Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Assessment

There has been some discussion about the improtance ranking for this project - below some suggestions - feel free to add or change:

Assessment examples[edit]

This is just a starter, please add your comments.— Rod ^talk 14:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Would it be too much to simply draw up an exhaustive list for the Top class of articles? How many are we talking about here? Should articles like Great Britain (as the major island of the UK) be included in this class, as could be Countries of the United Kingdom and/or Subdivisions of the United Kingdom (which need some serious sorting out) and other similar articles? DDStretch (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think only one or two rivers, mountains, motorways, etc. should be classed as Top. It wouldn't seem right for there to be more of these rated as Top than cities. Also, I think subarticles should be ranked one step lower than their main article, eg. if Cheshire is High, Geography of Cheshire and Rivers of Cheshire would be Mid. Countries of the United Kingdom and Subdivisions of the United Kingdom would therefore be High, as United Kingdom is Top. Epbr123 (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, whenever an article's importance is borderline, I've used the article traffic statistics. If an article has an average of less than 20 hits a day, I've rated it as low, as settlements of 10,000 people typically get around this number. Epbr123 (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current table has a conflict in that unitary authority areas are HIGH whereas Local government districts (which include UAs) are MID. Should all Grade I listed buildings be HIGH (there are thousands of them)? I've also moved some of the examples to fit with text & discussion here.— Rod ^talk 17:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there actually consensus that buildings belong to WikiProject UK geography? I can imagine some people would be opposed to opera houses, museums, cathedrals, etc. being included. Epbr123 (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that notable buildings are as much a part of the human geography as roads, canals etc (there a point we haven't got canals in the importance table) & local government is a man made division.— Rod ^talk 19:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As there are so many Grade I buildings, I think most should be MID. Some should be HIGH, such as Buckingham Palace and Palace of Westminster, but I don't know how we can decide this objectively; maybe we can use the article traffic stats. Grade II buildings should be LOW. Epbr123 (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've put "nationally significant buildings" as HIGH, GI as MID & GII* & GII as low. One other thought the types & examples are getting England biased - are their Scottish or NI equivalents to National Parks, AONBs etc? Where should we put areas of sea etc eg Irish Sea, Bristol Channel, The Wash, Scapa Flow etc?— Rod ^talk 20:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wales and NI have AONBs, and I think their Scottish equivalent are National Scenic Areas. Scotland and Wales have National Parks, but I don't think there's a NI equivalent. Epbr123 (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) For canals, I would say that they would mirror the rivers, and so perhaps they can both be subsumed under the "inland waterways" label. So, major canals would be at the same level as major rivers, and so on. Perhaps the same for major railway routes (East and West coast mainlines, mainline to west of England and Wales, and the far South West, perhaps?) DDStretch (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. For bodies of water, we could have seas, channels, firths, major estuaries, major lakes and other large bodies of water as HIGH, and the rest MID. Epbr123 (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'm trying to keep up here - can people review table above including examples & change what I've got wrong. What about long distance footpath/cycle route eg South West Coast Path?— Rod ^talk 21:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High for National Trails and Long Distance Routes, Mid for other Long-distance footpaths (50 km or more), Low for others. Epbr123 (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about Mountains, Hills etc do we use Munros Marilyns etc?— Rod ^talk 22:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top for UK's highest mountain (Ben Nevis), High for mountain ranges, High for mountains with a relative height of over 900 m, Mid for other Marilyns and Munroes (relative height above about 150 m), and Low for other. According to List of mountains of the British Isles by relative height, this would rate the highest 11 mountains in the UK as High or Top. Epbr123 (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't quite work because Munros are over 900m— Rod ^talk 09:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Their height above sea level has to be above 900 m, but their relative height is generally above about 150 m. Epbr123 (talk) 10:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If one reads Mountain, one can see that one widely used definition that can distinguish between a mountain and a hill, for example, is that a mountain should be higher than 600m. Is there any reason why we shouldn't use 600m as the lower cut off between High and Mid importance for such features (keeping the current 900m for High)? We could then use 150m or a slightly higher value for the lower cut off. Though I doubt there would be many that reached notability which were lower than 150m, perhaps 300m would be better? DDStretch (talk) 09:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we used an absolute height of over 600m as the cut off between High and Mid importance, we would have about 200 mountains rated as High importance. I think this would be too many. Epbr123 (talk) 10:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)Thanks for all edits & comments on this - do we think it is now good enough to be moved to the assessment page or do we need to put it to all daughter & allied wikiprojects for comment first?— Rod ^talk 20:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has my support. Chrisieboy (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's ready now. I don't think we're obliged to consult other projects first, although they may have some useful comments. I don't mind either way. Epbr123 (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could we tweak the cell formatting a little (using 'valign="top"', and the occasional <br />) so that the examples are aligned better with the corresponding cases they are examples of? I could try to do it myself, but I don't have the time just now. I could give it a go tomorrow, however. DDStretch (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Examples table moved to assessment page - further editing can occur there.— Rod ^talk 21:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]