I was just wondering if there was anywhere to view articles for suburbs, hamlets or villages etc which are still yet to be created and where would I find them? Thanks DragonofBatley (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Okay thanks Dave. I'll have a go at a few of the red link articles later and see if I can make some reliable and notable article for them. DragonofBatley (talk) 09:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Shaw and Crompton 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. Hog FarmTalk18:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
VOB privacy error
From 25 October I've got an error message saying "Your connection is not private" when trying to visit A Vision of Britain through Time. I was doing work with it but haven't been able to for the last almost 4 days. It says the security certificate expired 4 days ago. Stortford are you having the same error? Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Firefox explains "It’s likely the web site’s certificate is expired, which prevents Firefox from connecting securely. If you visit this site, attackers could try to steal information like your passwords, emails, or credit card details. What can you do about it? The issue is most likely with the web site, and there is nothing you can do to resolve it. You can notify the web site’s administrator about the problem. With another click it details the certificate as having run from 24/11/2021 to 24/11/2022,. I accepted the risk and clicked through to find the site apparently operating normally, and I think still providing end-to-end encryption, but as Firefox puts it "A secure website certificate helps Firefox determine whether the site you are visiting is actually the site that it claims to be."NebY (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
@NebY: While you're on the site, could you contact its webmaster to point out this problem, in case they aren't yet aware of it? Thanks. PamD20:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
After much hunting about the site, I found an email address gbhgis@port.ac.uk on the Data Access page[1] and have emailed that. NebY (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Exchanging emails, sending screenshots as requested etc. Certificate was renewed two weeks ago so they're puzzled. NebY (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
That if a parish has the same name as a settlement it should be covered in the settlement and not given a separate "X (parish)" article except parishes that exclude the settlement like Scotforth (parish) and possibly unparished areas that are the same as a district like Borough of Fareham.
With splits and merges of parishes when coverage of an article begins for example Marlingford and Colton starts in 1935 not 2001.
Adding the most recent data for abolished parishes and making sure facts about the parish aren't presented as if they are for the settlement. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Just so long as you don't try to force reality to fit a model. We have debated this point before. Let me repeat what I said then: English geography rejoices in such anomalies and long may they last. If the ideal model clashes with reality, it is the model – not reality – that must change.. So as an exception that disproves your first rule: Campbell Park (civil parish) does not contain Campbell Park. (also, take care: XYZ (parish) is probably an ecclesiastic parish, not a CP). Obviously I've quoted examples from my area because they are ones I know: no doubt other editors have their favourite rejoiceful anomalies too. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
US counties and UK counties are not different, though obviously the US rural ones are a lot less populated. Miami-Dade County, Florida, for example, has a population of 2.7M, and an extent of 2,431.178 sq mi (6,296.72 km2) so definitely no Aylesbury Vale. But more of a problem is that "County seat" is very en-us, I've never seen it used in the UK. "The county seat of Buckinghamshire is Aylesbury" - nah! and of course you run into the problem of names: Aylesbury is the site of Buckinghamshire Council's HQ and in recent history its capital [sic! not seat]. Bucks now has two capitals. And before you know it, the traditional county obsessives will be back again. Oppose. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Florida contains a number of counties and the counties usually contain a number of municipalities, Essex contains a number of districts and the districts normally contain a number of municipalities. People in the US normally use the state to identify where a place is while people in England generally use the ceremonial county. The major difference is that in the US the state is often treated as part of the common name of the settlement while in England the county if just used for disambiguation/context. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
You seem to be falling into the same trap as seems a worryingly common habit in this country, of mapping a US state to a UK county. Wrong. California for instance is about the same area as GB, its population is not a lot less and its GDP is quite a bit more. Naming conventions can be misleading and partly arise because the US positively blocks duplicate settlement names within state. So they don't need to disambiguate by county, like we do. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
For traditional counties in England while they have less political significance they are still the primary identifier for places etc. American counties while probably more significant are far more like English districts because they usually contain multiple municipalities like English districts do. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
American counties can be like English counties, English districts, English parishes or London Boroughs. It depends on the state, the size and the urban/rural nature of the area. Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
No, we shouldn't. This would be an extra layer of categorisation for its own sake and not very useful. Unlike American counties where one (sometimes more) municipality is defined as the seat of local government, it is not a term used in the UK and a council can locate its offices wherever it likes. Often they are spread around the district. The county town concept exists here but that already has its own categorisation system. I don't see that it would be a good move to go with your proposal; many counties consist of only one or two districts anyway. Rcsprinter123(drone)20:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
We shouldnt be using terms like district seats, and categorising by them, unless they are used in reliable sources. Otherwise its just Original Research. Eopsid (talk) 12:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
No. As others have noted the concept of a "district seat" is not one that really exists in British political geography. The closest equivalent is county towns, which are already covered, and administrative centres which are not a defining characteristic. Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Merging of Woburn Sands, Woburn and other parishes?
I think to avoid multiple articles and confusion. We should merge all the Woburn articles (Sands, town and other parishes covering the area) into a single parish article. A bit like the Saddleworth and Greater Eston articles. The parishes are confusing and most of the articles repeat the same information so I think they should all be merged into a single parish article covering all of them and the complex history? Thoughts? I'll propose a merger as soon as I have access to a pc DragonofBatley (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
"Woburn" and "Woburn Sands" are different settlements and parishes even though Woburn Sands is in Milton Keynes BUA. Woburn Sands is several miles from Woburn and is in a different county. Saddleworth is a parish that contains a number of other settlements like Uppermill but these have separate articles, similarly Greater Eston deals with the area but the likes of Ormesby have separate articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to go with what others have said Woburn and Woburn Sands are in different counties and completely separate from one another. Eopsid (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I would write that they are in the Milton Keynes urban area and Milton Keynes district, I wouldn't just write that they are in Milton Keynes. Its probably fine to write Bradwell is in Milton Keynes but I would still make note of it being a suburb of Milton Keynes rather than just saying "Milton Keynes". Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree that we don't need to make any changes on the towns' main articles, but when it comes to organisations (e.g. Welcome Break) and people (e.g. Niko B) based in the towns, then the question is whether to have them say that they are based in/from "NP/WS, Bucks", "NP/WS, Milton Keynes", "NP/WS, Milton Keynes urban area", or "NP/WS, City of Milton Keynes." Since we do this for the towns that were incorporated into MK via the New Towns Act of 1965 (in 1967), such as Bletchley and Stony Stratford, because times have changed, it may be time to consider applying this to the towns that were later incorporated into the BUA, like NP and WS. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I'd probably say its OK to use either from/based in Milton Keynes or to put Newport Pagnell, Milton Keynes or Newport Pagnell near Milton Keynes, either is probably fine but I'd probably go with "Newport Pagnell near Milton Keynes" if it would otherwise confuse readers. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
General comment. The Urban area is not really a significant feature for the first sentence of an article, certainly not to define a town or village by how it's separated from the urban area. I find it strange how something used for ONS purposes gravitates towards the very first thing anyone reads about a town or village - rather than about the town or village. It's a bad habit, and we need to re-focus the lede to summarise actual town before getting into such minutiae (same goes for competitive city listings where editors seem to try and put as many metrics they can in the second sentence to emphasise a locations size). Koncorde (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
For most places in England like buildings etc and settlements and aren't in a larger settlement I'd write "X is a pub in the civil parish/unparished area of X, in the X district, in the county of X, England" like Commons:Category:The Bull Inn, Thorpe Morieux and Commons:Category:Upperby Bridge. For places that aren't settlements but are in a city, town, village or hamlet I'd write X is a pub in X, in the civil parish/unparished area of X, in the X district, in the county of X, England" like Commons:Category:The Swan, Monks Eleigh and Commons:Category:The Guild, Preston. If its a suburb of a larger settlement I'd write "X is a suburb of X, in the civil parish/unparished area of X, in the X district, in the county of X, England" like Commons:Category:Elmbridge, Gloucester and Commons:Category:Normanston. With Milton Keynes its less easy because Milton Keynes is a larger settlement that contains multiple parishes but after specifying the parish and before the district you could add just "Milton Keynes". Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Unless they are actually submerged completely by the city and it's constituent towns. It would be best kept seperate places like Olney and Newport Pagnell even Wolverton are still a distance away and have plenty of greenbelt land DragonofBatley (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Wolverton has been part of MK since the 1967 New Town designation, and the use of "Wolverton, Milton Keynes" is well established. As an MK resident, I can tell you that the average person (at least from my experience) doesn't suddenly feel like they've left MK when crossing from Blakelands to Newport Pagnell (exc. for new vs old dwellings), as (1) they're both connected to the same contiguous urban area, and (2) road signs, street signs, bins, etc look the same because they're both governed by Milton Keynes City Council. This combination of factors means that the average person assumes that both Newport Pagnell and, e.g. Wolverton, both have the same sort of "relationship" with MK. Oh, and look the ONS also regards NP as part of the MK BUA, so this is both a physical and legal reality. We could also use the political definition of MK, but I don't think the term "Lavendon, Milton Keynes" will appease all the rural dwellers there, which creates a potential hotbed for edit wars. My argument is that if we would consider anything/anyone based in Fairfields (also outside of the 1967 designated area of MK) to be "in" Milton Keynes, why can't the same be said for Newport Pagnell and Woburn Sands, etc. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I think we're safe to imply that Woburn sands and Newport Pagnell are part of Milton Keynes. They are in the same district and built up area. I think if they're in both we can safely assume it can be considered part of that city. Eopsid (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
We have many other cases of settlements that were outside city boundaries drawn in 1970 and have since been assimilated, but have editors who insist that they have nothing to do with each other. No consensus is likely this side of 2070. Let sleeping dogs lie. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
It's just that a lot of people can't get over the fact that an "independent, historic and rural" town, hamlet or village has seen the inevitable fate of being (in one way or another) swallowed up by an ever-expanding metropolis that is the MK Empire! Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 12:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
As I said, plenty more examples of that on WP. It is not unique to MK. Give it time. A lot of time. Ideally we could just be bold and cite sources as needed but is not easy when, for example, more than fifty years since designation of MK with Bletchley as its principal settlement, The Telegraph can still write that Bletchley Park is "near Milton Keynes". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I was just researching and found a joint consultation report [2] from Milton Keynes City Council and (the now defunct) Buckinghamshire County Council about Newport Pagnell as part of a "Historic Towns Project" for Bucks. Scroll down to the 5th slide, and look at the end of the third paragraph where it states that "Although currently part of Milton Keynes, Newport Pagnell has maintained its status as an important local centre in North East Buckinghamshire." Now this was written in 2010, which may seem like a long time ago, but was 9 years after the ONS designated NP as part of the Milton Keynes urban area, although its possible that "Milton Keynes" in this context refers to the City of Milton Keynes. Unlikely to be a bombshell, but maybe we're getting somewhere? @John Maynard Friedman:, @Crouch, Swale:, @DragonofBatley:, @Eopsid:, @Koncorde:Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Arbroath has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
So apparently, Billmldn is claiming in their edit summaries that because these three towns use TfL buses and have underground stations and a postcode matched to London? They are apparently within Londons wider area under it's metropolitan area and urban area. While the urban area isn't a debate. Metropolitan area is, according to what I read the following is based on:
[[3]], this article in no way mentioned these three towns and the places in Essex are already listed without a single one of the three towns under the table for Essex which includes Uttlesford, Braintree, Southend and Tendring.
Further to that point, the metropolitan area is a region and name given to travel to work areas, it isn't an official statistic or built up area which is covered by the urban area aka the London Commuter Belt.
So maybe the editor should have a debate before assuming roads and postcodes are essential to a Wikipedia article when they are not. I can't see any sources confirmation for these being under the two areas which don't even link to the London articles mentioned. The editor should really have debated this on the articles and Essex pages:
They are mentioned in the table you are talking about. It lists the Epping Forest District which all 3 towns are part of. In the other table they are included. As part of the London Urban Area, because they’re not in any of the other urban areas listed as being part of the commuter belt. Which proves my point. Billmldn (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
I think most detailed source's on London's metropolitan area would include those 3 towns. They're definitely in the urban area. As a compromise I'm not really sure you'd need to mention both metropolitan and urban area in an article. If its in the urban area then it would be in the metropolitan area too Eopsid (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Would it be helpful to our readers to describe Amersham, Chesham and Watford as metropolitan London, or even as in the urban area without qualifying that as the census's Greater London urban area? They have TfL Metropolitan Line stations. NebY (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
They are indeed in the BUA so yes I'd suggest this is appropriate to mention at least somewhere but I'd also avoid making it sound too much like they're inner city suburbs. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
I do feel this rather highlights the limitations of turning inclusion in the BUA for statistical purposes into a general geographical descriptor. NebY (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, an Urban Area is not a method of claiming ownership - it's a way of clubbing places together due to proximity and named for the biggest object in the region. It has been misused by POV pushing accounts for way too long. Even using descriptors as "it's in the commuter belt" in the lede is a sneaky way of trying to expand ownership in many cases and should rarely be first paragraph type info. Koncorde (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
2021 Census Built-up areas
They havent released the population figures for the 2021 census built up areas yet but they have released the shape files:
[4] looks like a lot of the subdivisions have changed boundaries (again) Examples include: Middlesbrough having lost Eston and Caversham has been seperated from Reading.
[5] also hints that they might be changing the name again calling them Built-up conglomerations. And confusingly the what were built-up area subdivisions are now built-up areas and what were built-up areas are now called conglomerations. I dont think we want to start updating articles until the population figures, conglomeration data and everything are published, but these sound like confusing changes for a lot of articles. Eopsid (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Population figures for the new styled BUAs are available. It does appear they divide along parish boundaries if the resulting shapes meet the minimum size. The Equalizer (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
It should mention the county. Generally in most cases its probably a good idea to say location (settlement), parish/unparished area, district, county and England though some of those may be omitted I'd probably use county for almost all articles outside London. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Basingstoke has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Bruton relies on a WP:PRIMARY source, based on what its own authority calls it which is not independently verified. The other three are self-explanatory. Welwyn being a "garden city" doesn't mean it has "city status". --9ine line (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Guildford isn't a city, Leeds Castle already specifies its in Kent and near the village of Leeds, there are other places like White City with "City" in the name that aren't cities, Bruton's council website says its a town indeed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
9ine line got blocked. This is a known troll and time-waster (an 'LTA'), is community banned, and socks should generally be reported and blocked on sight. -- zzuuzz(talk)23:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
East Riding of Yorkshire has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Population figures
I've been adding information for former parish, see User:Crouch, Swale/East Sussex for the most recent county I've done. In England many parishes were abolished in the 1930s such as Charlton Abbots and the most recent data is the 1931 census but some like Litlington were abolished later and there is data up to the 1961 census while some like Wissington the most recent is 1881. For some settlements in Scotland like Port Charlotte there is 1991 data, Tarbert has 1981 and Castlebay has 1971. How recent should the data be for it to be in the infobox and how recent should the data be for it to be mentioned in the lead as opposed to a "History" or "Civil parish" section? I've written Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about parishes.
My thoughts are, for the infobox data is probably fine for those ones in Scotland in 1991 and maybe 1981 and 1971 but for the parishes in England the 1961 and older data may be too old to be appropriate to be in the infobox but is generally appropriate for the lead for rural settlements that are still (at least somewhat) rural today unless perhaps the settlement has been significantly expanded or reduced since then. All the parish examples in England are probably fine. If like Wrestlingworth there is recent data for the settlement then it may make more sense to have the parish data in the history section. The likes of Bushby that may still be somewhat rural are probably fine for it to the in the lead. For those like Barnwood that are now suburbs its probably not appropriate for the old data to be in the lead but rather being in a "Civil parish" or "History" section if the article is large enough especially if like Evington is is a ward and New Parks was recently with more recent data the older data is not that relevant to most readers and gives undue weight and the "former civil parish" status isn't mentioned either. If its a complicated parish like Tuttington where there was a merge and then rename I'd also put the data in the section rather than lead to avoid confusion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Conceivably there are recent (or future) abolished locality articles that will have held the population data in an infobox until then. If aiming to be diligent I think adding the data along with the year (presumably with a note in the lead to refer to its former status) should make it clear, as the article will age but the stats not get updated. Regards, The Equalizer (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
The date (and specified if its for an administrative unit rather than settlement if so) should be specified as do the above examples. This means per MOS:DATED it will still be understood in the future, Blofield Heath says "In 2020 it had an estimated population of 1488" which will still be accurate in say 100 years just like Charlton Abbots saying "In 1931 the parish had a population of 71". If Blofield Heath said "It has a population of 1488" it would likely be inaccurate in say 100 years just like if Charlton Abbots said "The parish has a population of 71". The point about historical data being less relevant if the place became urbanized than if not would be if you think of Polstead and Belstead. If both were abolished next year as parishes and over the next 100 years Ipswich grew and Belstead became a suburb but Polstead stayed rural the data in the early 21st century would be less relevant for Belstead than Polstead. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Around 48 hours ago the A Vision of Britain through Time boundary maps stopped working and when you click on "Boundary map" for a unit it shows the whole area in light pink as opposed to only the boundary for the unit (example Skegby[6]). This is a problem because I'm adding population data and when abolished for former parishes and while its less of a problem for those like Skegby with a settlement of the same name due to the current location of the settlement can be given for those like Gopsall or Tamhorn that only exist/existed as a parish it can be a problem as the boundaries of the places may have changed since abolishment meaning if X was merged into Y in 1934 it may have later been transferred to Z but we can't tell what the boundaries of X were to verify if its still in Y or not @NebY and PamD: who commented at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 28#VOB privacy error. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Map needs update
I have noticed that the map of Northamptonshire hasn't been updated yet to reflect the changes in local govt nearly two years ago, and still uses the obsolete district boundaries. I attempted it myself, but I don't have the know how, or software to edit svg files, and the user who created the map has been absent for some time. Does anyone here have the ability to edit it, or know somewhere I could ask? G-13114 (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Hanks, Patrick; Flavia Hodges; A. D. Mills; Adrian Room (2002). The Oxford Names Companion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
as its pronunciation [Loogabarooga, allegedly ] is uncited in the article (and it also needed at Ough (orthography)). I'm hoping that the ONC will have it, possibly at pp961/2? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Surely That's a joke? IIRC that version allegedly was that of an Australian student at the university. Other than in a facetious context, I've only ever heard it pronounced Luffbrer. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
yes, it's the apocryphal Ozzie student story. But for the ough article, I really need an academic RS. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
I can't give you that source, but I can give you
Sinclair, J.M. (ed) (4th edition, 1999) Collins Concise Dictionary, Glasgow: HarperCollins, ISBN 0 00 472257 4, p. 867
Location by ceremonial or non-metropolitan county?
I was under the impression that there was a convention to specify geographical locations primarily via ceremonial county rather than by non-metropolitan county. Am I right? The reason I raise this is that I am now seeing a flurry of edits replacing "Cumbria" by "Westmorland and Furness" or "Cumberland" as the location of a town, village, etc. I'm even seeing page moves changing disambiguation (e.g. Alston, Cumbria -> Alston, Westmorland and Furness). Should these changes be reverted or not? Dr Greg talk 20:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Why is Cumbria being removed? It still exists as a ceremonial county but not as a county council. It says here: [7]. Cumbria should be kept and why is editors removing it from both the county and the lead summary of Cockermouth and Appleby-in-Westmorland? That is wrong to do as Cumbria has not officially ceased to exist as a whole. Unlike Humberside and Cleveland which have. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Not sure that website qualifies as a reputable source of information, really! Meanwhile, official UK government publications continue to inform that historic counties continue to exist and were never abolished.
This confusion, where members of the public (quite understandably) edit pages to update local government changes/ceremonial county changes, will continue to happen on Wikipedia every single time new legislation changes these volatile boundaries. Hence why using ceremonial counties/local government areas as reference points will never be sustainable. Acapital (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
As a more general point: how do we write about places in unitary authorities? Should the ceremonial county appear in the infobox? Pinging @A.D.Hope: who is doing a lot of work on this. PamD21:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
I've moved Troutbeck, South Lakeland and Troutbeck, Eden to Troutbeck, Lakes and Troutbeck, Hutton respectively, per WP:ENGPLACE which advises using parish where the district doesn't disambiguate. Looking at Category:South Lakeland District, just one of the former districts, shows quite a few places which will need to be moved to new disambiguations. In some cases moving to the unitary authority names will distinguish, in others not: in those cases parishes should be used. I might nibble away at the list myself, but others might like to contribute. PamD09:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm going through the former parishes and adding most recent population data (except for those still unparished areas), location and infboxes and images though at the moment I'm only doing this with category 1 parishes. I'm currently on Tyne and Wear/Surrey. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Project-independent quality assessments
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm just going through the Lake District lake/water/mere/tarn articles to try and make their leads a bit more consistent, but I'm unsure whether metric or imperial measurements should take precedence when it comes to their length, depth, area, etc. If there's a guideline on this I can't find it, sorry! A.D.Hope (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I think that MOS:UNIT suggests using imperial first: "In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric or other internationally used units, except that: ... the primary units for distance/length, ... [is] miles, ... (except for short distances or lengths, where miles are too large for practical use);" PamD20:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
My interpretation of that is to use imperial for length and distance, as stated, but metric for everything else. Although inconsistent, that does tally with how I'd personally describe the lakes — length in miles, but depth in metres rather than yards, etc. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
New articles should use the style in the professional source (which, for the best part of 50 years now, will be metric). In existing articles, continue the established style. In each case, use {{convert}} [first instance]] and {{cvt}} [thereafter] to show both. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
No, I think MOS:NUM over-rules that. We should certainly input the figure in the form used in the reliable source, but then use th "display=flip" parameter of {{convert}} where necessary to control the display.
Yes, @A.D.Hope:, you're right on metric for heights, and I guess depths are considered similar to height. Area is a problem: I'm not sure that we can describe a lake's length and width imp-first and then give its area as metric-first.
Is there a FA for a UK lake, or one on a UK town or county etc which includes a quantified description of a lake, I wonder? I tend to assume that whatever style is used in a FA is "correct". PamD07:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Hmm, Keswick,_Cumbria#Geography is interesting: the town is " 31+1⁄2 miles (51 kilometres) southwest of Carlisle", Derwentwater is " 3 mi × 1 mi (5 km × 1.5 km) and is some 72 ft (22 m) deep.", while the fells reach "a maximum height of 931m on Skiddaw itself" with no conversion. Can't find an area for the lake (or the parish or anything else), sadly. But it was promoted to FA in 2014, appeared on main page in 2019, so may not reflect current standards! PamD07:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Manchester consistently uses metric units for areas, both in infobox and in Geography section. So I think we take the MOSNUM at its word: imp first for distances/lengths only, metric first for everything else including depth and area. It will look odd, but that's inherent in the UK's current part-metricated state where we buy a metric-weighed packet of crisps with our pint, having walked a mile and climbed 30 metres to get to the pub. PamD07:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
PamD may climb 30 metres to the pub, but our house is at 300' up a hill! Try navigating a ship though, distances are in nautical miles and cables, depths are in metres. To be fair though, this is international (outside the USA), not just British. One of the problems arising from Brexit is that we really must stop calling a 500ml can of beer a "b****y EU short measure pint". :-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
An example of an FA which may be relevant is Kennet and Avon Canal and a previous FA at Chew Valley Lake, but my major contributions to these were many years ago and I am not sure I would write the length/depth/volume/area etc in the same way now.— Rodtalk10:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
and the first one in (checks notes) THIRTEEN years! When I first joined this WikiProject back in December last year, I was slightly tempted to mark it as inactive, as activity had extremely slowed and there had been no new participants in 3 years. But I have decided to revive this project, as Worcestershire means a lot to me and I know it does for so many others. But as many participants of this project have disappeared completely off Wikipedia, this project is now in dire need of attention and it would be helpful if a group of editors could join me and continue to maintain it.
Here goes for the third EXTREMELY irregular news bulletin...
Hanley Castle High School was was promoted to Good article on 30 August 2012. There are 78 good articles for educational institution of all kinds of which there are 4 GA for secondary schools in the UK. Hanley High School is the first state school in the UK to become GA.
Evesham was nominated on 2 December 2010 as a Good Article Candidate. The nomination unfortunately failed due to unforeseen unavailability of the editors working on the article. It only requires minor attention to be renominated.
Urse d'Abetot was awarded Featured Article status on 13 October 2009. Promoted by Karanacs, the article was 96.4% the work of Ealdgyth. It was finally featured on the main page on 14 April 2018.
The Battle of Powick Bridge was awarded Featured Article status in 2020 and appeared on the Main Page on 12 February 2023.
If you notice any editors contributing significantly to Worcestershire-related articles, then please ask them to join this WikiProject, as we need all the help we can get.
Would you like to join the WP:WORCS?? Please enter yourself at WP:WORCS! - new editors are always welcome!
Happy Wikying, and thanks to everyone else who has contributed to our articles.
New project resources
Before making any major edits to articles or stubs, please be sure to read the new WP:WORCS/HowTo.
Urgent tasks are now listed at: WP:WORCS/ToDo. It should be referred to often, and will be your main stop for most maintenance tasks. We recommend keeping the page on your watchlist.
Population Now that the 2021 census details have been released, most settlement articles need updating. This website: https://www.citypopulation.de/ can be helpful, although you should note this does not collect data from hamlets or small villages.
Monitor The watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Infoboxes Some of our articles need their infoboxes completing.
References Please remember that the list of stubs needing expansion is always in need of attention. Please take a look and see if you can help. One small edit, such as adding a reference section and reference, to an article each session would make a big difference. If you are uploadiing an image, be sure it has a correct FUR, and that you have preferably already created a link on the page where you want it to be.
There is a project creating missing civil parish articles in England at User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes. The missing parishes in Worcestershire currently are:
I am currently planning on reforming the Evesham article to get it up to scratch for another GA nomination. If other editors are interested in helping me then please do, especially if you live in Evesham yourself, as the main photo is from 2008 and is out-of-date as there is a new statue in front of the building.
On the newsletter
I intend to write a brand-new newsletter once every two months, though I would like other editors to help me in completing it in case of my unavailability.
Imprint Written by Ollieisanerd (some sections are same as last time written by Kudpung) • All comments to WT:WORCS Based on an original concept by WP:YORKS
I have nominated Somerset 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. Z1720 (talk) 02:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I've just seen a user remove Cumbria from the article who has done so before and keeps using just North West England as the main area. I'm not understanding why this keeps happening but it does. Could other editors please weigh in on this discussion and I'll ping the user themselves who keep doing it. @Owain:. Discussion would be welcomed on if using Cumbria is appropriate or not given it still exists despite the county council being abolished. DragonofBatley (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't and can't find one myself but Googling did find me another namely Dartmoor Forest with 204.9 km². Some county or district councils I think have such datasets which can be sorted by area but even those wouldn't cover the whole of England. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Shrewsbury has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Notification of merger discussion: County Durham and County Palatine of Durham
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
