Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about districts/Archive 1

List of districts named from settlements
Around 150 districts are directly named after their principal settlements.

Combined district + settlement
Possible criteria:
 * 1) Built-up area closely matches boundaries, no rural hinterland
 * 2) Lack of other distinct settlements
 * 3) ONS division is roughly the same, or larger
 * 4) Long-established boundaries (pre 1960s/70s)
 * 5) Few or no civil parishes
 * 6) Not a geographically large area

This is a list of settlements that share the same name/area as a local government district, and have one article (45):

Split district + settlement
Possible criteria:
 * 1) District has a large rural hinterland
 * 2) Other distinct settlements
 * 3) ONS division does not cover all of district
 * 4) Recent boundaries (1960s/70s)
 * 5) Number of civil parishes
 * 6) Geographically large area
 * District not named for largest settlement
 * District is multi-centered, or made up of two or more broadly significant localities

This is a list of settlements that share names with a local government district, and have two articles (100):

Excluded criteria

 * Total population
 * Borough status
 * City status
 * Unitary authority status
 * London borough/metropolitan/non-metropolitan status
 * Post towns or other postal geography

How to discuss this
If we disagree with an assessment, do we just boldly overwrite our own assessment, or do we discuss it on this talk page? Chaos may ensue! --  Dr Greg   talk  19:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would go for it. It is only a snapshot, it doesn't mean we are going to merge or demerge anything just based on this. It is supposed to be a pointer to where we should be having discussions anyhow. MRSC (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reassessed Preston based on my local knowledge. Was 2+3+5+6. In my view, fails on 2 (Barton, Broughton, Catforth, Goosnargh, Grimsargh, Inglewhite, Whitechapel, Woodplumpton are all distinct villages, many in rural agricultural areas); fails on 5 (Barton, Broughton-in-Amounderness, Goosnargh, Grimsargh, Haighton, Lea and Cottam, Whittingham, Woodplumpton)--  Dr Greg   talk  01:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Added a note to Broxbourne: it is only a small area (which ceased to have a separate civic identity in the 1930s) in comparison to the two largest settlements (Cheshunt and Hoddesdon) which were also the two urban districts merged to from the district in 1974.Lozleader (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Another potential criteria
Quite a few of these in the second list have their own parish/town/city councils which would imply a distinct identity. These are the ones I can see off the top of my head, there are probably more:
 * Tewkesbury
 * Chichester
 * Lewes
 * Stroud
 * Maldon
 * Startford-upon-Avon
 * Warwick
 * Wokingham

Mansfield has charter trustees which implies a separate-ness from the district of the same name. Daventry used to : they might have a town council now? Bedford and Chelmsford originally had charter trustees, some of the others too possibly, don't know without checking...Lozleader (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Findings and suggestions
Firstly there are 3 that really stick out:
 * Leeds split ✅ completed
 * Bournemouth (borough) and Bournemouth merge, or create Bournemouth Borough Council from borough article ✅ completed
 * Poole (borough) and Poole merge, or create Poole Borough Council from borough article ✅ completed

Then, there are a few that might need some discussion:
 * Fareham (borough) and Fareham merge, or create Fareham Borough Council from borough article
 * Middlesbrough (borough) and Middlesbrough merge, or create Middlesborough Borough Council from borough article ✅ completed
 * Preston split

And some fringe cases:
 * Peterborough split
 * Sheffield split
 * York split
 * Barrow-in-Furness (borough) and Barrow-in-Furness merge

I think we should seriously consider 1-3 and possibly 4-5. The last five are fringe cases that could probably work either way. MRSC (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My comment is not about the criteria for splitting (in most cases I think the current position is OK), but about the content of the combined articles. The accident that the council area matches the built-up area has too much effect, especially on the infobox.  So Bedford has a nice map of Bedfordshire, OS grid reference, Police, Fire, and Ambulance; but Luton does not have this information and makes do with a diagramatic map on which the extent of the borough is not very clear.  Why don't these articles have the standard UK infobox, with an additional infobox in the Governance section to contain the council information. JonH (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that "geographically large area", i.e. how many square miles, is relevant. What is relevant is the relative size of the settlement to the district, which is really covered by the "large rural hinterland" criterion. --  Dr Greg   talk  02:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As with the other criteria, it is purely indicative. However, countermonious settlement-districts are unlikely to be the largest districts. MRSC (talk) 05:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have started three discussions following this: Please contribute there. If you want to start any other conversations based on these findings, please do. These are the ones I am most interested in, but YMMMV. MRSC (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk:Leeds
 * Talk:Poole (borough)
 * Talk:Bournemouth (borough)
 * Looking at your table I'm not sure how you come to some conclusions about Leeds but not Sheffield. I'd certainly think Sheffield fails 2,3 and 6, and possibly 5 given that there are 3 civil parishes. Birmingham absorbed Sutton Coldfield, which has a population of over 100,000 - so should fail on 2 and 3. Quantpole (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The main problem with all this is that we have two different circumstances - areas where the current administrative boundary covers a wider area than that usually thought of as the main settlement, and areas where the administrative boundary covers a smaller area than what would be thought of as the main settlement. Imposing a standard system that covers both of these very different circumstances is difficult and likely to lead to the sort of mess we had at Leeds. Quantpole (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * ..."have" at Leeds. I'm not familliar with the latter of the two circumstances you outline. Do you have examples? --Jza84 | Talk  21:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep. Liverpool (doesn't include Bootle etc), Manchester (most people would think of it as the whole urban area inside the M60), Birmingham (is Solihull really a distinct settlement?) Discussing this whole issue is messy because we are considering different things - administrative areas and settlements. The administrative areas are easy to define, but the settlements are not. Quantpole (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I've asked elsewhere where your evidence about "most people" thinking it etc. I won't repeat myself. Regardless, I'd rather come back to MRSC's table of evidence. It's compelling. --Jza84 | Talk  22:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, http://www.visitmanchester.com/ - promo website for greater manchester, but uses Manchester to describe the whole are. (Otherwise it would be www.visitgreatermanhester.com) That was the third link that came up. I'm sure if I could be bothered I could come up with some more. Quantpole (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh and Manchester United is actually in Trafford. Quantpole (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The first does not say anything about Rochdale being in Manchester, for instance. Your second example nullifies your own point - you yourself admit that the club play in a district outside of Manchester, when you should've said "Manchester". --Jza84 | Talk  23:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's called a paradox: the club is called "Manchester United", yet they are apparently not in Manchester, so it either implies that their name is wrong, or that their location is wrong, which is it? The website was simply to illustrate the point that manchester is commonly used to mean greater manchester. It doesn't purport to be a legal definition of what manchester is or isn't but it shows quite clearly that the usage of manchester to be greater manchester is common. Quantpole (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a weak arguement as the name of a team is in no way connected to charters, administration, settlements etc. Manchester United was a football club founded in Manchester; it is not likely it would change its name to Trafford United on the basis they moved stadia; Lancashire County Cricket Club don't play in Lancashire; Oldham Athletic have talked about moving to Chadderton; Everton plan to move from Everton to Kirkby; and Bolton Wanderers play in Horwich, not Bolton. Even the England cricket team represents not England, but England and Wales. I'm just not convinced by your stance. It's pretty irrelevant. --Jza84 | Talk  00:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) Bristol comes to mind - a significant portion of the urban area is actually in South Gloucestershire (including the area around Bristol Parkway railway station, and smaller parts are in North Somerset and Bath and North East Somerset. I'm not familiar with the settlement, but I believe that the boundaries of Blackpool are similarly tight. Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Bristol has an urban area that extends beyond its boundaries, but only to the extent that they are suburbs, outside of Bristol, in a completely seperate borough. It's not really anything for or against the proposals for Poole, Bournmouth and Leeds, as the City of Bristol doesn't encompass other settlements. --Jza84 | Talk  22:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. It doesn't make any difference to the subject in hand. MRSC (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the problem with encompassing other settlements? Quantpole (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean. --Jza84 | Talk  23:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Criteria for merge/split
I want to gauge if we have agreement with the six criteria used to decide on splits/mergers? MRSC (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Until it is decided what things should be split to the points a bit moot. Quantpole (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take that as agreement then? MRSC (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears a fair, reasonable and verifiable approach to take. The criteria will enable a proper system to be used in England. --Jza84 | Talk  23:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, questions:
 * 1) How do we define whether a rural hinterland is large?
 * 2) How do we define distinct settlements? All large settlements have amalgamated from previously separate villages and towns. If by distinct we mean separated by countryside then that is a different thing. (Taking Leeds as an example, the ONS sub-division is 440k, but the contiunously built up core is about 600k and the whole borough is 750k. Or Wigan as another example - the subdivision is 80k, but the 'Wigan Urban Area' (ONS) being the built up area is 160k and the borough is 300k.)
 * 3) What sort of ONS division - for Leeds the division is actually the West Yorkshire Urban Area, and there is a separate sub-division within that. This applies to many other places as well. How do we know what ONS mean by these divisions?
 * 4) Recent boundaries. I'm not sure what the relevence of this is, so would appreciate some expansion.
 * 5) Civil parishes. Leeds (as an example, I don't know about others) has many parishes that were in the previous County Borough, so again I'm not sure of the relevence of this.
 * 6) I presume the point of this one is the population density.

Most importantly though What do the sources say? We should always be referring to sources to verify material. At the moment it looks likes a system is being set up to define what a settlement is or isn't, regardless of what the sources actually say about it. They should come first. We also have basic principles such as WP:COMMONNAME - setting up a system that might ignore wikipedia wide conventions isn't OK to my mind. And lastly - why does it matter? So long as the article meets wikipedia guidlines, do we really need everything on the same system. It might be 'nice' to have everything set out in a regimental manner, but reader useability must take preference. Quantpole (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Consistency promotes clarity, cohesion and professionalism, and binds editors to have set limits, goals and scope. That's why we have things like naming conventions and style guides.


 * The above seems Leeds-centric and a little bit like clutching at straws/spin. The criteria on the main page shows strengths in adopting a consistent format - you advocated City of Bradford to become Government of Bradford on the basis it was consistent with Leeds. I can't help but think you want your cake and eat it too. --Jza84 | Talk  00:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't advocate anything about Bradford. Get you facts straight, and avoid commenting on the editor please. Quantpole (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This smells of advocacy to me. By all means, do tell if you oppose it then.... in which case I'll apologise. --Jza84 | Talk  00:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have made no comment on whether Bradford should be merged or not. I did not participate in the discussion at all, but I was trying to explain this situation as noted by Nev1. Quantpole (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Large hinterland is anything non-trivial. Extreme examples at either end would be Winchester and Dudley. (all but five of our merged articles exhibit this feature)
 * 2) Distinct settlements do not have to be separated by countryside, just locations that are described as such in published sources. (all but two of our merged articles exhibit this feature)
 * 3) The ONS figures must be for the settlement and be the same or larger than the district. (all but one of our merged articles exhibit this feature)
 * 4) Until the reforms of the 1960s/1970s borough boundaries for the large towns were broadly the same as the settlements, with periodic extensions to keep up with sprawl. The Local Government Act 1972 tried to follow this principle where it could, but it had fairly strict minimum populations for certain services. This meant that in the designation of districts there was a battle between creating efficient units for administration and respecting political geography. On the whole, efficiency was the overriding factor. If a district has boundaries from before this time it is because the population was large enough, but it also means it dates from an era when district boundaries were more aligned to the realities of the settlement. (all but six fall into this category)
 * 5) Civil parishes represent distinct localities for the purposes of local government. On the whole, compact settlements occupying the majority of their district do not have large numbers of parishes. In districts that were amalgamations of a large town with several distinct communities, there will be a high number of parishes. Typically, there should be none, or one on the fringe recently created. (all but two are in this category)
 * 6) The size of the district points to the 1960s/1970s amalgamations. Settlements that occupy the same area tend not to be in the top 100 or so by rank. (all but one is in this category)

These criteria are drawn from the articles we already have, looking for what they have in common in order to define what we should do going forward. This is basic to Wikipedia. The purpose of these kinds of policies and conventions is to end hours of endless arguments caused on specific articles. MRSC (talk) 06:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I still don't understand the last question regarding the size of the district. Surely this should be size of the district compared to the population (or urban core population if preferred). In other words, we are looking at the population density, not outright size. There are some places on the list that have a very low population density, but do not count as 'geographically large', and were formed through the amalgamation of rural and urban districts. Another way to do this would be to compare the size of the largest pre-1974 district/settlement with the district size after 1974. This also assumes that the districts pre 1974 corresponded better to a definite settlement than those afterwards. This might be generally true, but there could well be exceptions. Quantpole (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

These guidelines seem a little bit arbitrary. JimmyGuano (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How has "Urban Sub-Division" (the obscure and little-used measure that seems to be the main basis for the truly terrible List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population article) become the definitive measure of the size of a settlement?
 * As a settlement is a measure of human geography rather than physical geography, surely the population that exists outside the main urban area is more relevant than the area outside? Sheffield has a huge rural area within its boundaries - a third of the city it is National park - but as this is mainly uninhabited moorland and forest it doesn't really make sense to have separate articles for Sheffield-with-moorland and Sheffield-without-moorland - they are essentially the same thing for this purpose.
 * The physical extent of many large UK urban areas changed a lot between WWII and the 1960s, which is one of the reasons that boundaries were changed in the following decade. What relevance does this have to whether a district does or does not coincide with a settlement?
 * What's the relevence of civil parishes? Is this not just another way of measuring rurality, which isn't in itself ambiguous, as the ONS have done it for us?

Page name
Given that this page covers only England, and that it is a subpage of the UK geography project, would it not be better to rename the page WikiProject UK geography/How to write about English districts? I suspect that the same or very similar criteria could apply to Wales, but my knowledge of Scottish political geography is insufficient to make a reliable judgement. Thryduulf (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I imagine that this does not apply to Scotland, but does apply to Wales (thinking Wrexham and County Borough of Wrexham etc). --Jza84 | Talk  10:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The agreed format in Wales is not County Borough of Wrexham, but rather Wrexham County Borough. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I did consider that. We did have districts in Scotland and Wales until relatively recently (some with articles), and as districts in England keep on changing, there is probably scope to expand this policy to eventually cover former districts. MRSC (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Policy origins
Looking at the archives, this policy has been in place since 2004 and using essentially the same critera. WikiProject UK subdivisions/English districts MRSC (talk) 08:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I knew I'd seen this somewhere, but was looking through WP:UKGEO archives. I'm glad you found it as it show's the historical basis of this guideline. --Jza84 | Talk  11:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad I found it as it records what was originally done. Changes since then: Very little has changed since 2004! MRSC (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sheffield was originally split and is now merged
 * Peterborough was originally split and is now merged
 * I'd be interested to know who merged Peterborough, how and why. I'll have a look. --Jza84 | Talk  16:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It was you! haha --Jza84 | Talk  16:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, I couldn't even remember that myself and had to check. That article is FA, it should really have Infobox settlement. MRSC (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that to say I've had problems convincing a regular editor there about Infobox settlement and WP:UKCITIES has been difficult would be the most proper way about it. I suspect they would also oppose this guideline. --Jza84 | Talk  17:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox
There are about 100 uses of Infobox_UK_district that need updating to Infobox settlement. There are countless other bespoke ones floating about. I've proposed a task force to look at these articles. One of the tasks will be to update these. MRSC (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are there any articles about non-metropolitan districts that already use Infobox settlement without substitution – I've not been able to find any. Jan 1 naD  (talk • contrib) 22:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Answering my own question, I've found Taunton Deane. Any better examples? Jan 1 naD  (talk • contrib) 22:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Following Taunton Deane all the other districts in Somerset ie Mendip, Sedgemoor, Bath and North East Somerset, North Somerset, South Somerset & West Somerset.&mdash; Rod talk 22:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Naming
Had a look at the policy and at how it has or has not been applied to the non-met districts that have been abolished. It is clearly not being applied consistently. There is a list (in no particular order) here. The Place (district) and Place (borough) rule "Non-metropolitan districts with local ambiguity depend on the district/borough status, such as Bolsover (district) or Bedford (borough)" is far from universal. The Boroughs of East Yorkshire and Boothferry are at East Yorkshire (district) and Boothferry (district) when they ought to be at East Yorkshire (borough) and Boothferry (borough). Also Beverley (borough) could equally (or perhaps better) be applied to the municipal borough of pre-1974 vintage. Would not its final title East Yorkshire Borough of Beverley not be better? Same is true of Berwick-upon-Tweed (borough), which could be applied to the pre-1974 entity. I also note that "Any district that has city status is named City of Westminster or City of Salford (overrides all the above)". However this presumably only applies to current districts (thus Chester (district) and not City of Chester). I think we may need to rethink the naming policy, perhaps so that we can have things like Place (former district) or Place (district) (1974–1998) or something. As it is it's neither one thing or another. Aplogies if this not the correct place to put this spiel... I'll be happy to paste in the right forum if I get a pointer! Lozleader (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I also notice that the 1974 – 1996 District of Wales, where disambiguation is needed, are all Place (district) no matter if they are city/borough/district. Seems a lot simpler.Lozleader (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am in complete agreement. In hindsight I think it was a mistake to use a variety of identifiers for local government districts and recommend a move to Place (district) in all/most cases. If there is still ambiguity I was thinking Place (1974–1998 district) could be used. The article and infoboxes can then detail borough/city status as appropriate as well as metropolitan/non-metropolitan etc. flavour. The underlying principle is that above all else, all of these things are districts! MRSC (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I, for one, would agree with MRSC's suggestion. In particular it might avoid some confusion over the dual meaning of "city": the official city status of a district and the vernacular usage applied to the settlement of the same name. --  Dr Greg   talk  19:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree that "district" is the way to go: the status is an add-on that can be well covered in infobox and text. Quite a lot started as districts before becoming boroughs so this would cover the whole scope. So what is the next step in making these changes (or not). Is there a requirement to set up a forum to see if a consensus exists?Lozleader (talk) 12:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we should probably create a schedule of the proposed changes on a centralised discussion page, then invite comment. This would effectively replace WP:RM process. MRSC (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To give my tuppence, based on the complaints I had at Durham (district) - I think that the Place (district) format is a little of a blunt tool. I like putting the dates in the title to disambiguate where similar named entities have existed over different time periods (it also gives us a template for the future when, inevitably, new administrative divisions are generated); I also wanted to pick up Lozleader's point and ask why the overide of 'City of Westminster' (etc) does not apply to former districts? Pretty Green (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably because some other entity now uses the title "City of X", so it is ambiguous. MRSC (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions (UK local government districts) might be a good place to do this. MRSC (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I am glad I found this page, having been intrigued by the discussion about possible move of Durham. The article Durham is about the place ("settlement") while City of Durham, describing the former lcoal government unit, has been renamed to Durham (district). The new local government unit is County Durham, which is an existing county article currently doing multiple service as it refers to the local government unit, the (larger) former non-met county, the (larger still) ceremonial county and the (even larger) traditional county. The article contains a link to Durham County Council but this merely links back to the County Durham page.

For district vs. settlement, my instinct is that the current situation is about right, that using examples local to me, the split between Lewes and Lewes (district) is appropriate, and the lack-of-split in Eastbourne is also appropriate. There are very few Leeds -style cases where the principles have not been enacted.

We should NOT abandon the principle that (borough) is used where the district has that status. The Wikipedia principle of using the most familiar name, when applied to council names, leads to the name residents will find on their council tax bill, "Welcome to" sign, etc and in my experience Borough councils never use the term "district". I am agnostic about "City of" but it doesn't feel right.

As others have said, a discussion about the "place" and "district" articles needs to say what content belongs in each. I would think the district article will talk about local government boundaries, type of council, schools etc and will give an overview of the topography, types of industry etc while leaving detailed details about landmarks, history, architecture etc to town/village articles.

The advantage of using 1974 (1963 in London) as a cut-off point is that almost all areas were changed at that time. It is unlikely we would want an article on every urban/rural district, municipal/metropolitan borough etc that existed pre-74, nor that this would be achievable even if wanted. I would suggest that any article that exists merely to talk about a former local government unit (including Scottish regions but not counties) should always include the word former, so Durham (former district).

Which leaves the new and, I think, unique situation of a unitary council (County Durham) named after a ceremonial county but which doesn't cover the whole area. Somehow I think this needs to be treated as a (district) rather than trying to expert the reader to keep track of all the diverse territories that bear the name in a single article. I certainly got confused reading County Durham working out which definition was being used at any given point. Sussexonian (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually Durham isn't unique: Wiltshire and Shropshire are similar, so perhaps we should examine those to see the best solution Lozleader (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you I missed Wiltshire. The unitary council now there has an article, as does Shropshire Council.  I also noticed the new Salisbury parish/city and updated it to the Civil Parish article accordingly.Sussexonian (talk) 13:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)