Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What's new

Categories for discussion

Featured article reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Did you know? articles[edit]

Rosal, Sutherland (2024-05-25)Newlyn Tidal Observatory (2023-11-20)Godalming (2023-09-20)Reigate (2023-09-10)Woking (2023-03-18)

Reached maximum of 5 out of 300

Featured pictures[edit]
In the News articles[edit]

Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City (2021-07-22)2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods (2009-11-21)February 2009 British Isles snowfall (2009-02-06)

Main page featured articles[edit]

Coventry ring road (2023-07-23)Combe Hill, East Sussex (2023-01-11)Brownhills (2022-03-03)Abberton Reservoir (2021-09-05)Shaw and Crompton (2021-08-15)

Reached maximum of 5 out of 71

Main page featured lists[edit]

List of scheduled monuments in South Somerset (2023-12-22)List of castles in Greater Manchester (2023-04-07)List of Shetland islands (2022-05-20)List of freshwater islands in Scotland (2020-04-24)Scheduled monuments in Taunton Deane (2018-10-26)

Reached maximum of 5 out of 7

Archives[edit]

Disagreement on Christchurch article re:settlement definition[edit]

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

New GSS template[edit]

Would there be much support for a combined GSS template to replace the separate English, Scottish, Welsh and NI district and county templates listed here?

Having just updated them all, it's driven home what a pain in the bum they are to maintain. They draw their information from the same source.[1] But process it in needlessly different ways.

And a combined template also has the flexibility to include any area with a GSS code which the ONS includes in its population stats, including the UK, the nations, regions, and perhaps the city regions if/when the ONS eventually includes them.

My suggested fields would be:

  • GSS population
  • GSS area
  • GSS density
  • GSS year
  • GSS reference

For the rank fields, we can either keep them separate or else have combined fields but separate the data within the template. The latter is straight forward enough if you're familiar with the templates. The GSS codes are helpfully separated first by letter (E for England, S for Scotland etc.) And then use different codes depending on the type of area e.g. E12 is a region, E08 is a metropolitan borough etc.

It wouldn't be necessary to go through and remove all the old template references. The old templates can be updated to point at the new GSS templates. E.g. | E09000016 = {GSS population|E09000016}

The ceremonial county templates would need to stay as they're not included the ONS publication. Dgp4004 (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ "Mid-Year Population Estimates, UK, June 2022". Office for National Statistics. 26 March 2024. Retrieved 3 May 2024.

District template[edit]

Can a template be created that is similar to Template:RWS that links to a district by typing the short name, for example {{lgd|Stafford}} would go to the Borough of Stafford artcle. Maybe this could have a parameter:

  • none = would link to the borough, Stafford
  • 1 = linking to the council article, Stafford Borough Council
  • 2 = Stafford borough
  • 3 = Borough of Stafford
  • 4 = Stafford (Staffordshire)

The template could automatically retrieve if it is a district, borough, city, etc.

I might try myself to do it, no clue how to but I can learn if somebody is able to help. Chocolateediter (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consistency with article naming, like there is for "X railway station". We can link straight to the intended article. I'm not sure there is a problem to be solved here. Rcsprinter123 (collogue) 23:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a problem to solve but a suggested tool for editors so that if you want to link to a specific district but don’t want to find for example if five of them are metropolitan boroughs, five use district and one has (unitary authority) in their article name.
They is a consistent use of piping these often 4 or 5 titles to a single word to merit the template’s creation. The railway station links also tend to do simular piping, that is the whole point of the stnlnk/ rws template. Unless the stnlnk template needs, in some users’ eyes, be removed and everybody forced to link to the exact title, removing the whole redirect concept.
The fact that they is less consistent naming of articles makes it worse to find the right link and an even more useful a template to create. The parameter can come along later for varying the display name.
I created redirects so that all the Local government districts (LGD) can be easier to find for building the template and maybe for the template to use, until then these are shorter and consistent link format for piping. Local government district redirects to the Districts of England article so I thought LGD would fit as a short template name as district goes to the international article. If England only uses the term local government district then LGD seems an appropriate and consistent acronym for a template.
I was a bit pushy with changing established links though sorry about that. Chocolateediter (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Too risky! As Rcsprinter says, there's no consistency in naming, or at least not enough (and trying to enforce naming consistency to make the template work would not be universally welcomed). Also, we don't have articles on every variant and some articles may be about another place of that name. So to use the template safely, you have to confirm the target, in which case you can aim straight at it anyway. NebY (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what problem thus is trying to solve, really. PamD 03:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you have long-ish lists you have to think which is which borough, city or (district) when linking and a lot of the time you just want the short name. Could go through and create a consistent redirect for all districts but the parameter would be quite good to set for example to show the county.
As I said I have no clue how to make a template so I’d need talking through it. No worries if no body can be bothered, it’s just a suggestion. If anybody wants to do it and not teach me that would be great as I can be lazy, but then again I think I might create redirects anyways. Chocolateediter (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've already created nearly 150 redirects,[1] such as London LGD, redirecting to City of London. You might do well to discuss your approach to creating such redirects here, in case there are concerns that their naming and/or targeting might direct readers inappropriately when searching. Broadly speaking, the convenience of an editor creating list articles must be secondary to the experience of readers. NebY (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That illustrates the point very well, because the local authority for London could just as validly (and with a lot more power) be the Greater London Authority. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So the editor making the list needs to check the dab page or primary topic to make sure they choose the right link to make (UK, current, if that is what they need) PamD 06:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13 concerning three of the "foo LGD" redirects that have been created, and I have asked there how the other 282 may be best considered, procedurally. NebY (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that all 282 redirects have now been bundled into that discussion. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 14:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parishes v other features[edit]

When a parish shares the same name as a settlement most of us know that we almost always have 1 article for both meanings like Sutton Cheney but I'm less sure about other types of places like parks and buildings, see Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about parishes#Parishes with the same name as other types of places. The article in question is Blenheim Park which User:Dudley Miles has removed the information. I think when it comes down to things like castles and other buildings it often makes sense to have separate article though this is often weaker if the parish only contains/contained the building its self and the building's grounds but when it comes down to parks often the parish will cover/have covered a similar area to the park so its probably best combined, thoughts? Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The county council page for Blenheim Parish Meeting gives its website address as www.blenheimpalace.com and the information that the clerk of the meeting is in the estate office of the palace. This intimate connection suggests to me that the parish should be covered in the article for the palace. I expect an interesting paragraph could be written about the history and any present-day consequences. JonH (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]