Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 27

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

Districts v historic counties

Following the creation of Huntingdonshire County Council I was mulling about what should be done with Huntingdonshire as it deals with both the historic county and current district. This point was mentioned at Talk:Peterborough#City of Peterborough. Richmondshire also deals with both but it doesn't appear it was ever an administrative county. On the flip side Cumberland and Cumberland (district) are separate. We have Herefordshire (and Bristol but the boundaries didn't appear to change but did Herefordshire's?) that was abolished completely and came back later as a district (we well as a ceremonial county) but we don't have separate articles for the former Herefordshire. In some cases like Shropshire (district) the unitary district has a different area to the current ceremonial county namely Telford and Wrekin also a district but the same as the former county council area and Dorset (district) that is different to the former county council area. In these cases I think separate articles are OK.

  • Cumberland deals with the former county while Cumberland (district) deals with the current unitary, should the articles be merged? The boundaries are different namely the district excluding Penrith.
  • Herefordshire, deals with current unitary district and ceremonial county, doesn't appear to have changed between 1974 and 1998 so probably as standard no separate articles per WP:UKCOUNTIES.
  • Huntingdonshire, deals with current district and former county, was just "Huntingdon" until 1984 so if WP had have existed before the rename its likely there would be separate articles. Old Fletton and part of Norman Cross Rural District now in Peterborough seem to be the only differences. IMO no separate article is needed but the Welsh Wikipedia has separate articles namely cy:Swydd Huntingdon and cy:Huntingdonshire so maybe separate articles would be helpful, History of Huntingdonshire exists.
  • Richmondshire, deals with current district and former county, can't easily determine county's boundaries. IMO no separate article is likely needed but since the district is going to be abolished next year perhaps separate article would be of benefit.
  • East and West Suffolk, East Suffolk (county) and West Suffolk (county) exist for the former counties and East Suffolk District and West Suffolk District exist for the current districts. The former counties weren't ceremonial counties and covered far larger areas than the current districts, separate articles seem appropriate especially given the counties were also likely artificial creations.

Thoughts? @DragonofBatley and John Maynard Friedman:. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

All counties of whatever vintage are artificial creations. IMO, if someone searches for a name that "broadly construed" matches a current administrative area, then that is what we should serve them. Historic counties are just that, historic, and should never have pre-eminince. But neither should they be too difficult to find by people reading history. Cromwell, for ex.
As for your specific questions, sorry I don't know the detail enough to offer any useful advice. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
@MRSC: What are you're thoughts in this? as you commented about the disambiguation above. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
This is a bag of worms! Just taking Cumberland, I don't known if the current district is analogous with the pre-1974 county. They cover different geographic areas and Cumbria continues to be the county for ceremonial purposes as a successor to the earlier Cumberland. Another way to look at it (and one I've come round to) is to flesh out the articles and it then becomes apparent if an extra article is required to cover earlier incarnations. MRSC (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think there should be separate articles. It's unlikely that anyone would suggest that there should be articles on "Oxfordshire (pre-1974)" and "Oxfordshire (post-1974)", so we shouldn't apply a different principle to Huntingdonshire just because the boundaries have changed slightly. Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
The boundary changes aren't always only "slight" however, sometimes they are very significant and Oxfordshire is an example. Thryduulf (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Oxfordshire has always been a ceremonial county under that name even if it has had boundary changes and the County Borough of Oxford not being part of the administrative county. It has had several boundary changes, leaving aside the issue of duplication and confusion to readers we would either need to decide what boundary changes were significant enough to have separate articles or have a separate article for each change which would probably just cause lots of confusion. Would the "current" Oxfordshire article start from 1991 where 16 acres were exchanged with Berkshire and unpopulated parts exchanged with Buckinghamshire or would it start from 1974 when there were more significant changes? Its quite clear that UKCOUNTIES doesn't want us to split this. Huntingdonshire is quite different in that it was a ceremonial and administrative county until 1965 and was abolished completely. In 1974 a "Huntingdon" district was created with similar boundaries to the county and in 1984 the district was renamed to "Huntingdonshire" meaning for 19 years there was no such thing named as "Huntingdonshire". This means there is a clear scope for the pre 1965 county and the post 1974 district including when it was just "Huntingdon". With Cumberland the ceremonial and administrative county was abolished completely in 1974 and next year a unitary district will be created though it will still be part of the ceremonial county of Cumbria. This means for 48 years there will have been no entity "Cumberland". Its possible at some point Cumberland will become a ceremonial county perhaps if the Furness part of the other new district Westmorland and Furness becomes a district of Lancashire. Something I probably would have supported if I had been dealing with the structural changes but perhaps partly because unlike Humberside Cumbria hasn't AFAIK been strongly disliked that didn't happen but it will be interesting to see what we do if such a change ever happens. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
But what content are you going to put in these hypothetical articles? Are you going to duplicate everything that applies to both, so one becomes a subset of the other (or, there is some common content and some that's only in one article or the other)? It sounds like a maintenance nightmare keeping them consistent and up-to-date, and I just don't see what benefit it achieves. A simple sentence or two explaining the differences, within a single article covering both areas, does the job just fine IMO. Dave.Dunford (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily saying splitting is a good idea but just that there is a far stronger case for splitting Huntingdonshire and Cumberland than say Oxfordshire. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Hills & mountains in counties, old and new etc

I placed this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British and Irish hills but no response as yet so thought a reply would be more forthcoming here . .

I was looking for guidance around the description of UK hills and mountains in respect of the modern and former administrative areas in which they lie. Can anyone point me in the direction of any or have such guidelines not yet been assembled?

Always mention the modern administrative unit first, then perhaps historical ones later? thanks Geopersona (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Geopersona: Yes the modern ones should be mentioned first, see WP:UKCOUNTIES. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, though I don't see that the page makes any specific mention of articles on hills/mountains (nor for that matter on rivers or other natural features) but relates unsurprisingly to articles on counties themselves, be they current, former, ceremonial etc. I am encountering editors who believe that historic counties should take pride of place - not for the first or last time - and wanted to be sure of my ground in arguing otherwise. Geopersona (talk) 09:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Merge Hull into the East Riding of Yorkshire article or create two articles for East Riding of Yorkshire and maintain Hull article

I think to avoid any unnecessary confusion. Kingston upon Hull should be merged into the ceremonial county of East Riding of Yorkshire article. It's confusing to have one article for just the east riding of Yorkshire which is both a unitary area and ceremonial county. But keep an article for Hull on its own which is also in the east riding of Yorkshire but not the Unitary area of the county. It's confusing and a real discussion needs to happen on whether a seperate article for the two unitary authorities should happen or have them all as one article on East Riding of Yorkshire. DragonofBatley (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

To add this is about the city being given its own entry on the east riding of Yorkshire page and having the east riding as one long article. Or having three articles one for Hull (already exists), East Riding of Yorkshire (county already exists) and East Riding of Yorkshire (district for the area minus Hull) both created in 1996 from Humberside. Will include this in other relevant articles. DragonofBatley (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

So to ping for discussion on this @Crouch, Swale:, @Keith D:, @Eopsid:, @John Maynard Friedman:, @NebY:, @Stortford: and any others DragonofBatley (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Are you talking about the settlement or unitary district/unparished area? Are you talking about moving content for the unitary district into East Riding of Yorkshire? I'm confused either way. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
None of this. MRSC (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
No @Crouch, Swale:, either merge Hull into the wider East Riding of Yorkshire article (county) and a whole entry on Hull or create three separate articles like was done before Two for East Riding of Yorkshire (one for county and one for district) and Hull which is already a seperate article. Hope that clears it a bit more DragonofBatley (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
And yes moving content from Hull to the east riding of Yorkshire article too as you said DragonofBatley (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
I'll make several point, I'd support splitting East Riding of Yorkshire (district) again though not strongly. Regarding Hull we shouldn't move content from the Kingston upon Hull article to the East Riding of Yorkshire article as that would create huge problems with content forking and scope and the Kingston upon Hull article definitely shouldn't be redirected to East Riding of Yorkshire as there isn't much overlap and obviously cities are notable. Regarding splitting to City of Kingston upon Hull I'd make several point, the boundaries are similar or smaller than the settlement and the district completely unparished. The boundaries of the current district are the same as the unparished area and former county borough (as well as the former district of Humberside) meaning the article would deal with the current unparished area and former CB as well as being reconstituted. So yes I'm not sure we need a Hull district article but if we do it should deal with all said aspects. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
The existing arrangement is perfectly good. Hull is a unitary authority and city so you would expect it to have is own article as per other unitary authorities. The East Riding of Yorkshire is also unitary authority and so also should be a separate article you would not merge 2 different unitary authorities in to a single article. The minor fact that the East Riding of Yorkshire is also a ceremonial county does not require a separate article which would for the most part duplicate what is already in the other 2 articles. A note in both the East Riding of Yorkshire and Kingston upon Hull should cover this and avoid confusion and a significant amount of unnecessary duplication. Keith D (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
By the same logic Ireland and Republic of Ireland should be combined like Madagascar even though the island of Ireland has around 7 million (and an area of 84,421 km2) v 5 million (70,273km2) for the Republic. East Riding of Yorkshire ceremonial county has 600,259 (2,479 km2) while the unitary district has 341,173 (2,405 km2) so I think there is enough of a difference in addition to already being distinct meanings. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
If we took some blank sheets and listed which setllements in England should have articles, Hull would be on the first page. Its notability is outstanding. This proposal baffles me. (I can advise that the ping to me didn't work, and indeed inserting pings into previous edits never works. Pings must be in am edit that starts on a new line, which must be signed. Also, the link to this discussion from Kingston upon Hull only takes readers to the top of this long page. As it would normally be to an article talk page, some interested editors might never find this discussion.) NebY (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
The link from Kingston upon Hull now takes readers to this discussion. H. Carver (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The district isn't the same as the ceremonial county though. Beverley while is the county town is also the adminstrative centre of East Riding of Yorkshire. Hull is in the county and not the district. The district covers the area minus Hull but has no real identity beyond a brief mention. There's no article for the unitary part of East Riding. The current article just talks about the county and not much if at all the district. The district should be given an article to help people identify between the county with Hull and the district without Hull which is a seperate authority. There's no county council. Their both unitary it's a bit like Durham and West Yorkshire. Both have a county article and individual district articles. Hull has one but not the wider East riding. So if one did an article for Bradford Leeds and Wakefield but none for Kirklees or Calderdale. People would wonder why as these aren't called West Yorkshire. Same with North West Leicestershire which is both a region of Leicestershire but also a district. So East Riding of Yorkshire district should be given a standalone article. Or Hull could just have an entry on East Riding of Yorkshire given its part of it. DragonofBatley (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

We don't need to change anything with this. The unitary East Riding district is analogous with Wiltshire and Shropshire, not West Yorkshire, in that it covers the majority of the ceremonial county of the same name, consisting of unified former districts. So the district and the county are for all intents and purposes the same thing, minus those districts which remain separate: Hull/Swindon/Telford & Wrekin. Whether you have a split between district and settlement for those places is another discussion, but there is no benefit to splitting the unitary East Riding district from the East Riding county. Unless DragonofBatley can point one out and gain consensus for it. Rcsprinter123 (spiel) 23:24, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Additionally I would propose a huge rewrite of the East Riding of Yorkshire article to identify it as a county and district. Using say "The East Riding of Yorkshire is a county and district in England.

Then further down, a new tab for the district and unitary area.

Or again, make two articles for the county which includes Hull and the district without Hull. People need to understand Hull isn't in East Riding of Yorkshire district only the county. The city has its own article and won't have a seperate article because it doesn't have any civil parishes but a bua. A district article would help people identify the district say Snaith and Goole belong to and not just the county. Again there is no East Riding of Yorkshire county council. There are two councils for the east riding of Yorkshire. It's important to give the unitary district its own stance as per the districts guidelines at WP:Geo. DragonofBatley (talk) 11:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Certainly the introductory paragraph on the East Riding article should immediately, clearly and concisely convey that the name applies to a ceremonial county and unitary authority, and what the difference between them is. But the article and arrangement don't otherwise look majorly flawed. The only other big problem that stands out is with the "Governance" section of the East riding article, which over-emphasises the East Riding Council without giving the same weight to Hull City Council. There are articles on both East Riding of Yorkshire Council and Hull City Council. I'd make those the "main article" hatnotes of the "Current administration" section, delete the "Result of the 2019 election" section because the information is already on the council articles, and rewrite the "current administration" section to make it a general description of current arrangements and brief introduction to both councils.
I wouldn't object to there being a separate "East Riding of Yorkshire (district)" article, but equally it feels like a needless complication when very little of the information would not be a duplicate of the main East Riding article or of the East Riding Council article, and anyway it would do very little to help clear up the problem of explaining the complexity of the situation on the main East Riding article. Joe D (t) 13:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Joe D. Another good example is Buckinghamshire: that article describes the ceremonial and historic county, its geography and history. It notes that the county has two UAs: one controlled by Buckinghamshire Council and the other by Milton Keynes City Council. This approach avoids getting bogged down in verbal gymnastics. So the equivalent here would be an apolitical article about East Riding and a separate article for East Riding Council and the area it administers. Does that help? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Note that East Riding of Yorkshire Council already exists (as does Hull City Council, see User:Crouch, Swale/District councils#Exempt) but I'd question if it would be better to have East Riding of Yorkshire (district) and merge East Riding of Yorkshire Council there. With Buckinghamshire perhaps we should create Buckinghamshire (district) and merge Buckinghamshire County Council to Buckinghamshire Council as both councils covered the same area. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

"East Riding of Yorkshire ceremonial county"

How can a riding (which is by definition a third of a county) be a ceremonial county? I realise that finding an alternative phrase may be difficult, but the county is Yorkshire, the East Riding is a riding. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Well since "ceremonial county" is something of a Wikipedia term not widely encountered elsewhere, I suppose we could have Ceremonial Ridings? (at the risk of looking a bit silly). Does each Riding have its own Lord Lieutenant and Sheriff? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Martin of Sheffield, East Riding of Yorkshire has been a ceremonial county since 1974. It's not an actual riding any more, it has just carried the name through into the modern system (unlike the West and North Ridings). "Yorkshire" only exists as a historic concept these days. Rcsprinter123 (state) 23:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Additionally, we should not be entertaining the thought of any "ceremonial ridings" as per JMF ^. Lord Lieutenants etc belong to each of N, S, W & ER Yorks as they are current counties. Rcsprinter123 (jive) 23:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
To be pedantic, the East Riding of Yorkshire has been a ceremonial county since 1996, not 1974. Between 1974 and 1996 it didn't exist as it was the northern part of Humberside instead. -- Dr Greg  talk  00:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Its a noun that it part of the name even if it is no longer a riding, see User:Crouch, Swale/Called v is and where#Called but not is. Its surprising it isn't called just "East Yorkshire" like the other 3 Yorkshire ceremonial counties but we can't make that change ourselves unless the shorter form was the COMMONNAME which while it is commonly abbreviated it does seem like the county's formal name is the longer name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Review for Greater Manchester

User:Buidhe has nominated Greater Manchester for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

ordnancesurvey references

Hello, there are 119 references to https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-government/tools-support/open-data-support but this is a top level page and cannot be used to verify anything. [They have been created by converting http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/opendata/viewer/ I assume they were meant to point to specific detail on the topic of the article.]

Should we tag them as {{nonspecific}} or just delete them and replace by {{cn}} tags? Keith D (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Just a quick note that this post arises out of a discussion which @Keith D kindly initiated on my talk: see User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Converting_bare_URL.
If a consensus is reached here on a solution which involves mass changes, I would be happy to assist with an AWB run. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I think the link was added to River Tees in this 2012 edit. Perhaps Rimmer1993 can shed some light on what was intended? PamD 07:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
The intent was to use the online tool to provide geographic information as i didn't have the corresponding Ordnance Survey hard copy map. I agree that is not definitive as it requires manipulation of the tool to point to the detail garnered for the article. As the hard copy maps are treated like books (they have ISBN numbers), it should be possible to replace those references. As the Ordnance Survey are the UK National Mapping Agency they can be treated as an authoritative source in my opinion. Rimmer1993 (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
@Rimmer1993: it seems to me that maps require interpretation, and as such do not clearly assert facts.
The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Verifiability#cite_note-directly_supports-2: A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of Wikipedia:No original research.
This use of a map seems to be an example of original research. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't see the logic of that? Surely reading a map is no different in principle to reading text? The specific sentence that the citation is to support is The head of the valley, whose upper portion is known as Teesdale, has a desolate grandeur, surrounded by moorland and hills, some exceeding 2500 feet (762 m). This area is part of the North Pennine Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. So if I look at NY698339 on the 1:25:000 mapping, I can see Tees Head (at 750 metres (2,460 ft) [when did the OS last show altitude in feet?], I see the conventional symbol for moorland. At NY726325, I read Moor House - Upper Teesdale National Nature Reserve. So, apart from the poetic licence taken with "desolate grandeur", I see no deduction, inference or other synthesis that for me characterises WP:OR. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
@John Maynard Friedman, I followed both your links:
So, complete fail on verification of all the assertions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: as I stated, you have to use the 1:25,000 mapping. What I should have explained is that to achieve that, you need to choose the third level on the zoom control. We would have to cite the actual paper map of course, c/w ISBN etc. but this illustrates the principle I think. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
So we agree that the links which you provided do not support the assertions made. They are merely starting points for a research process. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
No, I do not agree. The information is on the relevant 1:25,000 sheet, available directly from the OS or any good bookshop. The URL I provided is to save you the expense but feel free to inspect the paper map. Do you really want me to find out its sheet number and ISBN?
Another map would need citing too, to confirm the statement that the location is indeed in the North Pennines AoNB. It is on page 2 of https://www.northpennines.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/North-Pennines-Geodiversity-Action-Plan-2018-to-2022.pdf . [Work back upstream from Barnards Castle on the lower right: a special visit for an eye test is apparently reasonable. ] --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, when you are viewing StreetMap and have adjusted the map to the exact zoom level and position that you need for a reference, scroll to the bottom of the web page and copy what appears in the box labelled "Link to this map, copy this address:". -- Dr Greg  talk  18:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Oh, great, thanks, I had forgotten that. The z=115 used to be given in the 'ordinary' url.
@BrownHairedGirl: Thus the convenient citation that I should have given you is NY698339 and NY726325. Of course ISBN for the paper map would really be needed because of the risk of a future map showing a high-speed railway line there instead. [as if] --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Those links are better than the maps of nothing but streams.
But in each case, the article text is still based on an interpretation of the map, and that is a form of original research.
If you can't find a text source which asserts these facts, then the en.wp article should not assert the facts. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
No. I disagree fundamentally. Reading a map is a basic literacy skill, just as reading text is. In this case, the map reading required is at the Here is Peter. Here is Jane. level of literacy. It is no more OR than to ask someone to pick up a specific book, go to a specific page and find Now is the winter of our discontent: in this case, we have a sheet number and an OS grid reference that tells the reader where precisely to look. We even have a template {{cite map}}, which I will demonstrate when I get to a large screen. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Thus: [1] (from {{cite map | title = Explorer OL31 North Pennines |map = North Pennines | isbn=9780319236628 |url = https://shop.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/map-of-north-pennines/ |scale = 1:25,000 |publisher = Ordnance Survey |archive-url = |archive-date = }} Grid reference {{Ordnance Survey coordinates|369850_533950|NY698339}} [due to edit conflict, posted after Dr G's response but more useful to follow on directly.] --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree. There is some guidance at Wikipedia:Using maps and similar sources in Wikipedia articles#Original research and I don't see anything there to support @BrownHairedGirl's interpretation, unless I've misunderstood something or somebody.  Dr Greg  talk  20:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
@Dr Greg: Wikipedia:Using maps and similar sources in Wikipedia articles# is not policy. It is not guidance. It is just an essay, and as such it carries no weight. If you reckon that it should be guidance, open an RFC.
@John Maynard Friedman: This goes to the core of what Wikipedia is. If you were writing a travel guide, I would have no objection at all to citing a map, so long as it was done soundly ... and I am sure that you would do so skilfully and conscientiously.
But Wikipedia is a tertiary publication, i.e. it is built on what the secondary sources say about the primary sources such as maps. So unless there is a secondary source which supports these assertions, Wikipedia should not include the assertions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
FTR, the context for significant parts of Wikipedia:Using maps and similar sources in Wikipedia articles was that an editor wanted to write their own original description of a particular geographical feature and couldn't get support for it in policy. So he adapted an existing essay, adding his own bits in to suit his own arguments, to try and effect a de facto change in policy. Notably, he added, for example, the claim that that It is quite in order to state the “Valley X is ‘U’ shaped with glacial moraine at its entrance”, assuming that is what the map shows as an example of simple routine analysis analogous to WP:CALC. For me, this is clearly WP:OR without an additional source.
This is a relatively minor example of the persistent Wikilawyering that eventually got him community banned a couple of years later. Kahastok talk 22:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
@John Maynard Friedman: There seems to be a problem with the citation. Clicking on "North Pennines" takes me to the OS 6" map "Buckinghamshire Sheet XV" of 1885. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Aargh, I recycled a citation from another article and missed a bit. Now fixed retrospectively. Sorry. (Note that it just links to the OS shop, so not ever so useful. It is the equivalent of giving a Google Books URL for The Complete Works of Shakespeare. If you want to see the relevant excerpts from the map, see earlier links from the grid references. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl and Kahastok: Yes, I certainly agree with that principle, but it is no different to an editor doing an original textual analysis of the "Now is the winter of our discontent" speech. OR is OR is OR. The fact that the original material is in text or graphic form is irrelevant. Coming back to what I was trying to show with this citation is just this: the OS map shows Tees Head – fact. It shows the 750 metre contour line – fact. It shows the conventional symbol for moorland – fact. It shows in large print "Moor House - Upper Teesdale National Nature Reserve" – fact. The map on page 2 of https://www.northpennines.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/North-Pennines-Geodiversity-Action-Plan-2018-to-2022.pdf shows that it is in the AONB – again, fact. To read all of these facts from the maps is as indisputable as it is to note that it is King Richard who gives the winter of discontent speech, because Shakespeare's stage directions say so. BUT if an editor starts to draw inferences from these facts then without doubt it is OR. My fundamental point remains though: original source texts do not enjoy any special status over original source graphics. Nor in principle would a secondary source that provides analysis in graphic form be of any inherently less value as a WP citation than one that does so in text (MOS:ACCESS aside, which is a serious consideration. But recall that many older RS texts are only available in facsimile so it is not a problem that is unique to mapping.)
Lest it is not obvious, I was not trying to solve KeithD's question, merely stating that mapping does exist which appears to confirm most of what the original editor said. And in the process, I sought to assert the equal status of mapping with text as a primary source.
May I offer another example – an article I edited a few years back – Wolverton railway station. Citation #5 is cited twice, it is the 1885 OS map. I believe that I have honestly merely stated in text what it shows in graphic form. I would be interested to know if anyone considers that I was guilty of OR and if so, on what basis? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
There are clearly times when using maps would be OR, and times when they would not. For instance if you were to find a map from 1800 of Shrigleywaremopbucket-on-sea and say "the town was settled on wooded headland overlooking the north sea" you would be doing a few different things. 1. Asserting an elevation. 2. Asserting a value judgement of what can be seen. 3. Describing a situation. A map reader may be able to derive all those things from the map, if sufficiently detailed, but ideally it would be better to come from an authoritative description otherwise it almost certainly is going to require some OR. In contrast if the map was used to say that Shrigleywaremopbucket-on-sea "is on headland on the north sea coastline" that's more readily observed, factual and not OR. If you were to say "the church in Shrigleywaremopbucket-on-sea was on the "Dock Road" and the map has a little church symbol on a named "Dock Road" then that wouldn't be OR. If you were to say "to the south of the town there was a marsh used for grouse shooting" and the OS map only shows a marsh, then that would be OR. If you then had another article that spoke about grouse shooting being a popular pasttime in the town but not explicitly mentioning the unnamed marsh you'd be into SYNTH territory and so on and so forth. On that basis I would say the Wolverton summary of the source is very much OR as it requires the reader to be able to identify the "new alignment", and agree that it is "under construction at the time of survey". The source is used to back up claims such as "at the east end of Church Street" which seems pretty clear from the map (but can be just as easily verified with modern maps etc), in contrast "The curve was a result of the station and main line being moved eastward in 1881" is blatant OR if it is entirely reliant on the map and interpretations not explicitly noted. Koncorde (talk) 10:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
@Koncorde: I agree with almost all of what you write. I can see that I made an inference re the new alignment being "under construction" and thus failed OR; may I suggest we move the detailed discussion to talk:Wolverton railway station to agree better phrasing. (BTW, the station is no longer at the east end of Church Street, as a modern map will show.)
Coming back to your Bucket-on-Sea, I agree that item #1 would be OR only to the extent that "elevated" is unspecified and it is true that the 1800 map won't help because it predates lines of elevation and just shows an "artist's impression". However a later map will show the elevation to the nearest 10 metres or even exactly if there is a trig point or a Benchmark on the hill-top. Likewise if Bucket-on-sea is a new town and the pre-construction mapping (1950, say) shows the conventional symbol for woodland. This is qualitatively no different to text in a pre-construction book that describes the "gloriously wooded headland about to be bulldozed out of existence". #2 maybe demands a "by whom, from where" but otherwise assuming the town is indeed on headland projecting into the North Sea [as the map will show], then it is paraphrasing the source and not OR. (Ok, maybe a WP:PRIMARY source but do we really need a secondary to state the obvious?) I don't understand your #3 unless it is questioning that the map cited does or does not show the settlement? Surely not? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Should be clear, I am being more general about the broad subject of maps - not just OS. #1 would be OR because absent altitude markers and similar, the description of a "headland" would be OR. #2 would be OR because it is entirely outside the maps detail to describe to the reader the context of the town, its historic founding and so on because the map is a snapshot in time, not a foundational authoritative source for other stuff. #3 is OR because a map does not describe the locale then or now, nor historic context (such as when it was settled, unless it's a very specific kind of map).
In short a map can give the kind of geographic information that can be easily obtained by reading the map, and the map alone. Directional information could be ascertained (sea to north, south) or features of the land, or geographic information that is included (such as the direction of a road, or the heading of a railway, the highest point, the presence of a lake etc) and while it can be used as a reference for specific landscape features etc, it shouldn't be used to assert things like "largely pastoral lands" or similar unless the map is specifically detailed enough to derive land usage (and I would be wary of using it for that purpose rather than written history). Interpretation of a map to mean certain things (i.e. historic context), or if it is being used to demonstrate a thing happened, then it is on shaky grounds unless the map is explicitly notated or a recording of the change (for example, border changes). Comparing two maps to assert change over time is also a questionable thing - I have seen it done though - but it's again almost always better to use a contemporary source. Koncorde (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with that assessment. The key message is that it is a snapshot at the time of the survey. As Spurn teaches us, a headland can become an island and back again – or disappear completely. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "North Pennines" (Map). Explorer OL31 North Pennines. 1:25,000. Ordnance Survey. ISBN 9780319236628. Grid reference NY698339

Adjectives for ledes

So just noticed DragonOfBatley going through some articles removing "Large" and similar modifiers from ledes. Have no issue with this as has generally been policy to not include such things (except when, of course, it has been) - however several months ago I did link (in context of the discussion of "Major") to an ONS metric of town size."Understanding towns in England and Wales". While this methodology isn't all encompassing (i.e. they state it excludes Scotland for reasons), it is used in multiple other ONS datasets[1],[2],[3] and so on. Anyway. Just a point of interest. Some recent prior discussions here:[4][5][6][7] Koncorde (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Unless there is an explicit citation that says that (e.g.) "Luton is large town", is it not OR to deduce that since (a) the population of Luton is about 211k and (b) the ONS says that anything greater than 100k is "a large town"; therefore (c) Luton is "a large town" QED? Or does that fall under the simple maths exemption? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
The datasets actually have a column for the size category of the town (although in the absence Scottish towns I would argue it is simple maths). I have no strong feeling either way, I just thought it was interesting to see we have a functional UK definition that is being applied to other studies which may be used elsewhere on wikipedia (in truth, I haven't checked). Koncorde (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
That dataset does say some of the places it calls towns are actually villages so not sure it can be used as a reference for calling a place a large town. Plus it doesnt use the same definition as Wikipedia does for example the Luton article follows the borough boundaries but that dataset defines Luton as the part of Luton's built-up area that excludes Dunstable and Houghton Regis. Eopsid (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I doubt any villages are "large towns", and many described "villages" would be towns by this definition and so on and so forth. If we ignore "where it doesn't match" our logic (which is our problem, not the ONS) what's to stop it being a reliable source for such a description? Koncorde (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Personally I think there is nothing wrong with just describing towns as large. But I'm uncomfortable with using those datasets as a source for calling towns large because we're being selective in what we use from the source, e.g. ignoring the village town problem, which feels a bit Original Research/Synthesis to me. Eopsid (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Non-metropolitan district and borough

This is what is given in the type in the likes of Borough of Stafford and Epsom and Ewell for non-metropolitan districts with borough status, the latter is also an unparished area. With the likes of City of Peterborough we have "City and unitary authority" which holds city and borough status as well as being a unitary district. With the likes of Hastings which is a town, unparished area and non-metropolitan district with borough status which reads "Town and borough". When writing about settlements with parishes or unparished areas with the same name (and thus combined into 1 article) we tend to write "X is a village and civil parish" like with Staveley, North Yorkshire not "X is a village with the status of a civil parish" or "X is a town and unparished area" like Great Yarmouth not "X is a town with the status of an unparished area". When we state "X and Y" we are generally saying "X" and "Y" are 2 different things that may cover the same or similar area but when we state "X with Y status" we are stating "X" also has "Y" status rather than "Y" being something else. Although these examples seem fine in the text in the lead they probably aren't in the infobox. See also discussion at Talk:City of Milton Keynes#Still a borough too? from User:John Maynard Friedman. Examples:

  • Borough of Stafford, states "Non-metropolitan district and borough" which is should probably be "Non-metropolitan district with borough status" as "borough" is a status rather than a separate generic class.
  • Epsom and Ewell, states "Non-metropolitan district, borough", again "borough" is a status rather than a separate class however its also an unparished area which although it has the same boundaries as the district is a different class thus it should probably state "Unparished area and non-metropolitan district with borough status".
  • City of Peterborough states "City and unitary authority" but may actually be better saying "Unitary authority area with city and borough status". A unitary district is a non-metropolitan district and non-metropolitan county combined though "Unitary authority area" is probably the simplest and correct term. I'd make it clear that its a district with city status rather than a settlement city. Not sure if "borough" needs to be included but I'd probably say yes as many might not know all districts with city status have borough status even though not all cities are districts.
  • City of Carlisle, states "City & non-metropolitan district", again I'd say more like "Non-metropolitan district with city status" as with Peterborough to make it clear it isn't the settlement.
  • Hastings, states "Town and borough" which seems correct but could state "Town, unparished area and non-metropolitan district with borough status". The town is different to the district and doesn't cover the same area but still similar. The unparished area is different to the district but covers the same area. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Anyone who has doubts about the above would do well to recall the sad tale of Rochester, Kent. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
In that case the status was held by the Rochester-upon-Medway district but when that was merged unlike Bath no charter trustees was formed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The 'List of cities...' article needs a rework

The list of cities in the United Kingdom article contains more information than I'd expect a list article to, especially considering city status in the United Kingdom exists as the main article. It's also not very well-sourced, with the bulk of the 'history' section relying on a single text.

I think there's a case for reducing the length of the article and bringing in more sources to support what remains. Thoughts? A.D.Hope (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Could you post a link to a well-rounded list article to understand your thoughts? Maybe the article could do with a bit of a spruce up, the History section could likely go altogether as it's a condensed version of the main. The Overseas Territories table and map should ideally be broken out into a new article. The UK map should stay though. Do bear in mind the article isn't lengthy by any means as it's only got a 70+ row table, two further small ones and a limited number of refs and notes, it's the pictures which pad out each row. Regards, The Equalizer (talk) 06:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
What struck me is that most list articles are just that: a list, nothing more. The history section in particular is a WP:FORK violation. The lead is a bit long and maybe could do with a good weeding. Apart from that, I don't see a lot wrong with it. The worst outcome is that it be merged with the city status article, clogging it up with detail. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Is Wrexham legally a city?

I am confused how to address this, like we shouldn't personally interpret legal documents, a PS, but @Enginear, in this edit to town at Wrexham and this population edit at List of cities in the United Kingdom, argues that the Letters Patent city status is for the County Borough not Wrexham itself, "County Borough of Wrexham shall have the status of a City". News sources interpret it as for Wrexham itself, including the council it is awarded to [8] [9] [10] [11]. Does the Letters Patent source take precedence or general news sources? (and how should that be cited and written at Wrexham? I added the LP source with the quote and later a BBC one unsure where they should go.) This debate could simply state WP:PRIMARY but just raising it anyway as it is really confusing and simple re-wording, clarifying or removing the LP source entirely would help nonetheless.

Confusingly, Newport another Welsh county borough is clearly worded as "Town of Newport in the County Borough of Newport". Although Milton Keynes and Sunderland are described similarly to Wrexham and are (now) widely regarded as cities? (slightly discussed long ago at here, here and here) I believe city status is awarded to an authority right? Is there a certain format on Wikipedia to describe it? (maybe a note?) (Or would alternative wording be used?) This could largely be a just a simple discussion, where both edits are just reverted, but I am not fully aware of the entire city status process so bring it up here just for a second opinion even if for reversion. Thanks DankJae 01:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

When I did those edits, I took account of what was already written in the first sentence of the lead in Wrexham County Borough and in the "City council status" column of List_of_cities_in_the_United_Kingdom#List_of_cities. I do not consider reading what is given in an existing reference as OR, particularly when it's as clear as "the County Borough of Wrexham shall have the status of a City" which, as DJ points out, compares with "the Town of Newport in the County Borough of Newport...shall have the status of a City". I agree it is odd but it is not "confusing" at all.
It's an interesting point that the Letters Patent is a (perfectly clear) primary source which the BBC has misreported (though their article is not fully clear, they do refer to "8 towns" becoming cities). I only read the existing reference, and noted the discrepancies in our three articles. As to whether the original editor, who according to the diffs is @Mike Rohsopht, relied on the primary source or a different secondary source, I do not know.
Actually, some of DJ's cites suggest that I am right and he is wrong.
  • "...the council it is awarded to [12][13][14][15] (ref nos as of now) show:
    • BBC report [says it's the town],
    • Wales online report [says it's the town],
    • Wrexham Council News report, doesn't specifically say, but cites "Mark Pritchard, Leader of Wrexham Council" [also namesake of an MP], giving a speech which is clearly an acceptance on behalf of the body the honour has been awarded to, with such phrases as "City status is a wonderful achievement and reflects the growing confidence and ambition we have in Wrexham." [also namesake of an MP] and if you check the Wrexham County Borough Council website, you will find that he is indeed their leader rather than the Town Council leader https://moderngov.wrexham.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=12&LLL=0
    • Government Welsh Sec's report includes a speech by Secretary of State for Wales, Sir Robert Buckland, immediately followed by the same speech by Mark Pritchard.
Finally, here is an article which shows (if you check the people's names on the Wrexham County Borough Council website) that it was the county borough council which applied for city status, so presumably it was they who received https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/chaotic-wrexham-council-city-status-22119023
I know we have in the past told authors they had no standing regarding details of what they had written, but saying that the Queen did not know her own mind, nor did her Secretary of State, the county borough council leader was a Walter Mitty and the BBC must be correct, seems somewhat disrespectful.
However, we do have to go with secondary sources, and Wrexham County Borough Council's house news site and the UK gov PR site are arguably primary too. I suspect several of the other sources are based either on that or on the BBC's report, so to keep to our rules without knowingly leaving untruths, we need the BBC to admit their mistake (or explain why the Letters Patent and everyone else is wrong). I have therefore written to newssiteerrors@bbc.co.uk saying:
Your article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-62750941 implies that it is the town of Wrexham, rather than the County Borough which has been made a city.
However, the Letters Patent clearly state that it is the County Borough which was made a city: https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4154400 which to avoid doubt, compares with the following for Newport: https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/L-56573-1007
Also, the county borough's newspaper reports an acceptance speech by "Mark Pritchard, Leader of Wrexham Council" [also namesake of an MP] and if you check the Wrexham County Borough Council website, you will find that he is indeed their leader rather than the Town Council leader https://moderngov.wrexham.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=12&LLL=0 and there is a government press release linking it with a speech by the Welsh Secretary https://www.gov.uk/government/news/wrexham-becomes-waless-seventh-city
Please confirm whether the Letters Patent are correct, or whether you are relying on some other information which shows they are wrong.
I will let you know when they reply
Meanwhile, please do not "simply revert" the edit to "List of cities..." as it also mends the broken table, FOR BOTH Milton Keynes and Wrexham, which need the population to be formatted as I have done in order for the table to sort by population size. So if you want to change it, just change the population figure and remove the reference. Enginear (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Wrexham is a city. Like Salford is and city of Salford or Lancaster and the city of Lancaster. The main settlement is always the city if the borough is named after it or its the administrative centre of the borough. Only one exception to a borough not being a city but a settlement been one is Ripon which is a city but falls under borough of Harrogate which is not a city nor Harrogate itself.

Point is Wrexham and it's county are one of the same minus a few villages and two towns but normally it's the settlement which gains city status a bit like Newport and Swansea let's say DragonofBatley (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't exactly call Wrexham and the County Borough the same as of now, those few villages and two towns take up more than half of the population of the CB, that do not live in its urban area. Reading the discussions I linked, city status is awarded to authorities, in which only the CB council exists covering Wrexham. Although the local council is ready for such debate of whether the two's definitions should overlap, they do praise Pontcysyllte Aqueduct for the city status, which is closer to England than Wrexham's urban area, but do not hear plans to rename the CB yet. Therefore as of now, the two are largely separate, they just are named after the same place, likely as the CB was artificially[12] cut out of Denbighshire and Flintshire and just given the name of the largest settlement maybe over the lack of potential alternatives, potentially like Conwy County Borough / Aberconwy and Colwyn.
Seems the edit to List of cities in the United Kingdom remains for the CB, should then Wrexham County Borough be the linked article on all mentions of Wrexham city? i.e. at List of cities in Wales, and when its updated City status in the United Kingdom? Happy to do that. DankJae 11:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
The more I look into it, the more I think that there isn't actually a Wrexham Town Council, and that city status was awarded to the County Borough for the sole reasons that it was the entity that applied for it, and there was no existing lower-level entity to award it to.
Thanks for finding those cites, which made my letter to the BBC easy. And nice edits to Wrexham -- a good use of a footnote.
In some ways we have the opposite problem in London. Greater London is by far the most populous (and most densely populated) English county -- at 607 sq mile and 9.426 million people (2021 census) it's now both the smallest and the most populous English Region too, and each of the other regions is comprised of 4 - 9 counties. It's even more populous than Scotland and Wales combined. So people think it's a city -- only yesterday I corrected someone (not on this site) who said that Heathrow Airport was just within the City of London. Umm no, not even City Airport is within the "Square Mile" of the City of London. Puny in size and population (it's nearly all offices) although always punching above its weight, it's not even a borough; it's the only surviving medieval city corporation in the UK. It's barely democratic; all the others like it were abolished in 1838, but it remained. I don't know for certain, but I think it was just too powerful for either the king or parliament to refuse -- as one example, Richard [Dick] Whittington, as in "Turn again Whittington, thou worthy citizen, Lord Mayor of London," became the person who held the King's overdraft, enabling him to go to war without needing parliamentary approval for increased taxation! And I'm pretty sure it still holds most of the government's debts, enabling it to reduce taxes without begging from the International Monetary Fund, so it gets left alone -- and to be fair, when you have an area with businesses handling £trillions, but less than 10,000 people living there, there is a good case for saying that the businesses rather than the residents should elect their local government! (I'm not knocking the City -- it earns the foreign income that helps support the rest of London, and London in turn supports the rest of the UK (no other English Region and no other UK country breaks even, but the London Region makes up the difference) but what's adequate, paternalistic governance for 9½ thousand residents would not work for 9½ million.)
Anyway, I hope Wrexham manages to sort out its status -- I've been to Ruabon, and there's no way its a district of a city. Enginear (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
"The perfect is the enemy of the good": we must recognise that the practical reality for the vast majority of people is that the settlement is the city. The Letters Patent have to be issued to a legal person, not a notional circle on a map. Where the urban area and the authority are coterminous, the distinction is somewhat academic and everybody is happy with saying that York (for example) is a city but the award is the York City Council and in reality the remit of YCC extends beyond York. City of Milton Keynes and City of Carlisle are two UAs that have an extensive rural area – but the population is concentrated in the urban area. In the real world, York, Milton Keynes and Carlisle are the cities as commonly understood: the legal gymnastics behind the scenes is of no practical significance – unless you are from Rochester, Kent of course. So Wrexham is a city and if you conclude otherwise then there is an error in your logic or your premises. Greater London is a metropolis that contains two cities and many boroughs, it is a hard case that would make bad law so let's not try. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
To add to the London debate, even that place is technically undefined, but is generally understood to cover the London Region, and (regardless of lack of city status) is almost universally accepted as a "city." This is despite the fact that the London Region covers rural and separated settlements such as Cudham, Downe and even North Ockendon outside the M25. The UK organisation of municipalities is a confusing mess, but there advantages and disadvantages to calling an urban area/LA/metro region a "city." With Milton Keynes, for instance, to the naked eye it would seem like Olney has nothing to do with MK politically because of the obvious fact that its separated from the Milton Keynes urban area by rural green fields. However, being a part of the City of Milton Keynes UA means that Olney's services are delivered by Milton Keynes City Council under the name "Milton Keynes..." and most statistics for "Milton Keynes" are for the whole UA, and therefore Olney and the expansive rural area too, even if it makes absolutely no sense on a practical level. I'm not sure about Wrexham and its borough, but local media in MK has started to refer to Olney as a "Milton Keynes town" [13] which on the one hand (rightly so) raises awareness of the fact that Olney is (administratively) under Milton Keynes, whilst maybe causing some confusion (and dare I say it, anger) among locals. IMO, the issues regarding Wrexham, MK, Swindon, York, etc, with regards to their expansive LAs should somehow be clarified by the government (not entirely sure how though), because the status quo simply causes too much confusion due to political, practical and geographical conflict. But yes, practicalities do matter, and so Wrexham's main article should state that it's a city just like the rest. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Olney isn't seperated from Milton Keynes by green belt. Its just green fields/rural land. None of that area is technically green belt. Milton Keynes is mostly north of the Metropolitan Green Belt. Thats why they built it where it was. Eopsid (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I stand corrected on that:-) I confused some terms (perhaps I thought it sounded fancy?); meant exactly what you said - green fields/open countryside. Yes, I am aware of the fact that there is no designated green belt (like the MGB) between MK BUA and Olney, and I think it'll be some time before MK has any sort of actual green belt. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Looking at green belt maps online, it looks like the green belt does touch parts of the MK BUA. Aspley Guise is part of the Built-up area (just) and is in the green belt. Eopsid (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
[Retrospectively inserted above earlier but new thread comment by C.S below, for theme continuity.] Just in case anyone misunderstands, MK does not have a statutory green belt. Aspley Guise is not in any green belt, just rural Beds. Most of the ribbon development that links central Woburn Sands with central AG predates MK. What has changed is extensive infill development that has filled the gap between Wavendon (MK) and WS. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
  • We normally write "city" when referring to the individual settlement like Carlisle but yes the status is held by the county borough like with Bangor its the community (parish) but no separate article exists similarly with the others like Newport no separate article exists for the county borough but ones probably should. The footnote about the status seems helpful. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Taking an example from the other end of the scale: Brighton. Is Brighton a city? De jure no but de facto emphatically yes. Anyone who argued otherwise would be seen as a complete pedant who needs to get a life. Mechanically the award of letters patent has to be made to a legal person – the relevant local authority, but that is just mechanics. Brighton became a city and now Wrexham has become a city. No need to agonise about it. Add a footnote if the technical imprecision bothers you but no more. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
    I don't think so, unlike Carlisle and Wrexham etc the name of the district with city status includes "and Hove" in the name. Yes "Brighton" and "Hove" are clearly not standalone settlements and since 2011 they have been 1 BUASD but from what I can see people still see Hove as being distinct (see Hove#"Hove, Actually") even if one BUA and even BUASD. Bove "Brighton", "Hove" and "Portslade by Sea" are separate unparished areas and since the creation of Rottingdean Seatdean has also become separated. So while perhaps emphatically especially to those who don't know the area well I don't think it would be pedantic to say "Brighton" isn't a city. Its a double place name just like Antigua and Barbuda, Tyne and Wear, Nuneaton and Bedworth and Hoby with Rotherby. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
    I dont think BUASDs are the definitive decider on whether a settlement is truly distinct or not. Eopsid (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
    I would go so far as to say that BUASDs are not a determinant of true distinction. They are just convenient census enumeration areas that maybe historically were separate but not today: they are in the same BUA so by definition they are not distinct. Yes, they probably have distinct centres but are fuzzy at the edges. And they seem to be subject to change between censuses ("compare and contrast" Milton Keynes urban area#2001 with Milton Keynes urban area#2011). And they are very misleading when the ONS uses the same name for a BUA and for one of its BUASDs (cf MK and Northampton at least) [which, in the case of MK getting city status, misled some media sources into giving a population figure that was nearly 60,000 fewer than reality]. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
    "If Medway gets its way" (nice rhyme), which lets be honest is gonna happen sooner rather than later due to Rochester's moaning, then I do wonder how the local population will use the term "city." While it is true that the main towns within Medway UA form a single BUA named "Medway Towns," I'm not sure how bothered the residents of the areas outside Rochester are about city status, let alone referring to a group of towns as one "city," (though MK is probably an exception to this rule). I also wonder whether a general consensus will be formed that Rochester itself is a city, despite Medway Council receiving the letters patent, and lets not forget Rochester being unparished. Potentially similar to Brighton & Brighton and Hove, but probably more nuanced considering the greater number of "constituent" towns and villages in Medway UA. As for MK, most local people (from my experience) cannot distinguish between Bletchley's and Newport Pagnell's relationship with MK despite the former being part of the 1967 New Town designation and the latter being excluded from it. That's because (to the naked eye) both are part of MK's contiguous BUA (which can be seen from the maps, not just the ONS) and both are governed by Milton Keynes City Council to top it all off. That said, I don't understand why Aspley Guise is part of the BUA when Old Stratford isn't, but judging the distinctiveness of settlements ultimately comes down to how people perceive them. MK was made of historic towns and villages from the very start (1967), and so the areas that later joined the BUA just blended in, but that may not be the case for other (older) towns/cities/BUAs. IMO, there is no right or wrong answer. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
    Not determinate yes but probably the best out there. I'd put them over parishes, unparished areas a districts. I'd still argue Hove has enough of a distinct entity even though its no longer a BUASD though. The only other definition of Hove that (and the only that currently exists) is the unparished area of Hove, the area covered by the former municipal borough. With Medway yes its complicated but I'd consider splitting the article and make Medway Towns the BUA and Medway (1998-present) or Borough of Medway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Informing of requested move at 'Ceremonial Counties of England'

I have opened a move discussion at Talk:Ceremonial counties of England#Requested move 6 October 2022 which some of you may be interested in participating in. Thank you. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Article creation at scale discussion

Project members might be interested in the wide-ranging discussions ongoing at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale; discussions cover WP:GEOLAND, which includes settlements, geographic entities and heritage-listed structures. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography/Archive_27&oldid=1121584544"