Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 19:32, 21 January 2025

• WT:UKGEO

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject UK geography and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43Auto-archiving period: 30 days

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 – March 2008
• /Archive 6 – March 2008 – June 2008
• /Archive 7 – June 2008 – Dec 2008
• /Archive 8 – Jan 2009 – May 2009
• /Archive 9 – June 2009 – July 2009
• /Archive 10 – August 2009 – February 2010
• /Archive 11 – March 2010 – January 2011
• /Archive 12 – January 2011 – March 2012
• /Archive 13 – April 2012 – April 2013
• /Archive 14 – May 2013 – August 2013
• /Archive 15 – August 2013 – April 2014
• /Archive 16 – April 2014 – August 2015
• /Archive 17 – August 2015 – September 2017
• /Archive 18 – December 2017 – October 2019
• /Archive 19 – October 2019 – April 2021
• /Archive 20 – April 2021 – May 2021
• /Archive 21 – May 2021 – August 2021
• /Archive 22 – August 2021 – October 2021
• /Archive 23 – August 2021 – October 2021 (Historic counties discussion)
• /Archive 24 – October 2021 – January 2022
• /Archive 25 – January 2022 – June 2022
• /Archive 26 – April 2022 – September 2022
• /Archive 27 – September 2022 – October 2022
• /Archive 28 – October 2022 – May 2023
• /Archive 29 – June 2023
• /Archive 30 – June 2023 – July 2023
• /Archive 31 – June 2023 – July 2023
• /Archive 32 – June 2023 – August 2023
• /Archive 33 – August 2023 – September 2023
• /Archive 34 – September 2023
• /Archive 35 – September 2023
• /Archive 36 – September 2023
• From old WikiProject UK subdivisions
  • English districts

Disagreement on Christchurch article re:settlement definition

There is a dispute at the article for Christchurch, Dorset over whether, how, and in how much detail, the article should cover Bournemouth Airport – a major employer which was in the now defunct borough of Christchurch, but some distance outside the built-up area in a neighbouring parish. This is essentially a difference of opinion on how to handle the ambiguity around defining settlements. If you think you can help resolve this, join the discussion at Talk:Christchurch,_Dorset#Bournemouth_airport. Thanks, Joe D (t) 10:38, 3 April 2022‎ (UTC)

OS grid ref to {{Coord}}?

Is there a straightforward way to create {{Coord}} details from an OS Grid Ref?

@Aizoaceae2: is doing a great job of creating articles on SSSIs in Cumbria, but Natural England's information, both the database entry and the full citation only uses grid refs for locations. NY 266 136 in this case.

My usual route to find lat and long is to locate a place on UK Streetmap and then use its "convert coordinates" link, and the OS grid ref can be used to search UK Streetmap (after you remove the spaces), so that should work, but has anyone got any better recommendation? PamD 16:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@PamD Looked into this a couple of days ago and found this website, Only used it a couple of times - but the results were accurate - albeit the names on the aerial map are jumbled and unintelligible at some zoom levels. The base map can be changed to OS maps. Copy the grid reference to the appropriate box on the left and click Go and coordinates are shown. Rupples (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@PamD: I also use Streetmap.co.uk, but sometimes nearby.org.uk and gridreferencefinder.com are useful. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Another vote for Grid Reference Finder Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, all: GridReferenceFinder looks very useful and I'll bookmark it. It has the advantage that it isn't fussy about spaces in grid refs, so you can copy and paste from a source, like the English Nature SSSI records, which has spaces or one which doesn't.

But it would be very helpful if there was a version of the {{coords}} template which could take an OS grid ref, with or without spaces, as input and produce output as lat and long. Is there a template editor out there who'd like to take up the challenge? PamD 23:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Probably a daft question, but does {{oscoor}} (officially, Template:Ordnance Survey coordinates) not do what you need? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The template output is the Grid Ref, rather than as Decimal or DMS. However, if displaying in one of these formats is preferable then the template can be used to help with conversion. I have mostly done it using the gbmapping template, but oscoor would also work. On the page I was editing I put the grid ref into the template, then previewed the page allowing me to open the link to the GeoHack page on which it gave the numbers needed for the coord template, I then replaced gbmapping with the coord template before saving. EdwardUK (talk) 15:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Places and their unitary authorities

Given the intent of HMG to create a lot more UAs, I suggest we need to think about our current various (and at times illogical) ways of describing them. I am opening this discussion more to get editors to begin to give some thought to the topic (especially of the many special cases) rather than rushing to judgement.

I will begin by stating what I believe to be the problem: there are articles about places which describe them as unitary authorities, which is not correct. It is their governing local authority that is the UA, not the place governed. Sometimes we have recognised this using the phrase "Unitary Authority area", which is more accurate though rather awkward to my eye. Much of the problem arises in the cases where we have one article that is trying to do everything, which inevitable for smaller places. But there are others that have a separate article for the local authority, which I think helps resolve the issue. Take for example North Yorkshire (district), where the current opening sentence reads:

• North Yorkshire is a non-metropolitan county and unitary authority area (legally known as the County of North Yorkshire), in the ceremonial county of North Yorkshire, England.

which used the awkward "UA area" syntax. IMO, it would read better (and be more useful and informative because it introduces the LA) if it said

• North Yorkshire is a non-metropolitan county (legally known as the County of North Yorkshire), in the ceremonial county of North Yorkshire, England. It is administered by North Yorkshire Council, a unitary authority.

Another example, which also uses the "UA area" syntax is the City of Peterborough article, which begins:

• Peterborough, or the City of Peterborough, is a unitary authority area with city status in the ceremonial county of Cambridgeshire, England. The district is named after its largest settlement, Peterborough, but also covers a wider area of outlying villages and hamlets.

I would rewrite that as

• The City of Peterborough is a Borough with city status in the ceremonial county of Cambridgeshire, England. The district is named after its largest settlement, Peterborough, but also covers a wider area of outlying villages and hamlets. The borough is administered by Peterborough City Council, a unitary authority.

Borough of Swindon confuses me because half of it seems to be a wp:CFORK of Swindon Borough Council, so it is only a matter of time before someone proposes that the two articles be merged. It too uses the "UA area" syntax. (I would just remove the cfork material.)

I guess that is enough to 'seed' the discussion: I suggest we start by identifying the awkward cases where the solution is not obvious. The floor is open. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I would just add that the ONS and ISO 3166-2:GB make no distinction between the area and the authority - both are termed 'unitary authority'.

According to the ONS and ISO 3166-2:GB, a second-level subdivision can be a two-tier county, a London borough, a metropolitan district, a district (NI), a council area (Scotland), or a unitary authority (England and Wales). Encyclopaedia Britannica also makes no distinction.

I'm not particularly animated whether it is decided to use a different term from the official terminology or not. But I do think it should be noted that we would indeed be straying from the official terminology and making something up just for Misplaced Pages. Personally, I think it's bad practice for an encyclopaedia, but there is precedent. Dgp4004 (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, the white paper has only stated that HMG wants to reduce the bureaucry of the so many levels of local government to make it easier to facilitate the decentralisation of power, and in theory reduce cost. However, the paper says that central government won't force UAs onto areas, it will be down to the local authorities to come up with the solution. That means, us trying to put foward a process of how to word them now is pointless as we cannot predict what us going to happen. If you look at Essex alone, the Times predicted that it would be one council based upon the CC, while the BBC put forward mergers of local areas. Basildon Council's leader is stating they would fight any merger into an Essex UA, and want to take Thurrock on (without the debt lol). Rochford Councillors are already trying to fight talk of a merger of Rochford and Castle Point with Southend. Thats just Essex! Let's leave as is until we see what happens. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• "North Yorkshire is a unitary authority area in the ceremonial county of North Yorkshire" should work fork NY, I have questioned the use of "county" as confusing, see the talk page. With Peterborough would something like "Peterborough is a unitary authority area with city and borough status in the ceremonial county of Cambridgeshire" work. As I've suggested before we should probably merge Swindon Borough Council with Borough of Swindon but others have said that top local authorities should have separate articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  The advantage of having XYZ Council articles is that provides a home for the obsessive detail about which party topped the poll in the nnnn local elections, which wards etc. And the Council infobox can have all the wonderful detail about who the (ceremonial) mayor is, who is the leader, who is the Chief Exec etc etc. That leaves the location article to be about the location. And yes, I really think that the term "PQRST Unitary Authority area" is ugly and prolix and we shouldn't use it any more than we have to. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

There's honestly a lot of clutter going on, with over-definition and often subtly incongruous verbiage that I'm hard pushed to think anyone cares about in the first sentence. We seem averse to simple statements. i.e. "Peterborough is a city and unitary authority in the county Cambridgeshire, England". or "The City of Peterborough is a unitary authority in the county of Cambridgeshire, England" - we can explain all the statuses conferred in subsequent paragraphs. Koncorde (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Except that neither Peterborough nor City of Peterborough is a Unitary Authority, so let's not make deliberate errors. We can cut the clutter and incongruous verbiage by saying simply that "Peterborough is a city in Cambridgeshire, England" and "The City of Peterborough is a borough with city status in Cambridgeshire, England". The details of their administration is of marginal interest to most readers but a subsequent sentence could add "It is administered by Peterborough City Council, a unitary authority." 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

When I began this discussion by saying that there are many special cases. In places like City of Carlisle and City of Milton Keynes, there is a large hinterland that merits a separate article. City of Peterborough has a rather small area outside the city and this is one where maybe the "City of ABC" and "ABC City Council" could be combined. Borough of Swindon and Swindon Borough Council might be another (local consensus applies, of course). But in each case, the primary settlement merits its own article with minimum detail on the local authority. IMO of course. Fundamentally, there won't be a "one size fits all" answer. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

But (City of) Peterborough is the Unitary Authority (in the same way it is a District) - the Council isn't separate from the "City" (or Borough in other instances) because they are the same administrative function / tier. They have separate articles on[REDACTED] because we like to make things fun for ourselves but the idea that the City of Peterborough is just about the "area" of the UA isn't true. What is true is that the UA representative function is the council, in much the same way Metropolitan Borough of St Helens is one and the same with the Council itself, as the same way Liverpool and Manchester are both a "City and Metropolitan Borough" that the council is "for" the administration of. City of Carlisle is in fact a fine demonstration of what happens when the UA is abolished - the "City of" becomes a former administrative entity, while Cumberland and Cumberland Council are the new Unitary Authority administrative entity - they are indivisible, just as if they decide tomorrow to change the UA again.

Milton Keynes is an odd one, but I don't buy the idea that there is a particular difficulty here beyond one we are making for ourselves when it comes to 99% of situations. Koncorde (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• While 'unitary authority area' isn't the most elegant wording, I think it's a reasonable compromise given the fairly complex administrative situation. Unitary authorities are either county councils with the responsibilities of a district council or district councils with the responsibilities of a county council, and the areas they govern almost always consist of a non-metropolitan county and a non-metropolitan district with identical boundaries. I believe this is because local government in England is still structured within the framework of the Local Government Act 1972, which requires an area to have two tiers of local government.

If we were being entirely accurate then we would open North Yorkshire with something like 'North Yorkshire is a non-metropolitan county and coterminous non-metropolitan district in the ceremonial county of North Yorkshire, England. It is governed by North Yorkshire Council, a unitary authority with the powers of a non-metropolitan county council and non-metropolitan district council.'

I'm something of a stickler for describing local government arrangements as accurately as possible, but even I don't think we need to go that far. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

And that is an excellent illustration for why the details of the administrative arrangements belong in the relevant local authority article, not the location article. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The whole reason most of these Frankenstein areas exist is for administrative purposes. It's hardly irrelevant to the area article. What it is is right up there with where it is.

I suppose unitary authority area would work so I'd back that. It's only one word off the official terminology and separates the area from the council for those who place importance on that. Dgp4004 (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The term used by the government for all types of local government subdivision in England is 'local authority district'. That's another option. Once all authorities are either unitaries or metropolitan districts, their exact status beyond an area for local government will be less important. Something like:

'X is a local authority district in Y, England. It is administered by X Council, a unitary authority.'

Dgp4004 (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

"local authority district" reads well to me. It would side-step the awkward cases of artificial counties created for HMG's administrative convenience, to avoid having to search and revise 1000 years worth of acts of Parliament. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely it is relevant and should certainly be mentioned in the first few sentences. Geography includes economic, demographic and political as well as physical. What I'm trying to achieve is accuracy, that we don't say that a place is an authority. If there is a convenient hook to hang it on, like a council, we can record that it is a UA but if not, then I agree that we have to say that the place is in XYZ UA area (but definitely not in XYZ UA). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I would be happy enough with this suggestion though the current use of "unitary authority area" may still be best. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Ceremonial county articles generally don't go into great detail about administrative arrangements, but counties are closely linked to local government and this justifies the customary mention in the lead and short section in the body. The administrative arrangements of Lancashire are largely confined to a sentence in the lead and five paragraphs in the body, for example. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that referring to both North Yorkshire (the UA area) and North Yorkshire (the lieutenancy area) as "counties" is confusing, but that's the confusion in real life. One is legally the "County of North Yorkshire" (and in my experience is almost always referred to as a county and hardly ever as a "district"), and the other is commonly referred to as a "ceremonial county". To my mind it is much less confusing to explain the position in a single article, as we always did before the unitary authority was created (or, to be accurate, given the powers of the predecessor district councils and then renamed). We are dangerously close to saying "North Yorkshire is an area in North Yorkshire".

There was an extensive discussion on this here. I thought there was more or less a consensus there that in cases such as North Yorkshire, Shropshire, Somerset and Dorset, where the unitary authority covers most of the area of the ceremonial county, it was best to treat both in a single article, which would explain the position. Mhockey (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The white paper sets out criteria for the new unitary authorities - in particular, the areas councils serve should have populations of more than 500,000 people. That means many places that are currently governed by unitary authorities, including Peterborough and Swindon to pick on two of the examples provided, will no longer be unitary authority areas in their own right as they are now.

I see little point in investing time working out how the introductions to those articles should be phrased when we're going to have to change them again anyway; equally Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball and until we know for certain what the new configurations are going to be, everything else is speculation.

When we know what's happening for certain and have reliable sources to reference, we can make the necessary changes; until then, discussions like this are as pointless as rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic in my opinion. WaggersTALK 11:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Just catching up on this discussion, so jumping on the end rather than inline to specific parts that have gone cold. It looks like the format 'X is a local authority district in Y, England. It is administered by X Council, a unitary authority.' is fairly settled as a good standfirst for the articles about the areas, and that looks good to me. But in other contexts, I think there has possibly been some overzealous policing of the term "unitary authority" being applied to an area.

The original premise is that is wrong to use the term "unitary authority" to describe an area, and only correct to use the term to describe a council   JMF says (my emphasis):

• "there are articles about places which describe them as unitary authorities, which is not correct"
• "Except that neither Peterborough nor City of Peterborough is a Unitary Authority, so let's not make deliberate errors."

A couple of people have already challenged this premise, and Dgp4004 cited a couple of good examples of the fact that the term has broader usage than just being the council. I think this is pretty fundamental and needs analysing further. On Misplaced Pages, we don't say something is not correct. We might say that an interpretation can't be verified by reliable sources, or that there are insufficient reliable sources to demonstrate its notability, and therefore it should not be included. Or we might say that the weight of reliable sources points to something being a fringe theory and coverage of it should treat it accordingly. Otherwise, we reflect common usage as found in the sources. "Technical" and "legal" definitions might have particular weight, in particular circumstances, but we do not say a common usage is wrong if it differs from such "official" usage – we just describe the relevant complexities and reflect common usage in our language.

The question for us is not "what term can we cobble together to describe these areas", the question is how do reliable sources describe a place? And I think there could be a case that sources describe these places as "unitary authorities" and we should reflect that common usage. There are certainly lots of people out there saying things like "Luton+is+a+unitary+authority" "Luton is a unitary authority".

A vaguely analogous situation might be something like Nut (fruit). The article explains the technicalities of how the term is defined by botanists, and also that in common usage it's used much less strictly; meanwhile, our article about Cashew explains that, technically, in botanical terms, what the plant produces is a "Drupe", but it then merrily uses the colloquial term "nut" throughout, because that's common usage whatever the botanists might say about "correctness". Our equivalent here might be to explain, where relevant, that a place is "a district governed by a unitary authority called X Council", but to then be relaxed about the article subsequently using the term UA to refer to the area, and to be similarly relaxed about usage of the term in contexts where the precision isn't important, like a village's infobox.

Along these lines, I've put together some specific cases for edits/policies/precedents that might serve to move things forward – in separate sections below. Joe D (t) 00:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

But we would never say "Cornwall is a county council" or "Cornwall is a local authority". What makes "unitary authority" special, apart from the age of its delineation?

"There are people out there" saying lots of things, but we depend on reliable sources. Luton is "a town and borough in Bedfordshire" (our own article): it is not a UA, it is administered by a UA. (If the boundary had been drawn logically to include Dunstable (the border between them is imperceptible), the writing of "people out there" might be more obviously sloppy.)

AFAICS, the sources give the form of administration ("an administrative unit" (EB), "subdivision category". The ONS section is headed "administrative geography".)

Where space is constrained (as in tables), shortcuts are appropriate but when we have space to discriminate, we should use it. When we have that space and we don't use it, we are knowingly misleading our readers. Cashews pass the duck test – local authorities don't. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

What makes unitary authorities special is that the usage out in the world appears to be different. We would not call Cornwall a county council because people out in the world don't call Cornwall a county council. People do often call places "a unitary authority". In Misplaced Pages we reflect natural language and common usage.

Strictly correct English language usage would use ‘has’ rather than ‘is’ - hence Cornwall has a unitary council. But we all know that common usage doesn’t always match up with correct usage. MapReader (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Again, "correct" is a judgement of the kind that Misplaced Pages doesn't make. The usage might not be what the original users of the term intended. The usage might be different to some other usage. You might even be able to find a source that says "this usage is wrong" (though I don't think anybody in this thread had done so yet) – in which case we would be able to report "X source use the term to mean areas, but Y source has argued that it is wrong to use the term this way". But none of that makes it any less notable that this usage is fairly common, or means that we should try to police and purge what is common enough usage in those contexts where the precision doesn't matter. Joe D (t) 20:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

The 2 sources that Dgp4004 shared are indeed about administrative geography. They are taxonomies of types of area: "two-tier county", "district", "London borough, "unitary authority" – clearly they are happy to view the term "unitary authority" as of a type with those other kinds of area. Joe D (t) 14:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The authoritative RS says Unitary authorities may cover a whole county, part of a county or a large town or city. For example, Cornwall Council, Nottingham City Council and Reading Borough Council are all unitary councils. Wales has unitary councils. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

So what you're saying is the terminology is "unitary councils"? We should stop calling the councils "unitary authorities" and start calling them "unitary councils", because the authoritative source that you've just cited uses the terminology "unitary councils"?

I'm being facetious of course, but you have neatly illustrated once again that officialdom is much more relaxed than you are about usage of these terms – they're perfectly happy to slip into casual terms. You keep sharing more sources to demonstrate people using the term "unitary authority" to refer to councils, as if anybody in this discussion were disputing that the term can be used to refer to councils. We know that UA can refer to councils, what you haven't demonstrated is that UA is not and must not be used to refer to areas. All that your LGA source demonstrates is how the LGA use the term. The source doesn't say "this is only way to use the term" or "it is wrong to use the term any other way" (and even if it did, given that Misplaced Pages reports what the sources say and given that there is an abundance of usage to the contrary out there, we would say something like "X, Y and Z sources use the term to mean the areas administered by the councils, though the LGA have argued that this usage is incorrect and the term should only be used to refer to the councils themselves."

Besides, the LGA are in no way the authoritative source on the issue in question. The LGA is an association of councils which publishes information on the business of councils, of course their focus is going to be on councils. Different sources have different purposes and their usage varies accordingly – it's something we deal with all the time in UK geography, where there's so much ambiguity. Joe D (t) 20:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

The key point is the distinction between a place and its administration. The rest is detail. What they are saying is that the unitary authority for Cornwall is Cornwall Council. It is a logical nonsense to say that Cornwall is an authority. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

What you're saying is that you don't like the usage. I agree that it's not an especially aesthetically pleasing usage. That makes no difference to the fact that's a fairly established and not uncommon usage, and Misplaced Pages shouldn't ignore that.

It is a logical nonsense to call Cornwall an authority because there is no established usage of the word "authority" on its own to mean a place, but only because of that. It is perfectly acceptable to call Cornwall a unitary authority, because this usage is a fairly established and common one that is readily demonstrated in sources. Indeed, it's such an acceptable usage that nobody has ever noticed any absurdity in our North Somerset article throughout its more than 21 year existence. Language evolves. Words take on new usages all the time. Misplaced Pages reflects that, it has no remit to police it. Joe D (t) 21:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Here are some more:

• There are currently 309 civil parishes in the Kent County Council area and a further 11 in the Medway Unitary Authority area.
• The County of Durham is a unitary authority area, with a secondary tier of town and parish councils (known as local councils) which serve their communities.
• A map showing the Peterborough City Council Unitary Authority area, you can also see the Unitary Authority area on an interactive map.

and many more. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what these are for? We have no shortage of sources for the term "unitary authority area", and nobody needs persuading that "unitary authority area" is a term in common usage, we're all agreed on that. (And actually I've just added some even better sources for that fact to the unitary authorities article.)

I can equally find thousands of sources that say cashews are drupes, that doesn't mean that it's any less true or notable or demonstrable that cashews commonly get called nuts. (I can even find hundreds of sources that say "cashews are not nuts" – more than can be said for sources that say "unitary authorities are not areas".)

While we're sharing sources through, my favourite of the many that I have just trawled through is this one – from the LGA again: "Northumberland County Council is the largest yet most sparsely populated unitary authority area in England, and is home to approximately 316,000 people." Joe D (t) 00:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Which just proves that local authorities are grossly over-staffed! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of whether it's fine to tolerate "misuse" of the term unitary authority and going back to the question of what our preferred terminology for the areas should be, research for the proposed updates to the "unitary authorities of England" page brought up a couple of candidates which appear to have a good case behind them:

• "unitary district" is used fairly extensively in legislation and a fair bit within
• "unitary area" is also used in legislation, by the LGA, and in the trade press

"Unitary district" feels like a good, concise, unambiguous option – I can picture it replacing the contested UA field in Infobox UK place. "Unitary area" isn't as clear – but it might be a suitable abbreviation when you've already used "unitary authority area" and it would be overkill to write it out in full again. Joe D (t) 01:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, "district" reads better to me too. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

"District" is supported by the existence of articles such as Wiltshire (district), created six months ago. More of them at Category:Unitary authority districts of England. Wire723 (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

References

1. "Standard: ISO 3166 – Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions". ISO. Retrieved 16 January 2024.
2. "Mid-Year Population Estimates, UK, June 2022". Office for National Statistics. 26 March 2024. Retrieved 3 May 2024.
3. "Milton Keynes". Encyclopaedia Britannica. 30 December 2024. Retrieved 1 January 2025. Milton Keynes, town and unitary authority, geographic and historic county of Buckinghamshire, south-central England.
4. "Government and society". Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2 January 2025. Retrieved 2 January 2025. England's internal subdivisions and administrative units include distinct historic, geographic, and administrative counties; districts; unitary authorities; metropolitan counties and boroughs; and other specialized entities... England currently contains 56 administrative units called unitary authorities, so named because, unlike administrative counties, they are not subdivided into districts... Some cities in England are designated as unitary authorities.
5. "A Beginners Guide to UK Geography (2023)". Open Geography Portal. Office for National Statistics. 24 August 2023. Retrieved 9 December 2023.
6. "How is local government organised?". Local Government Association.
7. "Kent geography". Kent County Council.
8. "Durham Local Councils Charter" (PDF).
9. "Maps of Peterborough".

Wards of UAs

An article on the council could usefully be a home for a list of the wards from which the councillors are elected, and there could then usefully be redirects from ward names rather than articles, for those wards with invented or generic names ("Castle", "North", "Memorial" etc) as opposed to actual places (villages, parishes, and other actual OS-mapped places) which also give their name to a ward which can be mentioned in their article. PamD 19:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Are wards specific to the council rather than the district? I'd say not particularly given districts are devided into wards (and often parishes) so they're essentially subdivisions of the district even though they may be used for elections. So I'd argue the wards could be put in the district article. What would be relevant to the unitary councils (and other district councils) is the parish councils and meetings that the district has however if you look at say Uttlesford#Parishes this can usually be easily covered in the district its self. Obviously when you have the likes of Nottingham where there is no separate article on the district then an article at Nottingham City Council is clearly justified, similarly Isles of Scilly deals with the island group as well as the district so Council of the Isles of Scilly is clearly needed. With the likes of Brighton and Hove and Thurrock thought there aren't OS settlements with the name the names the names are it seems used for more than just the district thus separate articles may well be helpful. With the likes of Westmorland and Furness Council where the name only exists as a district and Milton Keynes City Council where the district is split from the settlement Milton Keynes it might be better to just merge. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

C,S, I don't understand what you mean by "the district is split from the settlement"? City of MK covers the entire "head" of Bucks, MK itself is only about 20% of its area. BTW, City of Carlisle is another example of a geographical area substantially larger that the core settlement and with a significant number of non-trivial other settlements. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@JMF: What I mean is that if you look at for example Fareham and Gosport in Hampshire (which are both pre 1974 districts and single unparished areas) you can see that we have an article at Fareham which deals with the settlement and Borough of Fareham deals with the district but there is no separate article at Fareham Borough Council which redirects to the district. On the other hand we have an article at Gosport for the settlement and district, there is no separate article for the district at Borough of Gosport. However we do have a separate article on the council at Gosport Borough Council. With Milton Keynes we have Milton Keynes on the settlement, City of Milton Keynes on the district and Milton Keynes City Council on the council. What I'm saying is that we should normally have an article on a X settlement but not normally an article on X district and X council. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I know that that is your view. I assume you equally appreciate that I don't agree. The political history of districts – that have had identifiable existence for 50 years – seems to take an inordinate amount of space. The overwhelming majority of visitors have no interest in that sort of detail and should not have it shoved down their throats. wp:Think of the reader, most of whom are on mobile. It parks it out of the way. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The history of political entities does tend to be the focus of political entities because they (frankly) don't serve any other purpose. We're creating this problem trying to solve something that doesn't exist - then worrying about the impact of our decision on our article structure when HMG decides to change it. Koncorde (talk) 09:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are actually two issues being discussed here: how we show the political history and what we call unitary districts, especially when they share a name with a ceremonial county. On the political history, it used to be that most districts had in effect three pages: "X District", "X District Council", and "X District Council elections". There were significant messy overlaps and forks between them. Some districts have very active editors, keen to show detailed histories of every single ward and councillor, other districts get much less attention. I spent some time a couple of years ago trying to consolidate and standardise the political history onto the council page as the one most editors seemed to focus on. The decision was then separately taken to merge the pages for the district and the council in most cases. If the consensus is that the political history is overwhelming where it is, perhaps we should move it to the elections page, accompanied by suitably prominent links from the page discussing the council. My slight reservation on that solution is that some districts' pages without the political history would then be reduced to stubs, or give undue prominence to certain demographic tables as the main remaining content, which can be equally niche.

On what we call unitary districts, in most cases I'd advocate for calling them a district or borough, coupled with noting where necessary that its council is a unitary authority. I dislike 'unitary authority area' as a cumbersome term which introduces too much jargon. For the eight unitaries which share their name with ceremonial counties but don't cover the whole area (Buckinghamshire, Dorset, Durham, Shropshire, Somerset, Wiltshire, East Riding, North Yorkshire), I think we have created this problem by being too fussy about separating pages for the ceremonial county from the local government county. I would have preferred to keep a single page which explains the differences between the two definitions. That way would also have simplified incoming links; "Y is a village in Wiltshire" is somewhat more elegant than "Y is a village in the Wiltshire unitary authority area of the ceremonial county of Wiltshire", whilst "Z is a village in the borough of Swindon in Wiltshire" also works. Stortford (talk) 07:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Wards are specifically electoral units. I've just found List of electoral wards in England by constituency which needs some attention, as it doesn't reflect recent changes eg Leeds North West, and can't handle a constituency which crosses a county boundary, Morecambe and Lunesdale (now has some of Cumbria, as well as Lancashire). PamD 23:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Wards (aka district electoral divisions) exist only for electoral purposes and their boundaries are very fluid (at least in places with significant population growth, they are). Civil Parishes are a lot more static, though they do change, albeit very rarely. So the Council article is the ideal home for wards, their history and their politics – after all, they do elect councillors. It seems to me that the CPs belong in the District article. As for Parliamentary constituencies...! --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Wards are also used for statistical purposes and this is perhaps why the the recent spate of separate articles is being created for the district wards; witness content of recent additions, such as St Mary's, Spalding, where the relevant council is not explicitly stated in the text. Some councils e.g. Birmingham, publish deprivation and other statistics by ward and there may be secondary coverage. This type of statistical information may not be published for an individual named settlement within the ward. Other creators of ward articles have focused on local election results, e.g. Bordesley and Highgate where the content could be expanded with commentary on social statistics. Suspect this doesn't apply to town/civil parish wards though, so these are likely not notable. Rupples (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: our unitary authority article should include the fact that it is a common usage to describe areas as UAs

• As described in full in the original discussion, Misplaced Pages describes common usage: things which are notable and verifiable according to reliable sources. We do not privilege a particular perspective purely because it is "official". We're comfortable describing subtle complexities, and we don't privilege "official" names and "legal" definitions over other equally common usages.
• It is notable, and readily sourced, that "unitary authority" typically means a local government body, especially in official usage.
• It is also notable that the term "unitary authority" is frequently used colloquially, and even sometimes in officialdom, to mean the area. Dgp4004 already gave the example above of ONS and ISO 3166-2:GB using it thus.
• Therefore, the unitary authorities of England article should describe the plurality of ways that the term gets used in both official and common usage. It should probably lead with and give additional weight to coverage of the definition that it is a local government body over the definition that it is an area – but only because that usage is more common in the sources, not because it is "official" or "more correct".
• Under WP:SECONDARY, the ideal situation would be to have a good secondary source that states this conclusion explicitly – "officially the term means a local government body, but people often also use the term colloquially to mean the areas" – because that would make things neat and tidy. I've yet to find such a source, and I doubt there is one. But it is still perfectly possible to describe usage without falling into synthesis of an unsourced conclusion, it just becomes a bit wordier.

Therefore, I propose that the introduction section of unitary authorities of England should have an additional paragraph at the end something along the lines of: The term "unitary authority" has also been used to describe the geographical areas that administered by such an authority. For example, the Office for National Statistics use unitary authority as part of their geography, and ISO 3166-2:GB uses the term as a subdivision category for the United Kingdom. (citations in Dgp4004's post).

Yays/nays? Suggestions on wording? Joe D (t) 00:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:Strong oppose. Our aim is to be an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. The Local Government Association is very clear on the subject: a Unitary Authority is a type of local authority. It is not a type of place. Not difficult. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC) I misread the question. wp:Trouting self. I have no objection, indeed support, having this explanation/clarification in the general article about UAs. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Where do the LGA say that a UA is not a place? They say that UAs are local authorities are councils – as you'd expect for an association of councils, they're interested in councils – something that nobody has ever disputed. But where do they forbid its casual use to refer to the place? Even if the LGA were the "owner" of this term, in your own example they say: "London boroughs are unitary authorities" – not have, are'. So the LGA do it too, because people are casual about this usage, and we shouldn't be uptight about it either. Joe D (t) 20:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I think we're fine to mention this as we can include misconceptions in articles especially as reliable sources do this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Of course they don't forbid it, that is a straw-man. But we shouldn't encourage it in encyclopedic writing and especially not in infoboxes. Our article "Europe" doesn't assume that Europe starts at Calais, though if you relied on custom and practice in British media, that's what we should say – I doubt you would support any proposal that we do so. It is a simple thing to say "Unitary Authority area" or "Unitary Authority district". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

The Europe page doesn't discuss that because it is a large enough topic to have split into several articles with a diambiguation page, Europe (disambiguation), which lists among the alternative usages of the word "Europe" Continental Europe, which discusses the fact that "In both Great Britain and Ireland, the Continent is widely and generally used to refer to the mainland of Europe.... In addition, the word Europe itself is also regularly used to mean Europe excluding the islands of Great Britain, Iceland, and Ireland ... the term is often used to refer to the European Union... The term mainland Europe is also sometimes used... Usage of these terms may reflect political or cultural allegiances".

The only difference here is that there is not enough to say about unitary authorities to be worth dividing it up into multiple articles for different usages. Joe D (t) 00:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:BOLD (or WP:BRD if you must), I have had a go at a first draft so you can get a clearer idea of what's proposed and we have something specific to discuss and develop. It could use some work, and is currently a big WP:OVERCITE, but hopefully it's enough to dispel the apparent fear that this is some radical attempt to completely redefine "unitary authority" as areas and obliterate its definition as councils – the mention of its colloquial usage meaning areas is just one short sentence at the end of the second paragraph. Joe D (t) 01:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Per above, I have given myself a firm trouting for failure to observe "How to answer your GCSE question #1: Answer the question actually asked, not the one you think is being asked". My apologies for wasting everyone's time. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: tighten up the UA field in Infobox UK Place

As things currently stand, there is ambiguity in Template:Infobox UK Place which needs addressing. This edit to Aylesbury changed unitary_authority field from an area to council, and added a shire_county field for the district article. This broke the Infobox map, because there isn't a map for that district.

It is clear from this discussion on the template talk page 15 years ago(!) and from the example in the template documentation that the intention was to link this field to areas and not councils (though I'm guessing that was before so many councils got split out into their own articles), and that was generally how it was used, at least until recently.

Given that we're now being inconsistent, and given the impact on the logic and functionality that depends on these fields, and given the risk that this becomes another infobox field that people periodically edit back and forth, I think we need to pin down some guidance one way or the either. So I have a collection of proposals:

• Proposal 1: whatever else we decide, the unitary_authority field should link to the article unitary authorities in England instead of the current link to districts of England per the policy at WP:TRANSPARENCY: it should be obvious to the reader what something links to from the display text, no surprises when you click.
• Proposal 2: have explicit written guidance (in the template documentation and/or WP:UKTOWNS) for how the unitary_authority field should be used:
  • option A: formalise the status quo/original intention – that this should link to the area article; in this option shire_county is redundant and doesn't need to be used.
  • option B: change to a preference to linking to councils, and update/fix any of the logic, maps etc that were built on the assumption that this field will be an area and/or that shire_county will never contain a district.

On proposal 2, as it stands, my vote would be for option A: in an infobox field, where space is tight, I think it is perfectly acceptable for us to follow colloquial usage and use "unitary authority" to describe an area   the field will anyway link to articles where the full technical explanations will be given. Indeed, on an article about a village, my guess is that the average reader will find the area information (and the article it links to) more useful than the council. But I'm open to arguments to the contrary (or for other options I haven't thought of). Joe D (t) 00:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The error was in adding shire_county. Buckinghamshire ceased to be a non-metropolitan county in 2020 when Buckinghamshire Council was created as a Unitary Authority.

• P1: support
• P2: oppose option A (it's only about 30 years out of date); support option B (per the LGA).

𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support 1 but why not just change the link from ] to ] linking to an articles dealing with unitary authorities/unitary districts seems better and more specific than the districts of England article even if the title of the article is for the councils rather than areas. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: it is fine to casually describe an area as a UA and we should discourage attempts at "correction"

Prompted by this edit to Luton:

• I think it was fine, and useful, to describe the government_type as unitary authority
• I think it was fine (but possibly excessive information anyway? We do have a habit of cramming lots into infoboxes) to include the date it became UA
• I think it fine to describe Luton as a UA at the top of its infobox, in settlement_type.

All the legal technicalities that Luton is a borough and Luton Council is a UA are laid out on the page. It is therefore fine to follow common usage in casually applying the term UA to the area in places where repeating that precision isn't important, like the infobox. Aside from the potential to remove useful information from articles, any attempt to systematically purge Misplaced Pages of this kind of usage would be disruptive – not least because of the likelihood that other editors might then see it as an omission and try to re-add it.

Therefore, my proposal is: we should accept that describing an area as a UA is normal colloquial usage, and, outside of contexts where the precision is necessary, discourage attempts at systematically "correcting" that usage. Yays/nays? Joe D (t) 00:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Strong oppose No, we should not, because it is inaccurate and sloppy and we should not collude with it. An authority is an authority, a district is a district administered by that authority. It is not difficult, why make it complicated? Let's accept the word of the Local Government Association for it.}} Cornwall was never a county council, it was never a local authority and it is not a unitary authority. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose unlike the proposal 2 sections up where I think its fine to mention that the term is commonly used for the districts rather than councils in the article Unitary authorities of England I don't think we should actually describe them as such, we should make sure we add "area" in text. Also the term "local authority" is often used for all districts but again we need to not use this in the articles about places etc (as opposed to say mentioning in Districts of England) that districts are often called local authorities even if not correct of which could occasionally be mentioned in place articles. We need to remember that rather than the non-metropolitan district of Tewkesbury being a local authority that Tewkesbury Borough Council is the local authority for the district of Tewkesbury and that Tewkesbury Town Council is the local authority for the parish of Tewkesbury and Gloucestershire County Council is the local authority for the non-metropolitan county of Gloucestershire (not South Gloucestershire unitary district). Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Stainton, Westmorland and Furness#Requested move 18 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Stainton, Westmorland and Furness#Requested move 18 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Removing flags fields from Infobox English county

I have opened a discussion at Template talk:Infobox English county#Flag fields again. Given our established guidance is not to include county flags in infoboxes, and given that we still get time wasting editwars on various county articles every few months over flags, I have proposed simply removing those fields from the template unless anybody can spot a reason why that would cause a problem. Joe D (t) 10:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate it's a big job, but you might want to leave a notification about the discussion on the individual county talk pages, or at least the talk pages of those counties where the flag is an active topic of discussion (e.g. Cornwall, Devon, and Kent).

An issue with county flag discussions is that they're easily fragmented due to the large number of pages involved, so proactive notification helps direct interested editors to the right place. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I've left a message on the talk pages of the three counties I messaged above. I know some other counties have had flags added to and then removed from their infoboxes recently, but to my knowledge these haven't generated discussions; I've left them for now as I'm not sure how much will be gained and leaving 48 talk page messages is a bit of a task. Hopefully this will draw in some more participants, though! A.D.Hope (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

County towns

I'd like to sound out some opinions about how we handle the county towns in the ceremonial county articles. It's common to mention them in the lead paragraph, and sometimes in the body. An issue with this is that is that, as the county towns article notes, they're 'ill-defined and unofficial'. Good contemporary sources are often hard to find, and in some cases it isn't clear which town, if any, is generally considered the county town.

How would people feel about restricting this information, where it can be sourced, to the body of the article? The lead could instead mention the largest town, as many already do, or give a brief etymology of the county name, which in many cases is taken from an historically prominent town. To use Lancashire as an example, rather than 'The largest settlement and administrative centre is Preston, and the county town is the city of Lancaster', we could say 'The county is named after the city of Lancaster, and the largest settlement is the city of Preston.' Lancaster is identified in the body as the 'historic county town' with a source, which is fine as the claim can be backed up.

(As a side note, I'm also wary of terms like 'administrative centre'. To stick with Lancashire, although Lancashire County Council and some courts are based in Preston, Blackpool and Blackburn also have their own unitary councils and so are also administrative centres.) A.D.Hope (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I think a distinction should be made between 'traditional' county towns and modern administrative centres. E.g. the traditional county town of Leicestershire is Leicester, but the modern administrative centre is Glenfield. G-13114 (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Great Britain § Island vs Term including other islands

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Great Britain § Island vs Term including other islands, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Should edits and claims that Great Britain includes the off-shore islands (the political definition) be used over the island definition. Concerning the recent change of infobox map to include the islands and in text. DankJae 22:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Description of land

Great Britain is an island nation, and thus it should be called, as is Japan, Seychelles, Cuba, and other island countries. To name it as such is to comply with continuity. 2600:1003:A011:8CE4:65DE:7291:3FF6:8757 (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Mingulay

Mingulay has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Categorising civil parishes

There is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 19#Category:Civil parishes in Telford and Wrekin which is relevant to this project. PamD 11:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Leeds Country Way

Leeds Country Way has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Rutland infobox

I noticed that Rutland was using 'infobox settlement' rather than 'infobox English county', so I've corrected it. If anyone has a minute would they mind checking I've not made any errors, as I'm not the best with infobox parameters. Cheers! A.D.Hope (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

1. "How is local government organised?". Local Government Association.