Council, Tamworth Borough Council, Woking Borough Council.
 * Districts that are combined with another entity such as Isles of Scilly/Council of the Isles of Scilly.
 * Districts that are also ceremonial counties such as Herefordshire/Herefordshire Council.
 * Districts where the district of the same name as the ceremonial county doesn't yet exist such as Wiltshire/Wiltshire Council (until Wiltshire (district) is created.

We could perhaps also look at if London boroughs, metropolitan boroughs and unitary districts should also be exempt. City councils and those where there was an older council but no separate article exists on the older district may also be exempt for example with Dover there was also Municipal Borough of Dover which would have had a council and it could be argued that should be covered in a district council article even if the district article only deals with the new district from 1974. However most district council articles only look to deal with from 1974 and the older council may be better covered in an article on the older district like Municipal Borough of Chorley or in the town's article.

All the council's article's categories should be kept and per MOS:RDR links should still be made to the council when appropriate. .  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me, provided London boroughs, metropolitan boroughs and unitary authorities are exempt. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No strong views one way or the other on this suggestion. In essence we need to ensure there's coverage of the geographic district (which should ordinarily be relatively stable content), and the political control and leadership provided by its elected council (which requires much more frequent checking and updating, plus care to keep politically neutral). I can see the arguments for combining both aspects into one page. Equally, in some cases where lots of editors have put in extensive detail, two pages may be justified by the amount of content to avoid the page becoming overly long. Stortford (talk) 06:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I've merged the ones that I think should be merged (apart from London boroughs, metropolitan boroughs and unitary authorities) see User:Crouch, Swale/District councils (the "Non-metropolitan districts" and "Former districts" sections). Apart from settlements (like Cambridge/Cambridge City Council where no separate article exists on the district) the ones I have exempted are Huntingdonshire District Council and Richmondshire District Council due to the fact these were formerly counties thus likely meaning there is separate coverage beyond the district, Vale of White Horse District Council because it seems the vale existed prior to the district and perhaps there should be an article on it, Sedgemoor District Council because it seems "Sedgemoor" is an area as well as a district, Aylesbury Vale District Council because it seems like "Aylesbury Vale" is also a valley and High Peak Borough Council because it also appears to be a hill. In time more of the settlements and perhaps Vale of White Horse will have the district split meaning the council could then be merged. Some districts named after features have the district split like Forest of Dean/Forest of Dean District, The Swale/Borough of Swale and Breckland/Breckland District while as noted others like Vale of White Horse don't currently meaning for now a district council article would probably be useful. When deciding if a council article is needed (when there is no separate article for the district than feature) a useful test may be if the district didn't exist would there still likely be an article on the place? In the case of Cambridge and Isles of Scilly its obviously yes as with Richmondshire, in the case of Vale of White Horse the answer is probably yes to. With regards to Stortford's point yes I'd agree with that, Leeds City Council may be an example of a case of extensive detail and thus a separate article may be helpful.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Leeds is definitely big enough to have individual articles for the Council, the city, the City of Leeds UA and the West Yorkshire Built-up Area. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Vale of White Horse is notable for the white horse and it is a fairly clear geological feature. The Aylesbury Vale doesn't really amount to much: it is sort of an eastern extension of VoWH beyond Oxford bounded to the south by the Chilterns but very weakly bounded to the north; the remit of AVDC included Buckingham which is on the valley of river Great Ouse. Aylesbury is on the river Thame, a tributary of the Thames. So distinct geological structures. IMO, if we didn't already have an article for AV, we probably wouldn't create one. But we are where we are, the article has quite a few inbound links and must have been mentioned in many external documents. So let it stand. Someone is going to have fun updating the population figures because the ONS won't do it any more. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at the edit history of Aylesbury Vale it was created in December 2003 for the area (geographical region as it says today) and didn't contain anything about the district until January 2004. Vale of White Horse today says in the article its a district and was created for the district in January 2004. There is Aylesbury Vale Academy named in 2009, Aylesbury Vale Dynamos F.C. named in 2005 and Aylesbury Vale Parkway railway station named in 2008(?) and I doubt any of those were named after the district which suggests the name is used outside the district. I don't know the area well enough to know if it would be appropriate to have separate district articles but until then the district council articles serve to "bridge" in the absence of separate district articles. My instinct is somewhat similar to John in that the VOWH should probably be split but AV not. There is a discussion at Talk:Vale of White Horse which I'll contribute to. I can't find much coverage of AV outside the district (though there is this but doesn't really discuss it much) but I can for VOWH.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence of use of the name Aylesbury Vale before the district was created? If not then I'd say it shouldn't be split. Eopsid (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation of unitary districts
How should unitary districts (like Shropshire (district)) be disambiguated that don't have city (like City of Peterborough) or borough (like Borough of Bedford) status?


 * 1, Shropshire (district), in favour, simple, against, they are also administrative counties and other than Dorset the area was the same as the former county council area and thus would probably include information on that
 * 2, Shropshire (unitary authority), in favour, perhaps clearer, against, may suggest the council not district
 * 3, Shropshire (unitary authority area), in favour, clear and inclusive, against, longer
 * 4, Shropshire District, in favour, natural disambiguaion, against, isn't likely common


 * Who moved Cumberland (unitary authority) to Cumberland (district) and Dorset (unitary authority) to Dorset (district). This may affect other UAs like South Gloucestershire if they needed disambiguation but it only looks like this would affect unitary districts with the same name as a ceremonial county (or in the case of Cumberland former one). All other unitary districts without city or borough status look largely unambiguous. Leaving aside the issue of if such articles should exist how should we disambiguate them?  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 09:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Definitely should not includes words like "unitary authority" as that is ambiguous with the councils. Should probably follow the same naming scheme as non-metropolitan districts that aren't unitary. Or we could just have a single article for Shropshire that covers both the ceremonial county and the unitary (and makes clear when not talking about Telford and Wrekin). That is the long standing approach. MRSC (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Central Lincolnshire
I have created a new article for Central Lincolnshire which is an area used for planning and managing the economies of Lincoln, North Kesteven and West Lindsey. It is more a political region but I have made it as it is referenced quite a bit on news articles and sites. Even NKDC and WLDC as well as Lincoln mps identify the area but some also call it Greater Lincolnshire. Thoughts on it? I know Wikiproject Lincolnshire is inactive DragonofBatley (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know the area that well, but it seems to me that "Central Lincolnshire" is a different and much smaller area than "Greater Lincolnshire", which seems to cover the whole of the ceremonial county of Lincolnshire - that is, the non-metropolitan county of Lincolnshire and the area covered by the unitary authorities of North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire. Am I wrong?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Its used by planning and managing etc but I'm not sure it qualifies as notable per WP:GEOLAND. Unlike East of England I'm not sure its functions make it a legally recognized place for the purpose of GEOLAND.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 08:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's just an area with a joint local plan, the same as Anglesey and Gwynedd, Babergh and Mid Suffolk, or Plymouth and South West Devon. This doesn't make it an actual place, simply a (temporary) point of administrative convenience. As such I don't recognise its notability. And Greater Lincolnshire must definitely be wrong, as that would mean an area larger than Lincs, while this appears to be a sub-region. Rcsprinter123   (interact)  09:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In reply to the above, I would also mention one could question the Central Lancashire article. For instance, it was meant to be a new town but never was adopted. Only a university and planning committee use the name but is it notable enough to be its own article? So I would say Central Lincolnshire is within enough stead too. It has been adopted as a name for planning, and development and spans three districts. Central Lancashire does the same thing. So may I ask for what the difference between these two is? DragonofBatley (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think both articles are of dubious notability. Things like districts and parishes are always notable and settlements with census data as well as BUAS like West Yorkshire Built-up Area are generally notable but combined districts for planning and managing etc I'm not sure unless there is significant coverage on it.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding Babergh and Mid Suffolk its possible these districts will be merged (its been talked about) just like St Edmundsbury and Forest Heath had partnerships since 2011 and merged in 2019 but until such merge becomes confirmed or likely the area wouldn't likely be notable.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 10:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Notification of RFC regarding rules on paged for districts and councils
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

How Cornish are the Isles of Scilly?
Hello all, hope you don't mind me seeking some of your advice and opinion on the answer to this question: How culturally similar are Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, and should the Isles of Scilly be considered culturally Cornish and be described as such on Wikipedia? I've tried to figure out a definitive answer to this for a few years now (before I even joined Wikipedia!), but from the searches I've done online it's hard to find a straight answer. I've also tried offline sources, or at least the ones I have access to, but its hard to form any firm conclusions from them. So, I turn to you, to humbly request some sage advice and perhaps your opinion on the matter (backed by reliable sources, of course!). Do let me know if this is a frivolous or unanswerable request or if I should post this elsewhere. Thankyou and have a great day!

- HenryTemplo (talk) 09:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * How do you define culturally cornish? the Isles of Scilly have the population of a medium sized village and via Cornwall is the main way people get there. You could check the ONS data on national identity. They have data on how much people identified as Cornish. Its a bit hard to link to but you should be able to query it from what I can see people in the Isles of Scilly do identify as Cornish but to a lesser extent than on the Cornish mainland but considerably greater than the rest of England. I would be averse to describing the Isles of Scilly as culturally cornish, because I dont think that means anything, but it would be fair to say that many have cornish national identity (according to that ONS source). Im surprised the Scilly Isles werent included in this map  Eopsid (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The Lieutenancies Act 1997 says "The Isles of Scilly shall be treated as part of the county of Cornwall for the purposes of this Act." so that's similar to Derby district being in Derbyshire.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the replies! In answer to your query, @Eopsid, I would broadly define "culturally Cornish" as how similar Scillonian language, food, accents, customs, legends (etc.) are to their Cornish equivalents. In this respect, I have found it far more complicated than simply that the Isles of Scilly is a Cornish cultural outpost. As I said, sources contradict, but generally, the ones I have access to seem to lean towards the Isles of Scilly not being Cornish. For a clear example, In The Life of a Scilly Sergeant by Colin Taylor, on page 7, it states that: "One thing is for certain: Scilly is not Cornish. ... Scilly has its own flag ... .There is no discernible accent on Scilly.". Other sources allude to other cultural differences, for example, the 9th edition of The Fortunate Islands by R. L. Bowley, on page 188 and other passages, discusses how the Cornish language was only spoken on the Islands until the 16th century, while in West Cornwall Cornish became extinct in the 18th century. There's also this lovely study which I found online discussing the linguistic uniqueness of Scilly which concludes that: ... the [variety of English spoken on Scilly] has links to Cornish English (and other varieties in the South West of England) but ... the islands' unique history and environment has caused its language to develop independently from mainland varieties.. I found it at least that it's actually quite clear from these sources that the Isles of Scilly is ,in some aspects, culturally different and unique from Cornwall, especially since your input to the contrary.
 * To address your reply, @Crouch, Swale, yes, it's quite obvious that, at least ceremonially, the Isles of Scilly are part of Cornwall, but this doesn't make Scilly any more Cornish culturally, especially when one considers that the Islands have been actually administered separately from Cornwall since the 14th century by a line of Governors and Lord Proprietors, and later a separate sui generis local council. But I digress :).
 * Despite my realisation that I disagree with the notion the the Isles of Scilly are Cornish, I really appreciate the time you took to reply, so I wish you both to have a great day! HenryTemplo (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Historic counties and defining the "West Country"
Following a bit of an edit war on West Country, there is a discussion which members of this project may have the expertise to help bring to a resolution: whether that article should specify that "West Country" is defined in terms of historic counties or simply in terms of counties. The discussion is here: Talk:West_Country

Thanks, Joe D (t) 23:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Former districts
Looking at some of the abolished districts that don't have separate articles they are Bath, Bournemouth, Brighton, Christchurch, Gillingham, Great Grimsby, Hereford, Hove, Northampton and Poole. Of those:


 * 1 now exists as a civil parish with the same boundaries as the former district namely Hereford.
 * 3 now exist as unparished areas with the same boundaries as the former district namely Bath, Gillingham and Poole, unlike Municipal Borough of Harrow/London Borough of Harrow I don't expect we expect to combine current unparished areas with former districts with the same boundaries. Bath and Poole have charter trustees.
 * 1 was completely unparished at the time of abolition but now is partly parished namely Great Grimsby, Great Coates parish formed in 2003. Unlike the 3 above the current unparished area (with charter trustees) does not cover the same area as the former district.
 * 2 were when created completely unparished but prior to abolition had parishes formed namely Bournemouth (Holdenhurst Village in 2013) and Brighton (Rottingdean in 1995) so again the current unparished area isn't the same as the former district, Bournemouth also has charter trustees.
 * 1 covered 2 unparished areas namely Hove and was formed from 2 districts in 1974, Portslade by Sea being the other.
 * 2 covered multiple parishes namely Christchurch and Northampton in addition to the unparished area which in the case of Northampton was parished before abolition.

Thoughts on splitting especially given these are now abolished the duplication risk is reduced and some older districts like County Borough of Bury have articles even though they covered a similar area to the settlement.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

New Bradford montage
There is a discussion about the lead image at Talk:Bradford, your input is welcomeBeautifulscarlet (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)