Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography

WT:UKGEO

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject UK geography page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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: 30 days

What's new

Redirects for discussion

12 Jul 2024 – Bolsover (borough) (talk · edit · hist) →Bolsover District was RfDed by Crouch, Swale (t · c); see discussion

Good article nominees

04 Jun 2024 – Wymington (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Nfutvol (t · c); start 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

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)[reply]

Good article reassessment for York

York 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) 18:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ancient parishes of Northamptonshire

Template:Ancient parishes of Northamptonshire has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Joe D (t) 19:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potential to streamline UK places maintenance using Wikidata

Hi project, prompted by revisiting the UK Wikipedians' "complete todo list" page for the first time in at least a decade, and noticing that it had instructions to add population data to place articles with some very out of date broken links to sources for the data [1], I got thinking about whether there are any better ways to add and maintain up-to-date population data.

I've started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox UK place#Potential to use Wikidata here to make our lives easier?, with a proposal for an update to the Infobox that you might have views on.

(If nobody has raised any objections, I'll be bold and have a go at making it happen next week.)

Cheers, Joe D (t) 15:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Counties - ceremonial or historic

I've just been signposted to the archived discussion on use of flags in county infoboxes, after I brought this up on the How To Write About Counties subpage. Personally I err towards including (non-council) county flags in the infobox, with an explanation in the body if needed. As previously discussed, a lot of these flags are not only supported by councils (which I appreciate do not always cover entire counties), ceremonial officers and the flag institute, but also with some government releases and planning permission implying these hold official status - this has been largely discussed in the above archived discussion. As far as I can tell part of the ongoing discussion is to as to whether they represent historic or ceremonial counties, which rather begs the question which of those are the infoboxes and articles intended to represent. Evidently predominantly the current ceremonial county, but I note most county pages include both a 'historic' and 'ceremonial' map again within the infobox as well as dates of establishment etc, and the lack of separate page for the former entities leads me to assume that whilst predominantly about the current county, there is nothing to prevent historic discussion. Would a compromise which covers all bases perhaps to include those flags which are unambiguous (ie leaving out those which haven't had any even indirect recognition) in infoboxes, but with caveat of maybe labelling them as "historic flag of fooshire"? ~~~~ BryceIII (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UKCOUNTIES states we don’t usually recognise historic counties as existing as separate from the modern ones, nor with their former borders. So the county articles cover both, and naturally the modern county is prioritised. As it has been argued the flag technically is only for the historic county, it therefore cannot be in the modern-focused infobox. The discussion is still recent and not fully concluded. I did also raise the idea of an altered caption in the template. Dank Jae 13:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are editors here who would die in a ditch rather than see flags in county infoboxes. I say pick a fight you can win. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing redirects (re-creating pages)

CLARIFY - the discussion below is about reverting the blanking & redirecting some time ago of nearly 50 poor-quality road articles to a single list. --10mmsocket (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not "to a single list" but to the relevant one of A roads in Zone 1 of the Great Britain numbering scheme and its sisters. PamD 15:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope this finds you well. There is an ongoing discussion taking place at the following articles, regarding whether the current redirects should be removed, which may be of interest to this WikiProject:

Please see the necessary talk pages for more information. Regards, Roads4117 (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Roads4117 Could you clarify this? The first link, Talk: A109 road, has no mention of any disccussion but A109 road redirects to A109 dab page, no problems there. The second, Talk:A110 road, redirects to Talk:A110 road (England), where you have made a complicated statement which ends up with "If I don't hear anything back in the next few days, then I will more than likely remove the redirect". A110 road should, and does, redirect to A110 as there are several roads there (2 roads and a motorway). What do you mean by "Remove the redirect"? A110 road (England) should redirect to A roads in Zone 1 of the Great Britain numbering scheme, as it does today, until there is an article about the road itself. If you have sources to create an article, you can do so, overwriting the redirect. What is the problem? PamD 14:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In short: If by "remove the redirect" you mean "delete the redirect", don't do it. If you mean "write a well-sourced article overwriting the redirect", then do it. PamD 14:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did some digging PamD and I think what the editor is saying is undo the original redirects, e.g. diff. That would be a bad thing IMHO as all the redirects seem to have been done of the right reason. Writing a completely new article, like you say - go ahead. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Roads4117 A less controversial but useful job would be to ensure that all these roads are represented in the lists like List of highways numbered 109, which doesn't include the English A109. See List of highways numbered 1#United Kingdom for the way it's done (eg under U for UK not E for England). PamD 14:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would but I will be busy from now until Sunday, so someone else may have to do it. Sorry for the inconvenience. Roads4117 (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No hurry: it's not an urgent job and has been left undone for probably years in some cases. There is no time limit. PamD 14:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Keep the redirects until a dedicated article can be made. — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 15:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC) 15:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @PamD, I hope that you are well and sorry for over-complicating things! That was totally a mistake on my behalf; I was meant to write Talk: A109 road (England) and Talk: A110 road (England). What I mean by remove the redirect as in short, revert the edits by @Ajpolino and @Ritchie333, to create a well-sourced article overwriting the redirect. The reason why I put the message on the talk page and did not do it straight away is because I wanted a consensus and overall opinion on the matter. The editor that redirected some of the pages, @Ajpolino, has given this move the go ahead on my talk page. I hope that answers all of your questions! Regards, Roads4117 (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The rule will always be: if you can produce a well-sourced article on the road, do so. Don't just revert to an unsourced previous version. PamD 14:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Roads4117 And have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A2199 road (2nd nomination) to be reminded of considerations around notability: we don't just need proof that the road exists and goes from A to B via C (which can be well summarised in a list like A roads in Zone 1 of the Great Britain numbering scheme), but that there is something notable about it - follows line of ancient Roman Road, was built as a turnpike road, has been the subject of numerous controversial planned new schemes, etc. PamD 14:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See A82 road and A215 road and the other UK road Good Articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways#Good articles for ideas about road articles and sourcing. PamD 14:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I wonder how many other UK roads should really be converted to redirects, if A132 road (England) is typical: the only "source" is Google maps. Is it time for another sweep through to redirect unsourced roads with no claim to notability to their relevant lists? PamD 15:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be much better if you had the discussion in a single place rather than create a virtually identical discussion on 49 different articles (discussions that should always be posted at the bottom of the talk page b.t.w. - as you failed to do at Talk:A1066 road). When you look at the blanked/redirected articles you'll see they were nearly all unreferenced and ranged from virtually empty stubs to unsourced articles chock-full of original research - see the last revision of the same A1066 article as an example. I don't see any compelling reason to overturn what was a really good move for Wikipedia. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I put the messages on 49 different articles was because I had already put it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways, but then no-one replied, plus as well I wanted editors to know that there had been a consensus on restoring the page, unlike in February 2018. Roads4117 (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that you remove all 49 discussions to save any further confusion and focus any feedback here? 10mmsocket (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would, but I spent my whole Thursday putting them up, for potentially no reason, and as well, I am unavaliable later, so it would take forever. Roads4117 (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can take them down in a couple of minutes if you want me to. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, anyone responding should be directed here and their response shown here. If no-one's responded, a simple notification that there's a discussion here would be better than the current text. NebY (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'll happily do that. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All done! Each in individual discussion now has a reply pointong back to here. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great! NebY (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes just redirect them all here. Then there is no more misunderstandings and miscommunication. Roads4117 (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also fixed the few talk pages on which you top-posted. Next time you might want to click "New section". 10mmsocket (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Roads4117: You need to clarify what you are asking people to support or oppose. Do you mean "Revert all 49 redirects to unsourced/otherwise dubious articles", or "Work through each of the 49 roads and carefully create a well-sourced article, where sufficient sources are available, perhaps initially based on reverting to the previous version but then adding good sources and making it an acceptable article"? PamD 15:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT

Comment copied from User talk:Roads4117#Un-redirectifying road articles

Hi Roads4117. I see you posted on the talk pages of a handful of road articles I redirected several years ago. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Sadly, I doubt there's anyone else watching those talk pages. I support undoing the redirects. Back in those days I was wiki-young and wiki-impatient and got wrapped up in an effort to reduce a backlog of uncited articles. Now with a bit more time, I think it's clear the encyclopedia is better with those road articles intact, than with the redirects to a list that just shows "from", "to", and "notes". I'd suggest you just go ahead and revert right away. I don't think anyone else is likely to notice and comment on those pages. It looks like I hit 19 road pages, all on the same day here. If no one objects and you don't get around to it, I'll undo this weekend when I have a moment. No need to wait for me though. All the best, Ajpolino (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support an attempt to work through each of the 49 roads and carefully create a well-sourced article, where sufficient sources are available and the road is notable, perhaps initially based on reverting to the previous version but then adding good sources and making it an acceptable article. PamD 15:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, be free to re-create any page with a well-sourced version (which I think you mentioned) meeting WP:GEOROAD. But don’t just revive any of the poorly sourced older versions. Dank Jae 15:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support overwriting redirects with individually written well-sourced articles that demonstrate notability. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE

Oppose any suggestion to revert all 49 redirects to unsourced/otherwise dubious articles. PamD 15:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I object to you doing a mass-revert. Wikipedia is way better off without a bunch of mostly unsourced original research. Less is sometimes much better. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In my view, no roads at all are intrinsically notable. WP:GNG still applies. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mass reverting redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]