Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:40, 13 March 2008

• ]

What's new
Articles for deletion 19 Jan 2025 – Seacourt (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Qwirkle (t · c); see discussion (9 participants) Redirects for discussion 16 Jan 2025 – Landan (talk · edit · hist) →London was RfDed by Cremastra (t · c); see discussion 16 Jan 2025 – Embro (talk · edit · hist) →Edinburgh was RfDed by Cremastra (t · c); see discussion Featured article reviews 26 Oct 2024 – Trafford Park (talk · edit · hist) was put up for FA review by Z1720 (t · c); see discussion Good article reassessments 19 Jan 2025 – Leeds Country Way (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Z1720 (t · c); see discussion 18 Jan 2025 – Mingulay (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Z1720 (t · c); see discussion Requested moves 18 Dec 2024 – Stainton, Westmorland and Furness (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Stainton (near Sedgwick) by Crouch, Swale (t · c); see discussion Articles to be merged 11 Nov 2024 – Coldmoorholme (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Bourne End, Buckinghamshire by Bearian (t · c); see discussion Articles to be split 04 Jan 2025 – River Winterborne (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by 86.144.233.203 (t · c); see discussion
Did you know? articles Wellesbourne, Brighton (2024-07-01) • Rosal, Sutherland (2024-05-25) • Newlyn Tidal Observatory (2023-11-20) • Godalming (2023-09-20) • Reigate (2023-09-10) Reached maximum of 5 out of 308 Featured pictures A591 road, Lake District - June 2009 Edit 1 Aerial View of Edinburgh, by Alfred Buckham, from about 1920 Canary Wharf from Limehouse London June 2016 HDR City of London skyline from London City Hall - Oct 2008 Lancashire 1610 Speed Hondius - Restoration In the News articles Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City (2021-07-22) • 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods (2009-11-21) • February 2009 British Isles snowfall (2009-02-06) Main page featured articles Coventry ring road (2023-07-23) • Combe Hill, East Sussex (2023-01-11) • Brownhills (2022-03-03) • Abberton Reservoir (2021-09-05) • Shaw and Crompton (2021-08-15) Reached maximum of 5 out of 71 Main page featured lists List of scheduled monuments in South Somerset (2023-12-22) • List of castles in Greater Manchester (2023-04-07) • List of Shetland islands (2022-05-20) • List of freshwater islands in Scotland (2020-04-24) • List of scheduled monuments in Taunton Deane (2018-10-26) Reached maximum of 5 out of 7
This is a list of recognized content, updated weekly by JL-Bot (talk · contribs) (typically on Saturdays). There is no need to edit the list yourself. If an article is missing from the list, make sure it is tagged (e.g. {{WikiProject UK geography}}) or categorized correctly and wait for the next update. See WP:RECOG for configuration options.
Watch

Archives

• /Archive 1 – 2005
• /UK or home nations in introductions – August 2006
• /Archive 2 – 2006 - Feb 2007
• /Archive 3 - Feb 2007 - Oct 2007
• /Archive 4 - Oct 2007 - Feb 2008
• /Archive 5 - Feb 2008 -

English counties map

I wanted to make a proposal for conversion of the current Image:BlankMap-EnglandAdministrativeCounties.png English counties map from the vile pink one to a nicer one similar to the one currently used for the States of Germany such as Image:Deutschland Lage von Baden-Württemberg.svg. The current pink map is outdated, created when infoboxes used a rather foul pink colour and most have become grey now. Views would be welcome here thanks! _└┘talk 20:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The Germany maps look better than ours (which is a minor outrage!), and do believe this could be, or rather is the right way to go. Was there a reason why pink was chosen??

I could help change these maps but there are hundreds of them. I would only be willing to do this with support from other users. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Same colours/style as these ones? Joe D (t) 12:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Anything looks better than pink and red! I do like the German green ones though but the cream map would look ok without the detail. _Joshii└┘ 13:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

need for UK if country included

Hi all, I noticed from my watchlist that User:Camaeron has been adding United Kingdom to a lots of articles (related to buildings) where England is already included (and presumably this would also apply to Scotland, Wales etc). My own thought is that England is a well enough known country to provide the context, but I would be interested in the thoughts of others.— Rod 18:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ooh dear, this makes me sound so criminal! I just think that sovereign states are the most important component in an introduction especially in Geography related topics. England may be very well known and is often used as a synonym for the UK but not all that many people know where little Wales is. I am fully prepared to go back and revert every single edit if considered necessary. Sorry for not consulting you all first, I had never heard of you before Rod wrote to me! Sorry : S! --Camaeron (talk) 18:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem is that many people unfamiliar with the UK think the name of the entire country is England: I recall not too long ago a person from USA stating that they were going to spend some time on holiday in England, staying in Edinburgh for the entire time of their stay! One does need to be alert to the possibility of perpetuating a mistaken belief that would be distasteful at the very least to many quite reasonable people living in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. This sole use of England in articles may do this, even though we may think the extra information is not required because we think we are quite familiar with the complexities at work in this issue. I don't know what to suggest, but merely make that point as an issue to consider.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an issue that has been discussed at length in the past, and, I believe the outcome was in favour of the constituent country only for geographic demarcation. So, it is permissible (and what seems to be a very well established convention) to say "X is a place in Wales. However, it is also quite permissable to say "X is a place in Wales. It has been voted the best place to live in the United Kingdom - where citation allows of course. Every other encyclopedia I've seen also takes this stance. -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont mind both being added. I dont even mind it being shortened to UK but I find it very important. I have noticed pages about states of the USA state that they lie in USA. Otherwise people could also think that these states are independent. --Camaeron (talk) 18:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I am with Jza84 on this one in that we only need the country and not the state in articles, otherwise it looks very clumsy. Keith D (talk) 19:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Abbreviations should be spelt out in full on the first occation, so really UK has to be United Kingdom per the manual of style I'm afraid. I do think the UK is important, but the consensus seems to be against it for demarcation in the first sentence. I don't think the inclusion of "United Kingdom" is likely to last on those articles. There is a debate about Scotland's lead section about the United Kingdom, which you may be interested in at Talk:Scotland however. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the addition of United Kingdom in the text starts to look clumsy in some articles. Is there an appropriate category, template, header or footer which can be added to make the geography clearer to people who are not familiar with UK geography? I had a similar experience to ddstretch when touring in Scotland with Canadian friends.i.e. they thought it part of England.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 20:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion (if we're talking about the same one) is archived here. The outcome was that the constituent country must be mentioned, but there was also a significant minority in favour of mentioning the UK too, and I think that in the end we decided that we had to make mentioning the UK optional. Joe D (t) 12:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Maps

For those looking for maps of places in the uk this may be of interest: commons:User:Geni/OS_maps.Geni 18:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

These sound interesting - we could use one of your partial scans on Weston-super-Mare but what is the copyright status?— Rod 18:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Public domain. Orginal under crown copyright which expires after 50 years.Geni 19:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And the map you requested Image:Weston-super-maremap 1946.jpg in this case the original fell on a fold but other than that reasonable.Geni 20:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - added.— Rod 21:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

River route (or course) maps.

When making a river route map or diagram (similar to waterways, railways and roads), where would the source be placed, top or bottom ? The lists part of the guidelines for rivers suggests listing settlements starting at the mouth, so, should the mouth be at the top? I'm experimenting with some route maps/diagrams, based on the waterways symbols, and would welcome opinions on their orientation.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I would welcome the opportunity to look at/comment on/use these. I would have thought it would depend on whether the river run south to north eg River Parrett or north to south eg River Exe. Could it be integrated with Template:Geobox River or Template:Infobox River?— Rod 15:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm still at a very early stage of experimenting with bits of the route maps, putting in spoof information etc. Here are my raw results ].As you can see the geobox fits into the header. Its still a railway template ( not yet thoroughly converted from the German version, I think).--Harkey Lodger (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Having thought a bit more about it ---. It is probably best to have the estuary or mouth at the top so that the left and right banks are in their conventional positions, when looking downstream. Is it?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good start & you are probably right about the mouth at the top. A couple of thoughts: most of the rivers round here have multiple small sources - could this be cxoped with without making the route map too wide. Also some level of detail may have to be lost on long rivers otherwise it will be far longer than the text on the page - I have this problem with Kennet and Avon Canal.— Rod 17:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion continues at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers‎--Harkey Lodger (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Suburbs of Liverpool

I'm seeking wider input for a debate as to whether Whiston, Huyton and other parts of Metropolitan Boroughs around Liverpool are suburbs of Liverpool.

User:Dmcm2008 has been editting articles to say they are, but without citation, and I subsequently disagree with him. I've offered the compromise that these may effectively be suburbs, but some, like Huyton are towns with town councils and non-contiguous with the city. Please see User_talk:Dmcm2008#Whiston and User_talk:Jza84#Whiston for a little background behind this. Input welcome. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Using a postcode to justify it as a suburb is not a good idea either e.g. Tilbury in Essex has the postcode RM18, RM1 being Romford, a suburb in London. Yet Tilbury is miles away from the London border. Just because they share the same postal area it does not make them in the same area. However, as Huyton and Whiston are just next to the border of Liverpool, it could be considered they are overspill from the city development and be de facto suburbs. Simply south (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say exactly the same as Simply South. The problem with "suburb" is it is a rather broad term to which different groups can ascribe different, possibly contradictory, meanings. With my governance head on, for example, a place with its own council, within its own Met Borough etc., cannot be a true suburb of a nearby larger urban area, although it may be considered a de facto suburb both locally and nationally. With my railway enthusiast head on, though, Whiston, Huyton etc. do appear to be suburbs of Liverpool — they are served by local commuter trains, are within the PTE area and use Liverpool as the base for setting their long-distance fares. With my urban geography head on, places which were originally separate from a city but became absorbed into it through urban growth and infill development — as was the case with Whiston and Huyton, for example — are suburbs more in the US/Canadian sense than in the common UK sense of the term (see here). Having said all of that, something Jza said on Dmcm2008's talk page satisfies me the most at the moment, all things considered: the existence of town councils in these places offers a verifiable source for these places being towns in their own right more than suburbs of the nearby city. Hopefully that makes sense; it's too early in the morning :) Hassocks5489 (talk) 09:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There are term such as dormitory town which may be better than suburb.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with using postcodes, containment within a PTE area, etc is that they are all indirect indicators at best as to whether a place (say X) is a suburb of another place (say Y), and the leap from using them to an assertion that X is a suburb of Y may well step over the bounds of acceptable interpretation into unacceptable extrapolation. The best evidence that a place is a suburb might well be a citation from a suitably appropriate and verified source saying words to the effect of "X is a suburb of Y", and even that may well be subject to error depending on the rigour used by the authors of the source.

Of course, the same thing applies when one is considering whether, say X is not a suburb of Y. We may infer that based on other indirect indicators, but the best might well be evidence stating that "X is not a suburb of Y" or "X is distinct place, separate from Y", which may well be more hard to find, and will be subject to similar kinds of error as in the first case.

If no examples of best evidence is available either way, it may be best to avoid having to make any definitive statement about X in relation to its status as a suburb or not of Y. The same kinds of arguments will apply to using the terms "dormitory towns" and so on. Some things are just not possible to sort out because good evidence either way is absent. In which case, I would suggest using the hard evidence of distance between the respective places' centres, presence or absence of "green space" between them, and so on, all of which can be verified by suitable citations to maps and suchlike, and leave the inferential leap to suburb, dormitory towns, and so on to take place in the minds of people reading the articles, if they choose to make such extrapolations. Doing this will help steer us away from the danger zones of unacceptable Original Research.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Realistically, if they are outside the Liverpool MBC area, and outside the Liverpool Urban Sub-division, then they can probably not be described as a suburb, though dormitory town might fit. Of course, this rule-of-thumb is citation dependant!

PTEs aren't helpful - in no sense are, say, Coventry and Wolverhampton suburbs of Birmingham, yet all three cities share a PTE. Postcodes are equally unhelpful - vast amounts of mid-Wales have SY (Shrewsbury) postcodes, but again those areas cannot be said to be suburbs of that town. Fingerpuppet (talk) 11:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(Added afterwards with edit conflict) The problem of relying on indirect indicators is well-known in many areas that take an evidence-based approach to information and knowledge. The problem is that, because they are indirect, they may have an unacceptable or unknown mis-classification rate (in this instance), so that different indirect indicators will classify X to be a suburb of Y and others will say that X is not a suburb of Y (and we have seen some instances of this in some of the earlier responses to the question). Trying to weigh them up and come to some single decision based on some amalgamation of these different indicators may well constitute Original Research. Furthermore (though related to the first issue), because the indicator is indirect, it may be an indicator of things other than whether X is a suburb of Y, and much more detailed investigation is needed (which will almost certainly be WP:OR in the cases we are concerned with here) to sort them out. That is why I think the best way is to avoid the issue at all if one has to rely on our own interpretations of indirect indicators, rather than published verified and citable sources making direct statements about the two places. Sorry for the slightly more technical explanation here, but it may be of some use to some.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this guys. I had an inclin that this would be the feedback from the team here. I've also had simillar feedback elsewhere. I'll take this back to the user in question and see what can be done as a way forwards. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid User:Dmcm2008 has ignored this feedback and is reinstating his claim. Anybody willing to pass comment on his talk page? He's quite new and I don't think he believes me. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Whist I have not read all feedback, it is sad some of you out there use[REDACTED] so rigidly. Jza84 states so much bull. I live in the city of Liverpool and around the city we have a number of suburbs, districts, call it what you will, which make up the "wider Liverpool". If someone said people from Huyton or Seaforth are not from Liverpool, you would be laughed at. They represent domitory towns if that is what people call it, but please. Please do not say they are not suburbs of Liverpool, because that is an insult to every person from Liverpool in the boroughs of Knowsley and Sefton. Dmcm2008 (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC) My conflict with Jza84 is because the user has decided to reverse any of my work in connection to the suburbs. The user never did seek compromise or discussion. The words "not a suburb of Liverpool" followed his work. This is utter nonesence. Discussion is not needed about that. However the Liverpool Daily Post newspaper, in connection with Capital of Culture has been doing a poll on what constitues Liverpool. Dmcm2008 (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you cite your sources please? I appear to have contradictory evidence to your point of view: Huyon, for example has a parish council and its own central business district (). People from Huyton or Seaforth are not from Liverpool, they are from Huyton or Seaforth. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A resident of L1 and former resident of L38 writes. Suburb implies far more than part of the Liverpool conurbation. Perhaps you would like to explain what you think makes a suburb at the moment it is just you subjective opinion.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not have to site sources. Every article anywhere would be forever adding citations to prove disprove. That you can dismiss places as not suburbs of Liverpool because they are from another borough is silly. Why must you continue to behave in this manner? Anyone with any knowledge of Liverpool knows that if you are in Seaforth, you are in Liverpool, albiet another borough. So if I was in Croydon, south London, or Wembley North London, I would also be in Surrey or Middlesex. There are similarities. Dmcm2008 (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont seek to set my opinion on others, I am seeking to enhance articles but I am concentrating on Liverpool suburbs. So to me Seaforth, L21., is in Liverpool but because it is in the borough of Sefton you cannot say it is in Liverpool, for[REDACTED] purposes. Suburb is middle ground if you like. I am open to alternative phrases. However it must have a link to Liverpool, because it is closely linked. If it just said Seaforth Sefton, it might not dawn on someone it is 'in Liverpool' as it is classed as being in Liverpool by local people. Dmcm2008 (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Middlesex doesn't exist anymore; the county has gone. London has statutory boundaries which encompass Croydon and Wembley. Liverpool's statutory boundaries stop at Liverpool. You're point doesn't make sense, how can you be "in Liverpool, albiet another borough"? -- it doesn't make any sense. Also, material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. You have not provided any evidence and thus your contributions are in breach of Misplaced Pages's principles and policies. Simillarly, the weight of consensus appears to be against you, something you should now respect. "Local knowledge" is not a substitute for verifiability and reliable source material. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to bother discussion. Your insistance in rubbishing my view point on the suburbs of Liverpool, is probably based on no knowledge whatsoever of the city. You quote wikipedia. However each article is open to improvement. I have been doing that that and after other intervention am willing to moderate how it is done to include such words as dormitory town or something along those lines.That in theory should appease. However you are not interested in that, you are clearly only interested in being a funny so and so. What ever your motives you can keep them to yourself. I will continue to edit. Dmcm2008 (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

moving to location query

What do you do when there are two villages in one county (close enough) but no districts\borough which can be used to define where they are? Simply south (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Are they of equal importance? Fingerpuppet (talk) 11:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you give us the specific examples (if any) which you are concerned with? It may help us understand what it is you want to do.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just strolling through location at Gr looking for another place. I just thought i would look at Groeslon in Gwynedd as i went past it. There do not seem to be any districts or boroughs in Gwynedd and there are two Groeslons in Gwynedd, each a small village. There may be other places with a similar problem out there as well. Simply south (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(and what does requyes mean? :))

The "requyes" nonsense was caused by my fingers being too thick for the keyboard I'm using and some glitch meant I couldn't back out of committing myself to posting the message in time. 8-) As for the main issue: this is a problem that is going to crop up when Cheshire local government is re-organised next year, when there will be two Burton's in the same unitary authority area: Burton, Ellesmere Port and Neston and Burton, Chester as they currently are. It probably needs some discussion to work out how best to proceed. I guess using the nearest large settlement to distinguish them might be a good idea, but this may not work in some cases.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I discovered a similar situation quite a long time ago down my way (West Sussex). There are two very small villages called Nutbourne, with few distinguishing features (other than one having a station). A substub article was created for the one near Pulborough, which turned the redlink on the Nutbourne railway station article blue; unfortunately, the station is in the Nutbourne near Chichester! Luckily West Sussex does have local govt districts, so I disambiguated them using those, but the article titles are not very helpful: the one in Horsham District, in particular, is not very near Horsham (town) at all. Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A relevant example may be Ash, Somerset which is a disamb page to Ash (near Taunton) & Ash (near Yeovil).— Rod 13:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Those two could be disambiguated to Ash, Taunton Deane and Ash, South Somerset. Simply south (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Just going back to Ash for a mo, see Whatley. Simply south (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There's also the Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (settlements) which, I understand, we're already familliar with? I guess what we find here could be an addendum for the convention? --Jza84 |  Talk  14:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So should we draw up a new propsal to fix problems like this? Simply south (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)