Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography

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 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, 42: 30 days

What's new

Articles for deletion

27 Nov 2024 – Straight Point (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by JMWt (t · c); see discussion (4 participants)
23 Nov 2024 – Convent Wood (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Jinnllee90 (t · c) was closed as keep by Star Mississippi (t · c) on 30 Nov 2024; see discussion (7 participants)
19 Nov 2024 – Higher Menadew (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by KrystalInfernus (t · c) was closed as delete by Just Step Sideways (t · c) on 26 Nov 2024; see discussion (6 participants)

Good article nominees

09 Nov 2024 – Draughton, North Yorkshire (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Cremastra (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]

Unreliable source? "Town and Village Guide"

The website https://www.townandvillageguide.com/ asserts that it is a "meticulously curated collection of destinations" but I have my doubts. The page on "Coldharbour, Lincolnshire" describes a small village near Louth (so not the Cold Harbour, Lincolnshire, a hamlet near Grantham, about which we have an article). It has "its beautiful church, St. Mary's Church. The church dates back to the 12th century and is a fine example of Norman architecture", and a pub called the Red Lion. But I can't find any trace of either the church or the pub, in any "Cold Harbour" or "Coldharbour" either near Grantham or near Louth. Or, indeed, of any village or hamlet of the name near Louth apart from one reference to an archaeological site which was previously known as Cold Harbour. I may be missing something, but it makes me wonder whether this website, which invites people to offer a contribution about their village, may be completely unreliable. Has anyone any experience of this website? (I couldn't find it at WP:RSN).

I've just found its page on Coldharbour in Kent, which has a surprisingly similar St Mary's church "which dates back to the 12th century. The church is a beautiful example of Norman architecture and is known for its stunning stained glass windows", and various other bits of identical text. (But no Red Lion). We don't seem to have an article on that Coldharbour at all. Odd? Any thoughts?

Or, perhaps, consider this as a warning and avoid that particular quite smart-looking website. PamD 14:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With no contact information, no about-us, no publisher information it looks like a self published source WP:SPS and as such I would immediate discount it as unreliable. I checked on a couple of settlements that I know and the information given was terrible - the prose at the beginning was inaccurate and many of the listings were for businesses in other settlements.

It is currently used as a reference on 20 articles (link), so it should be easy to remove those within a few minutes - which I'm happy to do. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) I haven't come across it before, but I have given it a once-over just now. My view is that it is wholly inappropriate to be used as a source to support any Wikipedia content. It seems to be an attempt to aggregate up-to-date microlocal data (such as train times at the nearest station, postal collection times from each postbox etc, opening times of local "Vetinary [sic] surgeries (!) etc.) with some suspiciously AI-looking verbiage, some of which may well be based on text from Wikipedia. There are no details of authorship, editorial oversight (if any) or fact-checking, and it appears that user submissions are accepted. The West Sussex page lists such "towns" as Ardingly Reservoir (a reservoir...), Adur (the district) and Crockenhill, which is apparently on the outskirts of Horsham even though it in fact consists of a pub and a couple of houses on the edge of Chichester. A little further on in that section, this location is a new one on me, even though I've apparently lived close to it all my life: suffice to say it doesn't exist. Conclusion: it's AI-generated nonsense based on a scrape of very broadly defined location data, and should be removed on sight. Good spot PamD. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 15:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the entry for a town I know a lot about, and it was filled with nonsense. It wouldn't surprise me if it was AI generated content. It's utter garbage as a source. G-13114 (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have flagged it here with the aim of getting it added to Headbomb's very useful blacklisting tool. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 15:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm late to this party, but I looked at the entry for Cheddar, aside from consistently calling it a town (it's a village) it was mostly OK until it described Cheddar Palace as a 19th century mansion house that is now a hotel, it's actually a 9th century Saxon palace that exists only as a buried archaeological site in the grounds of the school. While an error of a thousand years might be OK between friends, it's certainly not OK for sourcing Wikipedia articles. Thryduulf (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It's history - for now. Worth keeping an eye on. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comes across as AI generated and sounds like something an estate agent would write. It seems to muddle up locations with similar names. Contains inaccuracies claiming there's a parish church of St Mary's in a village when there isn't and inaccurate distances and directions from nearby places. So definitely not a reliable source. Rupples (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at those in my local area. Several of them are entirely fictional, and definitely give off AI vibes. Toll Bar is a junction in a dense urban area (hardly surrounded by countryside) for hiking or anything (it's close to a few public parks), West Park meanwhile isn't even a thing beyond the rugby club of the same name, Parr is in the South East of the town and nothing else I can see is true either. Thatto Heath is opposite side of town. There were no mills or factories in the vicinity beyond a foundry, Sherdley Park is in Sutton and so on (not to mention all the recommended GP's and schools etc are in Liverpool). A similar issue exists on St Helens proper which mistakes it for the town of the same name on the Isle of Wight. Koncorde (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion also taking place at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Town & Village Guide (UK). SerialNumber54129 20:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"No religion" or "Irreligious"

Is "Irreligious" an appropriate term to use where the UK census has a statistic for "No religion"? I suggest that it is not, as it has an undertone of POV: the Oxford English Dictionary defines it primarily as "Not religious; hostile to or without regard for religion; ungodly; godless.", which goes beyond ticking a box saying "No religion". I think we should just use the census's own term: "No religion".

A group of recent articles have used the term "Irreligious": before changing them WP:BOLDly I thought I'd ask the opinion of other editors. See Station, Boston as an example. PamD 16:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The census terminology should definitely be used, so I would support your changes/reversions. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 16:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @DragonofBatley: in case they want to explain their choice of wording and argue for it. PamD 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

b.t.w When you see any tables in settlement articles that have coloured cell backgrounds for each religion, would you please give a thought to removing the colours a a) they serve no good purpsse whatsoever and more importantly b) some of the colour combinations chosen together with blue link text fail MOS:CONTRAST, which can be a serious issue for people with visual acuity problems. Thanks in advance. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge we do not have an article for No religion - which is a disambiguation page.— Rod ^talk 16:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think atheist would be closer than irreligious given that the (typically census) surveys that seek out this information ask if you have a religion, not "are you indifferent or hostile" to a religion. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, irreligious has negative undertones of being anti-religion, whereas no religion is "exactly what is ays on the tin" 10mmsocket (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, irreligious has connotations. Best stick to the census term. Rupples (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above. While irreligious is actually relatively neutral, it's easier to read it as being against religion rather than an absence of religion. If someone professed Atheism or similar, I would be happier to describe such as irreligious. Koncorde (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles vs. Great Britain & Ireland?

IP editor seems a bit WP:POINTY in his/her edits, e.g. here and associated talk page edit, plus other contributions. Is there consensus on the naming? 10mmsocket (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@10mmsocket, hmn technically under MOS:GEO we should use the title as used in its article British Isles but many significant articles like Castles in Great Britain and Ireland do ignore it. So appears due to the controversial nature, there is apparently a case-by-case approach? Unless they should be made consistent as British Isles or at least until local consensus decides otherwise at each?

May be there’s an old discussion somewhere. Dank Jae 16:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thanks. In that case I'll leave this IP to his one man/woman crusade. There's bigger problems to solve! 10mmsocket (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many discussions (such as Talk:British Isles/Archive 41 that go nowhere because two traditions hold diametric opposing views. See also MOS:ERA, MOS:ENGVAR and there must be one about SI units v US Customary. And lots of WP:SOAPBOX edit wars such as that one. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really good of you to look that up. It reinforces my thought to stay well away. If anyone else wants to start black pudding wars then fill your boots! 10mmsocket (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pre 1974 (and similar) districts

Perhaps we should have some guidence added to WP:UKDISTRICTS but pre 1974 districts (and similar for Scotland and Northern Ireland). See older discussion with User:Stortford at User talk:Stortford#Hertfordshire former parishes

In terms of separate articles on not.

Any district whether rural or urban (including MBs and CBs) that was reformed with the same (or similar) boundaries should follow the "Reconstituted districts" on the current districts part and be covered and use the current title such as Blaby Rural District>Blaby District and Fareham Urban District>Borough of Fareham. For many urban districts like County Borough of Leicester there is no separate article so is covered in the settlement. For those like County Borough of Brighton>Borough of Brighton that were reformed in 1974 but later abolished they should also use the title when abolished though many like County Borough of Bath don't have separate articles similar to Leicester.

Rural districts that contain more than 1 parish like Eastry Rural District should always have separate articles from the settlement/parish of the same name Eastry. Those that formerly included multiple parishes but only contained 1 when abolished like Tintwistle Rural District normally have separate articles though I'm not sure if there are any other examples.

Urban district (including MBs and CBs) like Ware Urban District and County Borough of Huddersfield that have the same name as a settlement are normally covered in the settlement but may have separate articles if there is enough content to have separate articles like Municipal Borough of Buckingham and County Borough of Carlisle. Other factors that support having separate articles though it may still be best not to include;
- The boundaries of the settlement compared to the district, we can also factor in today's boundaries so we might think it doesn't make sense to split when a district included a settlement that was distinct at the time the district was abolished but has since become part of the settlement.
- The district contained multiple parishes, I would give less weight if all the parishes in X district were called things like X St Peter or X All Saints (especially if they were later merged to form a single parish called X like Maldon) than if they are names of other settlements like Exning in Newmarket Urban District or there are parishes in addition to the parish of X.
- The district had boundary changes, I'd give more weight to significant ones like the whole of a large part of a parish (and especially a whole or large part of a district being abolished and merged to it) than small changes.
- The current parish/unparished area has different boundaries to the former district. For example Witham was later divided into Rivenhall and Silver End, Lancaster unparished area no longer includes Aldcliffe-with-Stodday, Saffron Walden parish no longer includes Sewards End and Northampton parish excludes areas the county borough included. Obviously I'd put more weight on Witham because those other places are clearly distinct settlements than Northampton which was probably split mainly because of its large size.

Urban districts (including MBs) that only existed as districts should have articles like Queensbury and Shelf Urban District and Spenborough unless they are the same or similar to something else like Queenborough-in-Sheppey should probably be merged with Isle of Sheppey.

Rural districts that only ever contained 1 parish should normally be covered in the settlement/parish but may have separate articles similar to urban districts/MBs/CBs with the same name as settlements and can use the same tests (obviously the 2nd test won't apply).

On a different note how should such districts be titled when they only existed as a district and disambiguation isn't needed. For example we have Queensbury and Shelf Urban District with Queensbury and Shelf redirecting to it but we have the reverse for Spenborough with Municipal Borough of Spenborough redirecting to it. Should we title without "Urban District" or "Municipal Borough of" if disambiguation isn't needed? I don't think there are any CBs with separate articles that don't need disambiguation but there are probably also rural districts. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about districts#Naming convention which User:Mhockey and User:MRSC talked about. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]