Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

Convert WikiProject Leeds into a taskforce of WPUK

Hello, WikiProject UK geography. You have new messages at WT:WikiProject Leeds#Merge inactive WikiProject as a taskforce of WP:UK.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 08:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Moved to WT:WikiProject Leeds § Merge inactive WikiProject as a taskforce of WP:UK

Convert WikiProject Bradford into a taskforce of WP:Yorkshire

Hello, WikiProject UK geography. You have new messages at WT:WikiProject Bradford#Merge inactive WikiProject as a taskforce of WP:YORKSHIRE.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Moved to WT:WikiProject Bradford § Merge inactive WikiProject as a taskforce of WP:YORKSHIRE

Settlements and civil parishes

What is our practice for dealing with settlements and civil parishes? For example the parish of Colnbrook with Poyle now redirects to Colnbrook and we have a separate article for Poyle. Is redirecting the parish to largest settlement what we have agreed? This doesn't seem right to me. We then have an article trying to be two things. MRSC (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This was touched on by RobinLeicester (talk · contribs) in the post of 17:47, 23 August 2013‎ above. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This sort of thing was briefly touched on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 12#Small settlements in Bedfordshire missing articles. There doesn't seem to be any consensus on what we should do in these cases. My view is we should merge articles into the ones about the parish if they are about very small hamlets defined as nothing but a few farms and cottages with no shop, school or church). Eopsid (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't know of an agreed practice but there are a few examples local to me which might help. The civil parish of Wraxall and Failand includes the villages of Wraxall and Failand. The civil parish of Stowey-Sutton includes the small village of Stowey and the much larger village of Bishop Sutton.— Rod ^talk 17:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I'm uneasy with the idea of redirecting a parish to the largest settlement. If there is to be a merge, it should be into the parish article. Merges should only really happen if the settlement in question is really tiny, like a row of houses at a crossroads with no sources available for an article. On the other hand, we shouldn't be merging settlements merely because nobody has written anything yet. MRSC (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that: Generally merge from settlement to parish seems better. That's because the key information points of a stub (population, area etc) are really about the parish - and you can always obtain those statistics at parish level. If a parish has multiple small, settlements, then redirect-to-section is better than nothing. This is a case where {{R with possibilities}} makes sense.

There's the issue where the largest settlement of a parish shares its name. Both may be worthy of their own article, but how to disambiguate? I'm not sure of how to manage that.--Nilf anion (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

West Horndon (parish) / West Horndon is an example of this. Two articles can exist where the parish consists of several distinct settlements. MRSC (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that works well for England. In Wales, the equivelant of the parish is the community. To pick on a randon Welsh example, Llandybie currently has a tiny stub serving the village and a much large community. If there were to be a Llandybie (community) page, would that terminology make sense? To be aspirational about things, the village article would then expect to restrict itself to the built-up area and immediate neighbourhood of the village, whereas the community/parish article would give an overview of the settlements, full details on hamlets, infrastructure and features of the whole area, and would be the place for local geology and geomorphology, nature reserves, scheduled monuments, archaeology, agriculture, etc as appropriate. That seems to be the gist of the Bedfordshire discussion. If the List of communities in Wales is to be believed, there is currently no Wales article using a '(community)' suffix - or any other distinction from settlements. So does the term 'community', which in every other context does NOT mean a parcel of land, work for the Welsh articles? RobinLeicester (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

In England, local government is complicated, with several layers, the amount of which vary even within counties/UAs, since there are quite a few unparished areas, mainly in the cities and towns. Compared to England, the Welsh setup is simple. There are Principal Areas, and all are split into Communities. Two levels, no more, no less; everywhere in Wales is in one community or another, even central Cardiff. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that, if there is a merger, it should be upwards to the parent level. However, I believe we should aim, eventually if not immediately, to have separate articles wherever possible. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I think we should state in our guidance that the presumption is we will have separate articles. MRSC (talk) 05:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Requesting a peer review/copy edit of Giffnock

Hi WPUK, I managed to bring Giffnock up to GA status recently and have been considering attempting to bring it up to FA. I requested a peer review through official channels (as content writing isn't my strongest aspect) but it went unanswered. I'd appreciate if anyone could take a look over it and point out anything which needs work. Much appreciated, Cabe 6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Notable residents list.

Welwyn Garden City and Potters Bar both have these lists. What I am not sure is about policy, this is partially giving away the address of where someone lives in the area. Is this not breaking any policy on Wiki? Govvy (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

At the top of WP:BLP it states "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." Lists of notable residents are standard on many - if not most - largish settlements. The problem as I perceive it is with small settlements, when stating that someone is resident there makes it relatively easy to find them, which might be in contravention (in spirit if not in 'law') of WP:BLPPRIVACY, which advises not to print the addresses of living individuals. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel these lists, are poorly constructed and the majority is a breach of WP:BLPPRIVACY. If there is no citation it should be an instant deletion of the name. From what I have interpreted, they should all be removed. I don't know if there should be a consensus. Govvy (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If there's a reliable source - like a local newspaper - confirming they live in the area, I think they should stay - but with a date, as people move around, so, eg: "In 2011, it was reported that X lived in the area." Otherwise, certainly if they are wholly unsourced, they should go. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The policy says postal addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses should not be published. Saying what city, town, or village someone lives in does not contravene the policy. On the other hand, it is fair to say that the lists are generally not sourced, which they should be. Actually, there is a lot of unsourced content on these pages about places, especially the minor and more obscure ones, and nobody much seems to bother enforcing the policy that requires sources. I am not sure why that is, except perhaps many of the serious editors are not especially interested in the subject matter, so the articles become a backwater where more or less anything goes in some cases. Dubmill (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Many 'notable residents' have their own articles, where there may be useable sources. Obviously if info is unsourced it should be removed, like any BLP info, but there are 2 questions here: first, can the info be souced/verified, and second (and more fundamental), should it be there even if sources exist? I think that for articles on smaller settlements, there's an argument for not including the info even if sources exist, particularly if those sources are only local ones. The issue is different with large settlements. Stating that a famous person lives in Manchester is different to stating they live in Barton in the Beans (or wherever...) - stating that someone is resident in a very small settlement is akin to stating their postal address, in my view. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If there are sources that say Mr Famousperson lives in Barton in the Beans, then that information is already public knowledge and I don't have a problem with repeating it in an article. If there aren't sources then the information should certainly be deleted. I'm not a big fan of notable people sections, considering them trivial and not the sort of thing I'd expect to find in an encyclopaedia. If a person has a particular cultural or historical connection to the place, they can be mentioned in the appropriate section. I'd be just as happy to see the whole 'notable residents' thing gone altogether. But perhaps that's another discussion.--Ykraps (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel pretty much the same way about notable people sections, and prefer not to include them in articles I edit. Nev1 (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If the section is unsourced, it should be removed per WP:V and WP:BLP. Cutting and pasting the section to the talk page in lieu of further sources can be a useful middle step so the information is not lost altogether, with an explanation that it needs sources. When there are sources, whether to include the section becomes a matter of editorial judgement. Nev1 (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

RFC - Clarifying Units of Measure

Note that the closing statement for this RFC, which was written by the same editor who opened this RFC, is disputed in the section below as not representing the consensus of this RFC. Kahastok talk 21:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

RFC has now been withdrawn, not closed. Martinvl (talk) 06:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

This RfC is withdrawn. The disproportionate discussion on transport matters which continued after I stated that I had not intended to include such matters has made meaningful discussion impossible. Martinvl (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There have recently been a number of debates in WP:MOSNUM that ended in an edit-war in the article United Kingdom regarding the primary units of measure UK Geographic articles.

A few years ago, all MOS-type pages relating to regional articles were moved to the WP:MOS tree so that regional recommendations were visible to all. Although units of measure style guide has been centralised at WP:UNITS, there has been little or no input from WP:UKGEO in respect of which units of measure should be the primary units in UK Geographical article. I propose a new mechanism to ensure that WP:UNITS reflects the views of all editors. The process will be that each section of WP:UNITS will be associated with one or another Wikiproject and that debates regarding that section will take place on the talk pages of the Wikiproject concerned. Those editors connected with WP:UNITS rather than the project will have a responsibility for coordinating various inputs and ensuring a consistent format of the WP:UNITS page.

I propose therefore that WP:UNITS be amended as follows:

The following section is inserted between the subsections "UK engineering-related articles" and "Other articles":

UK geographical-related articles

Although Geography is usually classed a science, at times it has been classed as a humanity. In order to cover both these aspects, geographic measurements that are specific to the United Kingdom should use SI units as the primary unit of measure (as per scientific articles) followed by, where appropriate, the equivalent alternative (imperial) unit in brackets (as per non-science articles).

All changes to this recommendation are to be debated at WP:UKGEO.

In the sub-section Other articles, the text

In non-science and non-engineering UK-related articles: the main quantity is generally ...

is replaced by

In other UK-related articles: the main quantity is generally ...

This is a general maintenance change.

14:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Survey

*Support

This proposal will maintain the status quo in all UK articles that I have looked at (apart from United Kingdom where an edit war broke out when User:Wee Curry Monster changed the ordering of units of measure in that article). It also follows the normal usage of units of measure in scholastic, educational and public administration circles and is therefore appropriate for use in an encyclopaedia. Martinvl (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

*Oppose. Certain editors will interpret "geographical distance" as any substantial distance (greater than 1 km or so) measured on the earth, not withstanding any mambo-jumbo about whether geography is a science or a humanity. Thus road distances will be held to fall under this SI-first rule. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

*Oppose until UK road signs normally show distances to settlements primarily in kilometres. NebY (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. I declare my involvement at WT:MOSNUM, I note the biased introduction to this RFC which conflates multiple issues, and I note the forum shopping as this has been brought up in numerous locations now. I reject the principle that changes to WP:MOSNUM should be discussed anywhere other than WT:MOSNUM (though I have no problem with suitable notification of editors here and elsewhere).

I note that the proposal is not a "general maintenance change" as it would substantially change policy. As things stand, WP:UNITS prefers miles, and I believe that we would do well to make it clear by consensus here that that includes point-to-point distances (a point that Martin - I believe alone - disputes).

I note finally that the proposal is either to use kilometres for distances along roads, or to needlessly conjure up a split in usage between distances along roads on one hand and distances along footpaths or measured point-to-point on the other. The effect of this would be that MOSNUM would require us to say that you have to drive 400 miles to cover the 500 kilometres from London to Edinburgh. Kahastok talk 17:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose, as I fear that the proponent would wish to interpret "UK geographical-related articles" much more widely than the scope where kilometres are the current UK usage. The first example I tripped over was A1000 road, and I believe that to put metric first there and on the numerous other similar articles would be contrary to current common UK usage and contrary to the interests of the encyclopedia. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I see that while I was posting the above the proponent was saying that he would exclude some modes of transport, and (while I thank him for his invitation to reconsider) I remain opposed to his proposal.

He quotes United Kingdom as an example of an article which he would like to change. The first occurrence of "miles", and the first where he was edit-warring earlier this month, is where the article says: "It lies between the North Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea with the south-east coast coming within 22 miles (35 km) of the coast of northern France". I am sure that most people in Britain still think of the distance across the Channel in miles, and therefore it is reasonable to put miles first in the article. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Distances in the UK are measured in miles on the road. The London Underground and most of the light rail/tram systems are measured in kilometres, as is the High Speed 1 line and Heathrow Airport branch, but the vast majority of railways are measured in miles and chains; some railway lines, such as Paddington-Airport Junction, are dual-marked. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. In the UK road distances are almost always displayed in miles (Driver location signs being an exception), most railways are imperial but some are metric, others are mixed (I believe that Northern Ireland railways use miles and metres). Whether a mountain is 1000m or 3200ft high depends on who you ask, as does whether a bridge is 200m or 200yds long. The UK is a hotchpotch of two systems and Wikipedia articles must be able to reflect that. Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Editors reading User:Martinvl's vote in the survey above may be interested in reading the relevant section on Talk:United Kingdom and compare with Martinvl's description of events. They may also wish to look through the sorts of articles that would be covered by this proposal (as per Jc3s5h's note) and note that it is not difficult to find some that are imperial-first. Kahastok talk 17:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I have moved this down here because of the request in this edit summary, noting as an aside that WP:RFC does not state or suggest that I am not allowed to put this comment where it was originally placed (directly after Martin's vote). I note that I have objected strongly to the edit in question on Martin's talk. Kahastok talk 19:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Transport

It was not my intention to include transport in this RFC. I am quite happy for the wording "excluding transport" to be included in the text and also to initiate a similar discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport where I am happy to propose that imperial units shall be the primary unit of measure for all road, rail and canal routes, except where all signage on the specified route is in metric units. Bearing this in mind, I invite those editors who have concentrated only on transport matters to reconsider their views. Martinvl (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It was not my intention to restrict my opposition to transport matters. I oppose imposing a kilometres-first rule on distances between landmarks in general and settlements in particular while general practice in the UK is to express them in miles. It happens that roadsigns, being among the most common and familiar expressions of such distances and so making a valuable contribution to the geographical knowledge of the general population, are a convenient standard. NebY (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has been ongoing for many years. See, for example, this discussion from 2007 where I described (among other relevant considerations including law on metrication):

"The world related to units in the UK is not standardised it is "messy" and therefore I feel it is reasonable for wikipedia to reflect that messiness. To give a few examples: This morning I

Bought a container with 1.44 litres of milk
Received a letter from the National Blood Service asking for a pint of my blood (as long as I'm healthy & weigh more than 7st 12lbs)
Was asked by my 18 yr old (normally at university doing a science degree) about the fuel consumption of a 2nd hand car in miles per gallon
Had to find trainers for my 8 yr old who has just got Shoe size 2 (UK sizes) but her new ones are labelled in EU & US sizes.

I could go on - but that quick snippet of daily life illustrates the reality (not necessarily old-speak) and I would argue against the imposition by those who may not have as much insight into the UK of a simple metric for everything rule. I don't have a problem with "For UK-related, the main units are either metric or imperial (consistently within an article)." and have taken several articles to GA & FA using that guidance."

My views have not changed in the last six years!— Rod ^talk 18:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The "pint" of blood they take is 470 mL, which is about 1 US pint, not 1 imperial pint. 7 st 12 lb is an imperial conversion of 50 kg. Given the bizarre anomaly that fuel is sold in litres and driving distances are measured in miles, mpg is no more or less natural or meaningful a measurement than L/100 km, and the latter is actually better for calculations of the relative economies of different kinds of car. Shoe sizes are barely a unit of measurement at all (the British shoe size system is some complicated nonsense relating to barleycorns (1/3") via a formula that makes no sense to anyone). Frankly I'd go with the ISO convention and just measure feet in mm, like they do for ski and snowboard boots. It's much more logical and meaningful, but good luck trying to persuade anyone of that. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The question of measurement in the UK raises impossible questions. There is a patchwork of conflicting usage that could undermine any attempt to regularise it. As an example, the maximum speed limit on the Thames is 8 km/h while speed limits on roads are in miles per hour. The Long Distance Walkers Association says the Grand Union Canal Walk is 234 km /145 miles while the Grand Union Canal Race is described as 145 miles long. What explains this inconsistency is that British society is divided in its preferences. It is therefore impossible to be truly consistent. I think everyone should take a deep breath and realise that there is no perfect answer to the question, and that as long as both units are provided and the article is reasonably consistent, it probably doesn't matter as much as we think. Michael Glass (talk) 09:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

We can be more consistent than just saying use whatever units you like. The MOS is an example of that. But given your history of mass-converting topics, your position is unsurprising. Kahastok talk 17:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Well that's a refreshing position… RGloucester — ☎ 14:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's been my position for years. The idea that I'm a gung-ho metric fanatic is a hostile caricature of my position. Michael Glass (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If so, it's a perfectly understandable one, given that you are the editor who goes around mass-converting topics (including those covered by this WikiProject) into metric in direct violation of the MOS (for example [1]) Kahastok talk 17:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I opposed this when it came up for discussion because I see no conflict or inconsistency in an article like United Kingdom in giving distances in miles but temperatures in Celsius, or similar mixing of systems. This approach prevents that. Kahastok talk 17:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose in this form. This WikiProject should not attempt to prescribe where this issue will be discussed. MoS recommendations should be based, inter alia, on edcucational and scholarly usage and on official practice (which uses metric units for economic, public health, public safety or administrative purposes, except for road signs and speed indications - as prescribed by law). --Boson (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closing

Martin has closed this, with the above closing summary. I reverted the close because I do not believe the closing summary reflects the consensus. Martin has now rereverted.

Does anyone here believe that Martin's closing statement:

This RfC was rejected. It appears that all contributors concentrated on transport matters even after I had offered to explicitly removed transport from the scope of the RFC.

Is an accurate reflection of consensus in anything other than that the proposal was rejected? Kahastok talk 20:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I also oppose Martinvl's suggestion here. In regards to the closing of this RFC, it should have ideally have been left to an administrator to close, with Martinvl asking an admin to close it and to come up with a closing statement. Instead they have decided to (as is becoming quite a common thing it seems) to act as if they decide how things go on this site. Also who started an edit-war? Martinvl did by continually reverting (3 times no less) the WP:MOSNUM backed edit by WCM, who only made 1 edit. The only editor who edit-warred was Martinvl as they had nothing to back them up in terms of the policy set at WP:MOSNUM. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I cannot speak for everyone who commented, but my rationale was not solely related to transport matters and at least one other person explicitly disclaimed that their opinion was not solely based on transportation either. The statement that "all contributors concentrated on transport matters" is therefore demonstrably false. While it seems to me (as an involved administrator) that there is consensus against the proposal, the closing statement implies there was no consensus regarding subjects other than transport, which is not how I read the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

FWIW I have asked Martin to reconsider the close at his talk. Kahastok talk 06:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not the particular subject is closed I want to respond to Kahastok's comment about me in that discussion:

In making the edits that Kahastok objected to I followed the UK government department usage instead of taking MOSNUM literally. I note that he is upset but the edits have stayed in place for more than 10 months. There is something weird about rules if they mean that a UK Government Department's usage can't be followed in an article about the UK.

Also, if the discussion was closed, how come that it accepted my edit, Kahastok's revert, my revert of Kahastok and then his subsequent revert of me again? I thought that subjects that were closed were locked from further editing. Michael Glass (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Nope, as the line at the bottom of a closed discussion states: The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. - so it's up to editors to abide by these rules to not edit or post in a closed discussion. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

If i'd had seen that notice when I made the first edit that Kahastok reverted, I would not have made that edit. Perhaps I saw if before the subject was closed, and as I took my time to reply (I wanted to check what happened to the edits that Kahastok had objected to) I somehow missed the notification. That's why I reverted Kahastok's revert. Then he sent me a note asking me to self-revert and again I took my time in checking what was going on. In the mean time he must have given up on waiting and reverted me again.

I'm still puzzled as to what might have happened, but I do apologise for inadvertently crossing that line. It was not done intentionally. Michael Glass (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia is doing funny things of late. I recently had a comment of mine "overtake" someone else's. When I moved the comment to the proper place based on the timestamp, something similar happened, so I gave up and just sent a message to the other editor involved. --Boson (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Page protection works on the whole page: it's not possible to protect part of a page, so a discussion enclosed in {{Archive top}}/{{Archive bottom}} is, technically speaking, equally as editable as the rest of the page. To fully-protect this page for the sake of that discussion would prevent this thread - which is after the {{Archive bottom}} - from being edited too. Of course, if the whole page consists of threads enclosed in {{Archive top}}/{{Archive bottom}} it would be feasible to full-prot the page; but I've never seen this done. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

RFC: WP:MOSNUM

There are currently a number of proposals to improve the language at WP:MOSNUM relating to the use of Units in UK related articles. External opinion is invited at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RFC: Proposals to rewrite WP:MOSNUM on UK units of preference. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Geoboxes

Davey2010 (talk · contribs) has recently removed a number of geoboxes from various Kent location articles. I reverted one removal before I realised the extent of this. I'm fairly sure that these removals are not constructive, even though said removal appear to have been made in good faith. I would have raised this at WT:KENT but that project is not very active, and the issue could affect other counties. Can members of this WP please clarify the position re geoboxes? Are they essential, desirable, or optional? Mjroots (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

A prose description of surrounding settlements can give more useful detail and background than a box and is to be preferred in line with the policy that Wikipedia should be mainly written in prose. I would not support systematically removing them unless such prose exists or is substituted, but we do not need both. The boxes are large and clutters an article.--Charles (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

My reason for the removal was because there all in the templates below the article (See below}}, What's in an infobox is usually in the article which is understandable, but I couldn't see the logic in having a geography table at the bottom of the article, and then a template with all places in anyway ....

Thanks, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Cranbrook -

Which box are we talking about? Could you give an example diff? Mr Stephen (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I dont actually see the point in them, we give the co-ordinates (sometimes a number of times) so the reader can find it on a map and anything notable nearby is mentioned in prose. They just take up room for no value in my opinion. MilborneOne (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, those. They come up in discussion from time to time. The guideline is at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements, and simply advises Consider using Template:Geographic location as part of the process of identifying the location of a place. I don't think much to them personally, but they do seem popular. Mr Stephen (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I was also a bit confused, thinking the discussion was about Template:Geobox (which I've used for rivers etc a few times). Of the two above I would call the first a navbox & do use them (in collapsed state) to link together articles on closely related topics (including those within a local or unitary authority area - but can be used for non geographic topics as well). The second one with the compass roses I never use as I think they are overlarge for the info they contain.— Rod ^talk 21:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm one of those that finds these templates very useful, especially in an area with which I am not geographically familiar. They are a curated, semantic geo dataset that allow wikiwalk-style navigation across the 'pedia. If they weren't useful, editors wouldn't add them. I don't believe that there is any policy or guideline which says we should replace navboxes and info boxes with prose versions. Thats certainly not what WP:PROSE is about. In fact, such navigation and summary tools usually/often duplicate prose content already in the article. However, I am happy that if an editor wishes to replace an instance of {{geographic location}} with the same content in prose, then that may be acceptable. I still feel that doing so degrades rather than improves the project, but hey-ho. The editor-curated nature of the data will prove very valuable, especially as Wikidata expands. I also find it odd that user:Davey2010 seems to have had some form of Damescene conversion on this issue, given that he mini-edit-warred with user:Charlesdrakew and I on Horley to include such a geobox in his own preferred location. There is no sense in removing a single instance of these geoboxes from an article, when all the surrounding linked articles already contain them. It just creates 'holes' in the coverage, which is not an improvement for anyones usage experience of WP. Atlas-maker (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I readded it as at the time I wasn't aware it was in the nav box ..... Had I known at the time it was in the nav box I would'nt of readded it. -
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Will some of the functions you've identified, particularly in relation to wikidata and moving from page to page, be handled by "Nearby Pages" which is currently in Beta, but adds a button, top right, on articles (which contain coordinate data) and enable you to see a list of nearby article and how far away they are. It is less intrusive on the text of the article. See Nearby Pages on Media wiki for further details. I've had it installed for a while and it seems to work well for me.— Rod ^talk 09:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings on this issue, though if I had to fall one way or the other, I think I'd side with Atlas-maker. Although these boxes are a bit bulky, I don't find them offensive, particularly if the article text has some length and the box is just at the bottom, and they do give information regarding which settlements are immediately adjacent. If that information is presented in the text it can be rather tedious and repetitive to read ("to the north is X, to the north-west is Y, to the west is Z..."). A more elegant solution might be a more detailed map than the one in the infobox, but then I just like maps.

Lastly I think it is incorrect to remove the boxes on the pretence that "all is below", because the settlement templates (as in "Towns and villages in the Borough of Tunbridge Wells", above) don't provide the same information about immediate spatial proximity. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Removing a geobox from an article in favour of a more interesting and less visually disruptive prose description of surrounding settlements does not leave any "hole" in coverage. The same hyperlinks can be in the text as in a box. The reference provided by Atlas-maker is about hyperlinks in general and nothing to do with geography. It makes no difference whether hyperlinks are in prose or in a box. There are plenty of free online maps that can be used to see how places relate to surrounding areas. Maps are one thing Wikipedia is not good at because of copyright and we should not try to do them when better sources are available.--Charles (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

As Charles said there are plenty of free maps so If anyone should want to find a nearest area to Cranbrook for instance they should probably visit a map site, There was a lot of disagreements on Horley as to where it should even be placed So as above it is too bulky so I feel prosing or even having a list is far better then a big box with barely any text in it, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Really? Those wanting 'nearest area' info should use map sites? What next? Those wanting current political representatives should use a politics site? And those wanting info about schools should use an education site? Tsk! The info in these templates has been curated by locally knowledgable editors which adds a greater local knowledge to the mix than any geo-query can do.

Like Rodwl, I have installed the "Nearby pages" plug-in and while it is good, it doesn't currently allow discrimination on the basis of settlements only. Maybe that feature will be added in the future. Atlas-maker (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory. Those wanting detailed information on local schools or political representatives should indeed look to official websites. Wikipedia is not a reliable source as there is never any certainty that it will be up to date or accurate. The comments about curation by locally knowledgable editors would seem to be referring to original research which is not allowed. This is an encyclopaedia not a blog.--Charles (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

By the same token, because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia it is precisely the place people should be able to find detailed information on any notable subject. If a local school or political representative is notable I expect to find that detail here, not to have to wade through hordes of local websites.

I do find the geoboxes a bit crude though and would rather see a clickable map, like the one that's used for suburbs of Southampton (shown below). WaggersTALK 11:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the geoboxes are crude and would be happy to discuss design improvements. I do like the clickable map, especially if it replaces the info box location maps. How does that work? All the geobox entries are entirely verifiable by looking at a map. Unfortunately my wiki-editing knowledge is not up to including a map as a reference. Atlas-maker (talk) 13:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

They're not that easily verifiable. This diff is an example of the editorial decisions required. Each makes reasonable choices for north, north-west and west but they're significantly different. NebY (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Not sure I agree with your conclusion there. To me both versions of the article are WP:V. And maps could be used as references to verify each. The difference is in the curation. And thats the bit I don't want to lose. Atlas-maker (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I very much like the map. Something like that (perhaps collapsible?) on location articles would make it very easy to explore an area via its articles, and be much better than a geobox for giving an idea of how locations within an area spatially relate to each other. It is surely simpler to have such information on a Wikipedia page than to have to wander to other websites (which don't tell you which locations have articles)? Is it currently possible to access that map (with all the suburb articles pinpointed) from each individual Southampton suburbs article - I can only see the map with one location (the article subject) on it? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Not only is it possible, it's been done. See {{Districts of Southampton}} and what links there. The map is collapsed which is why you hadn't noticed it! -- Dr Greg talk 21:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't realised the map isn't clickable. Not as neat as I thought it was. Is it a dynamic map, like the nearby beta function is? Atlas-maker (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Apologies. It is clickable.21:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Do we need to wrap up this discussion and come to some conclusions? Can I suggest the following:

It is agreed that Geoboxes are a perfectly acceptable addition to a UK settlement article
Ideally they should be replaced by dynamic clickable SVG maps such as the southampton example above when those are available

Is that a reasonable a summary of where we are at? Atlas-maker (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion indicates a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the crude and uninformative boxes so I would not support that simplistic conclusion. I propose removing reference to such templates from the guideline.--Charles (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Flags and maps

Thanks for contributing and establishing that Wikipedia already has a convention that flag articles do not contain maps, for example the featured article Flag of Germany. MRSC (talk) 05:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A series of maps have been added to articles in Category:Flags of places in England such as that in the Flag of Dorset article captioned "Dorset". It isn't clear what these maps are displaying as there is no proper description of the file. It looks like they might be counties as existed between 1844 and 1889. In any case, they are out of date. I'm not sure what to do with these. I tried removing them, but was reverted. So I'm asking here:

Replace with maps of the current boundaries
Change the caption to read, for example "Dorset with boundaries from 1844 to 1889"
Keep the maps with caption above, but also add a map with current boundaries
Remove the maps (as the flag articles all link to article about the areas they cover)
Something else?

Any input appreciated! MRSC (talk) 10:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

At first sight, the second or third option, I think. It should be made clear that these are not the current boundaries. The trouble is that the Flag Institute does not recognise some changes to the boundaries (it does not accept that Greater Manchester should have a flag, for example). So, I am not sure what boundaries any flag that is deemed 'official' by the Flag Institute relates to. Mr Stephen (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

If you compare to other flag articles, a map of the relevant area is not included. For example Flags of the Confederate States of America and Flag of Yugoslavia don't have maps, even though you could make a case for a location map to explain were the historic nation was. The focus of those, and other, flag articles is quite rightly on the history and the usage of the flag itself.

Given that, I see no reason to include a map on the county flag articles - nevermind what it shows exactly. eg All Flag of Dorset needs to say is that's the flag of Dorset, it doesn't need to explain what Dorset is exactly, all that matters its a county in SW England. For what its worth the boundaries look like those of the ABC. We don't have it on the truly historic county flags like St Piran's Flag.

To my mind, a map should only be included if its relevant to the flag itself. As a couple examples: If there was a poll to choose the flag, a map of the poll's results would be appropriate. Secondly, with the Flag of the Isle of Wight, a map of the island could show how the flag's design resembles the island.--Nilf anion (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Are these flags relating to a defined area (albeit one which may change over time) or to a spaceless concept? I think it could be viewed as helpful to depict any defined area with a map, though the map should reflect the area to which a flag pertains. (This doesn't currently appear to be the case at Flag of Dorset; the article indicates that the flag relates to the current ceremonial county—i.e. including the unitary authorities of Bournemouth and Poole— whereas the map appears to depict the county council area prior to the 1974 boundary changes i.e. including Poole but excluding Bournemouth and Christchurch, which were then in Hampshire). Doesn't the Flag Institute indicate which boundaries it recognises?. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

@Nilfanion raises a useful point about comparing to other flag articles and they don't tend to have maps, the link to the relevant locality article is enough. @PaleCloudedWhite raises the idea that the flags might relate to areas that effectively don't have boundaries, at least not fixed ones and that seems right to me, and the Dorset example backs that up. MRSC (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I failed to convey my point. What I was trying to state was that if these flags relate to defined areas (and I think they do - it's just that the defined area may change over time), then having a map makes sense. The problem from a practical point of view appears to be ascertaining exactly to which defined area the flag pertains. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. A map that shows all the various definitions might be one solution or several maps. However, the place for these is perhaps the locality articles, rather than the flag articles? MRSC (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I should hope there would be official information somewhere which defines which area a ~~map~~ flag pertains to, though from what Mr Stephen states about the Flag Institute, it sounds as if different sources may make different claims... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

(I assume you mean flag). I don't think these flags have precisely defined areas, who could define them anyway? The council? The government? The Flag Institute might define areas for its own purposes, but its just a registration organisation and has no control over the flags themselves. Flag regulations are very unrestricted and the FI is irrelevant to that - the Greater Manchester flag is governed by same regulations as that of Dorset - you can display them both York if so inclined. To me that suggests the Dorset flag is identification of "Dorset-ness", rather than having a proscribed area.--Nilf anion (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I meant flag - I've altered my post accordingly. I think we're entering a discussion about how people define and perceive space and territory, which could be interesting but is probably a bit of a cul-de-sac (and I don't actually have a strong opinion about this particular question). If there is disagreement (or lack of clarity) about the geographical extent of a territory which a flag represents, it would indeed be less confusing to have no map. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You have a confusion of concepts there. You suggest removing maps because it is an editing convention not to talk of the historic counties in the present tense, but the flags are current and represent current concepts, and the maps show the context of each such concept.

You can argue that counties do not exist as such, by whatever definition of "county" you choose – fine, but the Westmorland flag, the Caernarfonshire flag and the Yorkshire flag and others are all flown in fact to represent those counties that you assert are not counties, and the maps show where those counties are (or county-concepts if you prefer). Those flags are "county flags" because they are flown as such and used as such, and they represent the concept of those counties. If one were to say (which you haven't) that the flags cannot be real county flags because there are no such counties would be as if to look at a statue and say "That is not a statue of Diana the Huntress because Diana is a fictional concept from Roman mythology" – yet the statue represents the concept. The concept needs illustration. Howard Alexander (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the most relevant convention to this is that regarding flag articles. Regardless of the definition of "Yorkshire", why does that matter to the flag? None of the following articles have maps to show what area they correspond to, even when the area is different to that a historical flag applied to or the definition of the area is much more disputed that applies to counties in England (no-one was ever going to start a civil war over Humberside(!)). Look at Flag of Germany, Flag of Poland, Flag of Ossetia, Flag of Scotland, Flag of Cyprus, Flag of Northern Cyprus. The first 2 are FAs, but none have maps.

In this context: Displaying one map, regardless of what that map shows, is POV-pushing for no good reason. It would make sense to include a map if there was a regulation that "the flag of Dorset can only be flown in the historic county of Dorset" - as that regulation would pertinent to the flag itself, and a map would explain its valid use.--Nilf anion (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Census information at the parish level

This is just a heads-up for anyone interested. I've noticed that 2011 census information at the parish level isn't always what it seems. Specifically the ONS lumps very small parishes together with larger adjacent ones - I think for security/privacy reasons. This is apparent at the ONS site itself— providing one is familiar with the relevant parish boundaries—because it has maps delineating the area concerned. However this cojoining of parishes isn't revealed in the ONS page title—it only names the larger parish—and secondary sources such as county councils don't necessarily pick this up, so their information can be misleading. For example, this is the ONS 'Key Statistics' page for Chideock in Dorset. The title just states "Area: Chideock (Parish)", but the map reveals it also includes Stanton St Gabriel parish to the west. Dorset County Council haven't picked this up at their parish population data page and instead just state "no data" for Stanton St Gabriel and a population of 686 for Chideock, yet 686 is actually the population of both parishes combined. I don't know if other local authorities are making similar errors. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography/Archive_14#Misleading_parish_statistics_in_2011_census JonH (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspected I may have missed a previous conversation. Do you know whether the 2011 Census Unit Postcode Headcount data (referred to in that archived conversation) have been published yet? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Flags and maps - resumed

The previous discussion was closed without debate nor consensus, merely on an assertion by one user about what's normal. The amendments to the articles in question have been made without discussion in the relevant places: a hidden conversation on this page is not the way to do it. This is an abuse of administrator's privileges. Howard Alexander (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

That is not an accurate summary of what happened. The record stands for itself. MRSC (talk) 10:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I invite you to look at the other flag articles and establish for yourself what's normal. I've checked a significant number, including every FA, and found nothing but images of the flag, and the occasional photo.

The lead sentence of these articles links to the county article, which is where the differing definitions of the county are discussed. A single map, by itself, is insufficient to explain the complexity (eg Why is Bournemouth included/excluded?). To resolve that needs accompanying text, and that makes it more obviously beyond the scope of an article about the flag, not the county.--Nilf anion (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree the discussion was closed too hastily, as Howard Alexander had only just come to it, though I also agree with Nilfanion and MRSC regarding the use of maps. Despite my initial preference for having a map, in some cases the question of what a flag represents is not sufficiently well defined to be depicted with one map, and elaboration is better left to the relevant (and linked) county article. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

That is the point - the concept is geographical and not always clear, so a map in such circumstances is appropriate. (I'd do the same for other concept flags where the geographical scope is not so well understood.) As an example, in the County Durham case the flag competition was documented as explicitly for the historic county "from the Tees to the Tyne", and the Mayors of Hartlepool and of Darlington accordingly attended the flagraising ceremony. That needs illustration. Likewise the Flag of Huntingdonshire was created as a "county flag", the county being different in area from the local government district. One might say the same of most of them. Howard Alexander (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Such info needs description in article (and remember that Hartlepool and Darlington are also in the ceremonial county - the presence of Sunderland officials would be rather more significant). A block of text will describes what is going on in a way a map cannot. In contrast, a map labelled just as "<county>" induces confusion. The details in difference between historic, and modern administrative areas, are of consequence to the area itself, and so should be discussed in the article about the area. Its enough for the flag article to state what it is the flag, and point the reader to the article about the county if they want to know more about the county itself and its boundaries.

To look at Dorset (info according to article): The flag contest there was run by the county council, and both Poole and Bournemouth councils were invited but declined. The Dorset flag is now flown in Bournemouth (presumably by the council, businesses and private individuals). That flag isn't tied to the historic county, nor is it tied to the modern administrative one. Its related to both.--Nilf anion (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

A description is one thing, but a picture is worth a thousand words, and easier to write. Howard Alexander (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hazelwood, London

I've made a article for the village of Hazelwood in the London Borough of Bromley after discovering it on Google Maps, but I have no idea about about the area. Could someone help? It would be appreciated, thanks. Likelife (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's accurate to call it a village. I've had a look on Google Street View and it is just a collection of houses. This BBC web page describes it as a housing estate: [2] Dubmill (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Ashton Gate

Ashton Gate has been proposed for moving. Please comment at Talk:Ashton Gate. Please also see Talk:Ashton Gate Stadium for previous related move. Simply south...... disorganising disorganisation for just 7 years 19:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission

See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Halton Lea Gate. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Channel Islands wikiproject

FYI, a wikiproject has been proposed to cover the Channel Islands, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Channel Islands -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Your input is requested

The notability and sourcing of County Wildlife Site, an article that falls under the auspices of this project, is currently being discussed at Talk:County Wildlife Site - your input is requested. Thank-you. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 13:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Plymouth move request

[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.121.43 (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Manor of Hougun. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Request to move Cheddar article

A request at Talk:Cheddar#Requested move by 128.206.196.188 (talk) at 18:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC) proposes moving Cheddar and making a disambiguation page rather than the village the primary topic, with discussion about Cheddar cheese. Comments welcome.— Rod ^talk 20:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

River maps

I've been doing some work establishing the watersheds of British rivers recently, and I've used this to create a bunch of maps showing c 100 rivers in Devon (and adjacent counties). See User:Nilfanion/Rivers for full listing - the width is the same as would show in an article.

The maps are deliberately minimalistic to allow build on top of them, and ease production. What I'm looking for is any thoughts on a few points:

Data quality. OK for the larger rivers, and becomes unusably bad at low end. This is due to the OS data being mid-scale, I'm looking to see at what point it becomes junk.
Style. Is the boundary obvious enough - or is it too obvious? That varies from map to map...
The watershed itself. Two problems where OR could rear its head - Where's the mouth? What to do about flood plains? These issues can affect the most important rivers, like the Severn and Thames.--Nilf anion (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nilfanion, the maps look good to me, there are only a few watershed maps on the UK rivers articles, so a consistent set would help improve those pages. The boundary line seems about right as well. About a year ago I did flag up some information on rivers over here, the mouth locations for a fluvial river confluence can be seen on the mapping system ( although no exact co-ordinates), for the mouth of tidal rivers you can switch the 'Other topics for this area' to 'River Basin Management Plans - Estuarine' and you can see that they have used a straight line across the estuary mouths, which is less useful. Regards, Jokulhlaup (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The maps look good. Other editors have previously kindly created maps for articles I've worked on eg File:River Parrett map.png and File:Chew Valley Map.png (the second of which shows the watershed as a blue dotted line). There are in a neighbouring county (Somerset) so I was wondering if new ones of these had been produced to do a comparison. Is it possible to add features such as towns. major roads, railways etc to help readers to understand the relationship between the river and the human geography? Also where the river is a tributary of a larger river it might be helpful to show that as well. I like the wider location map (as on File:River Culm map.png). I note several are titled in the format "River Yeo (River X)" and wondered if these were River Yeos that I've worked on (see River Yeo) and note we don't have a consistent naming convention for these. — Rod ^talk 19:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Fabulous resource. Remarkable. I would say a county (or region) locator box (as in File:River Culm map.png) is a big help for both scale and locality. Is there any coord data to locate the maps? (although I'm sure that ups the creation work). RobinLeicester (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

To me, the maps are self-explanatory for rivers that flow into the sea. But at first I was puzzled by the maps of tributaries. I suggest also using blue to mark the river into which the tributary flows. JonH (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice to get some replies! :) Responses to them:

I have watersheds for every main river in GB (but few tributaries - that will take some time). I'll review against that EA resource.
The Parrett is a good example of a problem river, as defining the eastern watershed is hard on the levels. Uploaded at File:River Parrett relief map.png - one obvious contrast to the existing map is the very different aspect ratio.
These maps are focused on the physical geography, and are intentionally plain to allow creation of simple derivatives (eg adding dots for cities, like File:Thames map.png).
I can add human geography (roads and rail) easily enough, though they may work better on a plain, non-relief, background? I don't think that can be automated, as it needs more human intervention to make sure only relevant stuff is added.
The naming scheme for the Yeos isn't ideal - I went for the parent river as the quickest form, but its confusing as is.
Can do on the insets, though that does significantly add to workload.
With regards to coordinates. I've intentionally used OSGB for the base, as that is best-fit for GB, is low effort and reduces issues with the raster relief data. I can provide grid refs for the corners, but coords would be meaningless.
Tributaries - I like JonH's idea there, I've had a mental block as to how to visualise it without losing focus.--Nilf anion (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Great stuff, well done. Visually I'd say you've got it about right. Personally I'd avoid adding linear features like road and rail - we have Google/Bing maps for that kind of thing and as the other Parrett map shows, it's too easy to clutter it up and you lose the sense of the physical geography. I suggest that if it's not too much trouble you upload a base map similar to the above for people to play with, and then a map to actually go on articles which has just a handful of point features like 2-3 settlements and identifiers for the mountain ranges.Le Deluge (talk) 11:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

How difficult would it be to add the flooded areas to File:River Parrett relief map.png - based on the BBC graphic here? I've just started in my sandbox an article on this winters flooding on the Somerset Levels and this would be useful either instead of File:Map of Somerset Levels.png or as well as.— Rod ^talk 21:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding the floods, there's a few issues: Biggest is availability of data (and a secondary aspect is we don't want live levels, but flooding on a given date - ideally at peak level or a long-term level). The next factor is the format of the source data. It would be possible but extremely difficult to trace the BBC graphic. In contrast, its easy to scrape OpenStreetMap and merge OSM data on to a base map. I'm going to grab that data off OSM.--Nilf anion (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Great Ouse (8,000 sq km)
Ouse (11,000 sq km)
Severn (11,000 sq km)
Thames (14,000 sq km)
Trent (10,000 sq km)

OK I've uploaded maps of the 5 rivers with largest catchments (above, with catchment in brackets). These illustrate my concerns about OR, but IMO should be usable:

Where is the mouth? eg Using the Wye confluence for the Severn?
How to do it in lowlands? eg where is the Nene/Great Ouse boundary in the Fens?

Using the underlying GIS data to determine the area of the catchment would be unacceptable OR. However, it can be used to sense check the article's quoted figure. That shows the figures in the River Ouse, Yorkshire and River Great Ouse are far too low (by a factor of 2 and 3 respectively - presumably the Environment Agency subdivides them.--Nilf anion (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I did wonder what your new maps would look like for larger rivers, and the results are first class, especially where there is a good variation in topography. As for the catchment areas, I did have doubts about the figure for the Yorkshire Ouse, but was unable to find a reference that gave a total figure.

But using the Catchment Flood Management Plans where the Area = Ouse + Derwent + Aire + Calder + Don produces a figure of around 10,700 sq km - close to the 11,000 from your GIS.

It was easier for the Great Ouse, as there was a single catchment plan stating the area as 8,596 sq km which fits with your 8,000 figure. The maps in these reports (or similar ones such as the catchment abstraction management plans [4] ) may be useful in answering your questions, such as where is the mouth - and for checking the catchment boundaries. Jokulhlaup (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, this goes to show how awkward it is to establish a catchment area. The obvious reliable source (the Environment Agency) uses its catchment areas to provide a number of flood management areas, which approximate to the hydrological catchment of the main stream. But they can include areas outside the catchment of the main stream, which are most easily managed by combining with the catchment proper.

To use the Great Ouse as an example, both Heacham and March are in its CFMP, but neither is in the natural catchment. Heacham is within the coastal strip to the north of the river's mouth. March is on the natural course of the Nene, though that area drains into the Great Ouse now. Given the nature of the Fens, any boundary between the Nene and Great Ouse is somewhat arbitrary in any case :)--Nilf anion (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, so much for the easier one, as you said, issues with catchments are more complex than they seem at first glance. Jokulhlaup (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC). After more checks and searches I have located a reference that gives another value for the Great Ouse of 8,380 sq km - which fits with the CFMP value of 8,596 minus the areas for the River Heacham and River Ingol combined, which is around 200 sq. km. Jokulhlaup (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Requesting feedback on Sneinton article

Hi there WikiProject UK geography! I've recently made some major changes to the Sneinton article, and I was wondering if anyone could give any feedback? Any thoughts at all that you could give - good/bad/room for improvement, etc. - would be very helpful. I'd really like to get Sneinton up to Good Article status at some point in the future. Any feedback you could leave feedback on Talk:Sneinton, would be absolutely fantastic. Cheers, Anxietycello (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Take a hatchet to the external links. Mr Stephen (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. Anxietycello (talk) 08:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Help with ONS census data for Taunton

Do we have anyone good at interpreting ONS census data who would be willing to join the discussion about the population figure for Taunton. Recently this was changed from 61,400 (2001 data) to 110,200 for 2011 but this figure is for the whole of Taunton Deane. I think the issue is about defining what are the "the suburbs" and have started a discussion at Talk:Taunton#Population statistics where input would be appreciated.— Rod ^talk 09:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 05:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC).

Infobox map style for civil parishes

User:Rcsprinter123 has changed the infobox map within some Derbyshire settlement articles, replacing the previous widely used version with one highlighting the extent of the settlement's civil parish. For example, this was changed to this. I reverted the change on the grounds that the new map shows less information, and made a comment on that article's talk page. Rcsprinter123 has stated on my own talk page that they would like to see the new map rolled out across all civil parishes. I certainly would oppose such a move, and here request comment from other UK geography editors. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

These articles cover two overlapping, but distinct, concepts: The settlement and the civil parish that contains it. Generally, the article's focus is clearly on the settlement (info about the parish is often restricted to just population data) so it makes sense to make the map as useful to locating the settlement as possible. The same approach ought to apply to both parished and unparished settlements, and it would be silly to treat them differently.

To show the settlement, the dot-on-map is more useful - district and transport info has obvious value. Showing the boundary of the parish itself has some value, but showing the other parishes? I can't see any value to that at all. Looking at the Derbyshire map, the only "parish" I can identify is Derby (and that's an unparished district).

When the parish covers a large area, and is a noteworthy secondary subject, a parish locator may be a useful secondary image.

If the article actually is about the parish. like Hope Woodlands, then a parish map is clearly more suitable.

Two examples in Devon that illustrate these points to me:

Widecombe-in-the-Moor is a large parish, but the article is almost exclusively about the village. eg The article doesn't mention Poundsgate or Ponsworthy, two hamlets within the parish.
Lydford is even clearer. Until recently, Lydford parish included Dartmoor Forest and was a huge area as a result. Before the split - the parish locator would show a huge swathe of south central Devon. That tells you nothing about where the town of Lydford is (N of Plymouth, W of Exeter) as Lydford is the extreme corner of this area. The connection to the Forest of Dartmoor is worthy of discussion in article, and would be a natural place to put the parish locator map. But the town itself couldn't be located with reference to the parish.--Nilf anion (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)