Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 3

message: Is there any particular reason London features twice in the To Do List or is it a mistake? Cosmopolitancats 08:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The to do lists follow the format of the Wikipedia 1.0 project.  As for the little table on the project page, it's supposed to be a random selection of those -- the first column containing a random selection of GA/A class or top priority articles, the middle column a random selection from the category of stub-class articles, and the last column a random selection from the UK requested articles page.  If I had the time I'd shuffle it around every few days -- perhaps others could do so?  Joe D (t) 16:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To Do List

message: I have created a new project template page for announcements and moved some of the announcements on to it, as there seemed to be a lot of demand for somewhere to announce new projects and collaborations, and request help and feedback.  You may wish to add it to your watchlists or user pages.  Joe D (t) 16:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New project page

message: A user without a userpage: User:Chestertouristcom, but with a talk page: User talk:Chestertouristcom, and who seems to have a very strong link with an external site: Chester Tourist External Site has added a lot, probably the bulk, of the material to Deva Victrix, which was originally under a different name, and before that, was a part of another article. It is almost entirely unsourced and unreferenced. I tagged the article as being in need of references back in January 2007. Nothing was done, and the user continued to add a lot of unsourced and unreferenced material. I left a message on the user's talk page on 25th February 2007, asking for citations and references to be added, and this was followed up by an email to the user, but no response was received and new unreferenced material continued to be added up to the middle of March when it stopped.
The problem is, what to do? We are supposed to require entries to be adequately sourced and referenced, and yet hardly any of the material for Deva Victrix is. It will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to attempt to produce references for this material retrospectively when one isn't even the original author, especially so if one does not have a specialised knowledge of this topic. I have asked for assistance on the other wikiproject that has a template on the talk page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Archaeology but as yet received no response.
My feeling is that one could simply delete all the material, but I imagine this would cause some consternation in certain quarters (the removal of an external site whose inclusion had not been justified has already caused some negative comment about my action by another user) Could I ask for some comments on what to do here? Many thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Advice wanted about [[Deva Victrix]] and large amounts of unsourced and unreferenced material

message: Myself and a couple of other editors think the existing guidelines need to be updated with perhaps new ones written as well. So, could people suggest some topics for new guidelines? At the moment, I am drafting out a guideline for writing about UK cities, provisionally titled "How to write about UK Cities", but there could be others as well. Some ideas:
*How to write about UK civil parishes.
*How to write about UK Districts, and Boroughs.
*How to write about UK counties.
*How to write about UK rivers and canals.
*How to write about UK long distance footpaths.
Some of the above suggestions would make use of information present in the almost defunct WikiProject concerned with UK divisions.
Any comments, additions, brickbats, etc?  DDStretch  (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are already guidelines for settlements and counties -- see the main WikiProject page.  Joe D (t) 08:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there are. But perhaps they need looking at again, that's all I would be suggesting for those. Jhamez84 recently took a look and did some revisions of the settlements guidelines, and perhaps the others need a makeover too. I think it is worthwhile to never view guidelines as being "perfect" in so far as they could do with being periodically reviewed. I'm not sure when the ones you mentioned were last reviewed.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I just wasn't sure you noticed them, since you included them in what appeared to be a list of proposed guidelines.  Joe D (t) 09:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It's always a good idea to cover the basics: putting new articles in the correct categories (including stub cats where applicable) and using the correct infobox will save a lot of effort later on.  I'd recommend using the term "waterways" for rivers and canals to avoid confusion over names (cf broad, navigation, creek, etc.) Waggers 09:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good suggestion.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not convinced it makes sense to combine rivers and canals -- they are probably sufficiently different to require separate guidelines, and certainly separate infoboxes.  Joe D (t) 09:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I just started a thread at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Waterways#Guidelines and should have looked here first. The more I think about it, the more complicated it gets. There are so many combinations of natural and artificial waterways, those used in part at least for navigation and/or for drainage. It would actually be difficult to define all the different scenarios, let alone create individual guidelines for them. My thinking is that there should be just one guideline for all, which gives guidance for how to write about the relevant aspects of any waterway. In particular it should help editors in their thinking about the topic, by highlighting the many aspects of a waterway, ie geography, drainage, navigation, milling, (and all the structures necessary for these functions) history, environment, recreation, impact it has on the surroundings etc. Guidance can also be given about when to move a section of an article to its own page, such as a long and complicated history of a navigation.--Derek Andrews 13:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New or Updated Guidelines

message: I really ought to do some more important work than Wikipedia for a few weeks, but I just thought I'd raise a couple of ideas, and maybe somebody can implement them (or I can in a few weeks, if they're popular ideas):
* We start some "committees" within the project for areas that don't have their own projects, or for closer cooperation and organisation in particular areas.  I was thinking "roads", perhaps "physical geography" (or specific ones e.g. "rivers"), maybe an "administrative subdivisions" one as a replacement for the subdivisions wikiproject, and perhaps some regional ones to start with?  These could then be used to deal with things like the infobox and guideline issues, but with cooperation to ensure standardisation.
* As well as the existing systems of identifying high priority articles, and classing articles FA/A/GA/B/start/stub we could identify "embarrassing articles".  These can be articles about very notable subjects -- major settlements or features -- which are embarrassingly short or embarrassingly badly written and covered in cleanup tags.  One particular article gave me this idea: Blackpool, an important settlement, but whose article was very poorly structured, included lots of informal writing and unencyclopaedic information, and was almost entirely in list form (still is, though not quite as bad).  Those articles are relatively easy to deal with: you don't need to know the area to be able to format the existing article to the manual of style.  By outing them, we can cooperate to quickly get them all sorted.
* Is it worth trying to ressurect the collaboration of the month thing?  Even when I was around to update the listing, nobody but me seemed to edit the articles...
Any comments or suggestions?  Joe D (t) 19:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking them in "reverse order", here are my thoughts on the suggestions/ideas: Unless more active members are around, I think it may be flogging a dead horse to get the "collaboration of the month" thing going again. A better strategy might be to engage in a recruitment drive to get more members to join who will be more active. However, it might be better still to take up your second proposal. This is because I think your suggestion of "embarrassing articles" is a good one, and would act as a spur to get some articles cleaned up and improved a little. In order to do this, a list of putative embarrassments needs to be drawn up. I think your first idea is a very good one: "committees" or perhaps "task groups" would be a good way to initiate work, which, if they became very active, might be considered for splitting off, if required or desirable, onto their own project page. In this respect, Wikipedia:WikiProject reform makes some interesting suggestions, somewhat similar to ones I have made myself, independently, in the past, though in my suggestions, this project would be much more active and proactive than the tier 0 project mentioned in the reform article, though wouldn't be seemingly as restrictive to the county projects as it would be if it were a tier 1 project and the reform proposals were enacted upon as they are now.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc suggestions 

message: Some discussion about whether a war memorial site should be added to every town's article, in a specific area (in this case Stockport).  A discussion is at Talk:Heaton Moor, appreciate any feedback, ideally on that discussion page rather than here. --Oscarthecat 06:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  War memorial site "more than a name" 

message: City of Peterborough          	City of Peterborough
                              	
Geography                     	Geography
Status:                       	Unitary, City (1541)Confirmed by Letters Patent issued under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 25 June 1974, see the London Gazette ( Issue 46334) published 28 June 1974
Region:                       	East of England
Ceremonial County:            	Cambridgeshire
Historic County:              	Northamptonshire
Area:- Total                  	Ranked 140th343.38 km²
Admin. HQ:                    	Peterborough
ONS code:                     	00JA
Demographics                  	Demographics
Population:- Total ()- Density	Ranked  / km²
Ethnicity:                    	89.7% White 7.0% South Asian 1.2% Afro-Caribbean 0.3% Chinese 0.3% other 1.5% mixed2001 Census Area Statistics Office for National Statistics, April 2001
Peterborough City Council     	Peterborough City Council
Leadership:                   	Leader & Cabinet
Executive:                    	
MPs:                          	Stewart Jackson, Shailesh Vara, Malcolm Moss
OK, time we got started on this issue.  On the right is the current infobox setup for a unitary authority.  The first hurdle to cross is how many infoboxes we should have:
* One: handle districts, boroughs and unitaries together, merely switching the "type"
* One for each type of division
* Two/six: distinguish between those that cover a single settlement, and will therefore share many of the charactoristics of , and those that have no principal settlement, and will therefore be more like the counties
* Different ones for England, Scotland, Wales and NI?
One we've got that sorted, I imagine we can split off discussion to the new template(s) or a single coordination page if there are multiple templates.  Joe D (t) 13:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should go for one template with switches.  We have been able to do it at Infobox UK place and for what is likely to be a simpler box, then there is no reasonn it couldn't be done here. Regan123 13:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think different infoboxes would be overkill: the one infobox with switches for this group of things seems the wayt to go speaking for myself.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox development: districts, boroughs and unitaries 

message: There was a lengthy discussion about article naming conventions for cities, boroughs and districts within Wikipedia:WikiProject UK subdivisions#Controversial or confusing cases and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK subdivisions#City of Foo / Foo (district) again. The discussion seemed to peter out without any conclusion and now that sub-project has been closed. Has the discusssion continued elsewhere, or is this page the right place to continue it? I'll wait for a reply before I make my contribution to it... --Dr Greg 12:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cities, boroughs and districts 

message: Have recently uploaded photo's to my commons[] page some of which may be useful... Merlin-UK 14:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo's

message: Following the recent local elections, I have come up with a small dilemma. Some Town articles include the current state of power. eg The council has a Labour majority. I am in two minds about whether this sort of information should be included.
I think its should be included but the information is Recentism, likely to go out of date, and would not normally appear in an encyclopedia.  Any comments?  MortimerCat 11:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we include current political information? 

message: Is it OK to ask here for a favour from wikipedians with expertise in UK geography and/or copyediting? Mendip Hills is an FA candidate (again) at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mendip Hills. Comments generally have been helpful and supportive & it has quite a number of "support" comments, however one reviewer has said "Needs fresh eyes to copy-edit the whole text". I have now read every sentence so many times I'm having problems spotting the sorts of rephrasing which has been suggested. Any help (or other comments on the FAC) would be appreciated. — Rod talk 15:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - has now achieved FA status.— Rod talk 12:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  help with copyediting Mendip Hills 

message: .... Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Hertfordshire and User:Simply south/WPHerts. 
Well, i have decided to try at this if anyone is interested. Also, does anyone know where to get a coat of arms of Hertfordshire image that is not fair use? Simply south 17:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: There is a discussion beginning on category naming at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester#Metropolitan Borough of Oldham categories which could have implications across a wider area. Regan123 10:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue has now been taken to WP:CfD (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 9).  Please feel free to contribute your opinions on the issue (perhaps including whether a uniform change should be made across the UK???) Pit-yacker 16:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category Naming 

message: I've expanded the article Blyth, Northumberland quite a lot, but the talk page template still has it classed as a stub.  If someone could take a look at the article and re-rate it, that would be great.  Also, Blyth, Northumberland is up for peer review, so if anyone has the time to leave any comments or suggestions there, that would also be highly appreciated. Cheers. Dbam Talk/Contributions 12:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blyth, Northumberland 

message: I've put Chew Stoke up as a Featured Article candidate. Any help of comments on the candidate page would be helpful.— Rod talk 11:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chew Stoke FAC 

message: Birchington-on-Sea is a current Featured Article candidate, if anyone would like to offer their support. Epbr123 11:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Birchington-on-Sea]] FAC 

message: Having looked at Portal:United Kingdom and Portal:England and specifically the subportals on the right hand side, I have today created portals for Somerset and Bristol would anyone care to comment on or improve these & does anyone have any comments about the perceived usefulness of portals for counties and areas in the UK as many do not appear to have them? Should there be a degree of standardisation? If so what should & shouldn't be included?— Rod talk 20:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  County Portals 

message: How long has Rutland been the collaboration of the month for? As long as I've been editting I'm sure! Perhaps this is an indicator that the project ought to promote itself a little to generate some fresh interest, participants and ideas? Jza84 01:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Collaboration of the 
month
 decade

message: I note that on the project page Flannan Isles is listed as a GA in the 'settlement' list. The publicity is appreciated, but is a minor inaccuracy as the light is now automated. There are a few other GA islands - but I don't think the list is intended to be exhaustive or I'd boldly add them. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article, dodgy category 

message: Would this project consider that article to be within its scope? __meco 21:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is a current candidate for the Article Creation and Improvement Drive.SriMesh | talk 01:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[North Sea]] 

message: On the talk page for Burgess Hill, it is still listed as a stub, which it (I am very pleased to say) is no longer the case. I was wondering if this could be reviewed? The article is now quite substantial, and now also contains several images, after a great deal of work by other Wikipedians and myself.
Thanks,
80.229.16.243 21:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Burgess Hill]] 

message: North Sea is the current Article Creation and Improvement Drive collaboration. WikiProject UK geography members may find that a relevant focus. I have refrained from rating the article pending the result of the collaboration. Perhaps a regular member of this project could find a place for the collaboration banner on the project page itself? __meco 22:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[North Sea]] collaboration 

message: After bringing a merge proposal between List of largest urban sub-divisions in England by population and List of English districts by population as detailed in Talk:List of English districts by population (for which the consensus at the time of writing appears to be Oppose), User:Captain scarlet is now threatening to take List of largest urban sub-divisions in England by population to a Peer Review process.  The grounds given for this are that:
The article is neither properly sourced nor properly edited or maintained since it does not allow:
* other editors to modify it
* its strutcure is rigid and does not allow any editing
* it represents a unilateral point of view
* it allows being referenced by one source alone.
* this article is inaccurate and does not represent a neutral ground
This has serious repercussions across all articles and information based upon data prepared by the Office for National Statistics (and presumably the relevant bodies for Scotland and Northern Ireland), including any UK Census information, or estimates based upon Censuses.
Articles including most obviously List of English districts by population, List of ceremonial counties of England by population, List of English districts by population density, List of English districts by ethnic diversity, List of English counties by population, List of non-metropolitan counties of England by population, List of English counties by area, List of conurbations in the United Kingdom and so on would potentially suddenly become completely untenable.
As all data of this type ultimately comes from the ONS, should ONS data be considered suspect by the editing community at large, then many articles would fall under the criteria given and would be potentially considered invalid.  In addition to the obvious list articles, all articles containing data ultimately sourced from the ONS (such as all local authority articles, and settlement articles where relevant) would need that data removing.  This will include all aspects of the ONS's work and will not only impact upon population data, but also upon economic data and demographics to name but two.
This is a very concerning development as I'm sure people will agree. Fingerpuppet 00:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The third bulleted point in itself renders Captain Scarlet's position self-defeating, since his viewpoint is itself a unilateral one. Additionally, he is effectively proposing something that could be viewed as being severely disruptive to wikipedia in order to prove a point, and to express his dissatisfaction with how the official figures treat Sheffield. It should be resisted as strongly as possible. I am absent for about two weeks from today, but if this matter does get proposed, it would be something I would oppose strongly if I had editing access during my holiday (which i won't). The points I've given here merely express my own viewpoint in advance of any proposal put forward by Captain Scarlet, and if there is some way of noting them if this happens, please do so.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential Review Process and issues arising from it

message: The MOS suggests that numbers under 10 ought to be expressed as words. With that in mind I made a small change to the  template, adding an option to do exactly that. So, for instance,  produces . This modification has met with some resistance, on the grounds that "four miles (6.4 km)" is a list, and so should be either all numbers or all words. Naturally I don't agree with that interpretation. As the  template is widely used in geography articles I'm wondering whether there's any kind of wider consensus on the matter? --Malleus Fatuarum 14:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with what you have done, I myself have thought about the issue with MOS and Template:Convert. I do prefer small numbers to be spelled out as I was always taught that it was good grammar to do so. Rossenglish 15:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interpreting the MOS and the <nowiki>{{convert}}</nowiki> template

message: Has a consensus been reached anywhere on whether wards at local government are notable or not? I have spotted a few cropping up here and there and think they should be deleted. My own opinion is they are not notable and it diverts energies away from expand stubs of the settlements they belong to. Before I head off and propose them all for deletion, has an opinion been decided on this elsewhere? I can't see anything in the notability guidelines. Ki | jog 14:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Local government wards 

message: There seems to be a standard structure for sub-categories of a county (although I haven't seen any guidelines for this). Recently User:DShamen has been creating a large number of subcategories of :Category:Lancashire and :Category:Greater Manchester. These include:
* :Category:Buildings and structures in Blackburn
* :Category:Canals in Blackburn
* :Category:Education in Blackburn
* :Category:Geography of Blackburn
* :Category:Government in Blackburn
* :Category:History of Blackburn
* :Category:Parks and commons in Blackburn
and so on, 14 subcategories of :Category:Blackburn in all, most of them populated by only a handful of articles. And then a similar structure in all the other town and district subcategories of Lancashire. Today he has even created :Category:People from Broughton, Lancashire. Broughton, Lancashire is village for goodness sake. 
I have previously aired my concern at User talk:DShamen#Subcategories of districts (where I give further reasons for my concern). Before I take this any further, I'd like to hear views of other editors. Some of the subcategories may be justified, but I think a lot of them are not. --Dr Greg 17:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus (as in silence is consensus) has it that these are the best sub cats and that everyone gets standardised.  As to the People from categories I have argued many times to keep them for accuracy, simplicity etc. Regan123 18:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't get me wrong, these categories make a lot of sense at county level, but how far down do you take them? At town level (or even worse village level) these categories may be too small to be worthwhile (e.g. there is only one canal in Blackburn) and the reader has to navigate their way through a whole hierarchy of categories to find what they are looking for. (By the way, Blackburn was perhaps a bad example as it is a unitary authority. But I could have chosen :Category:Chorley, :Category:Lancaster, :Category:Preston etc.) Are there any guidelines or established precedents for this? --Dr Greg 11:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends entirely on how many items are in the sub-category - allowing for time for the category to be populated.  Having a huge number of items in a county category where there are borough, town or city based categories that could be used to sensibly sub-divide, and as long as those categories are themselves sensibly categorised, then it's fine.  There are always examples where small categories are sensible, though. I wouldn't have any problem with the Blackburn categories mentioned above, as long as they were all subcats within the hierarchy of both :Category:Lancashire and :Category:Blackburn.  I would suggest that anything smaller than a borough or large town should be carefully considered as to the number of potential articles that could be placed within that category. Fingerpuppet 11:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally it has always been at Local Government level where there is enough (eg. Manchester) or county where there isn't (eg. Staffordshire).  The only exception has been the People from... Regan123 14:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub-categories of counties 

message: I have submitted Manchester for a peer review with the hope of eventually making it an FAC. I would very much appreciate if editors could leave some comments on the review as there is a backlog on there are more people are needed! Thank you all for your time. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 09:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Manchester|Peer Review]] of [[Manchester]] 

message: I have begun to come across naming issues arising because of urban expansion absorbing a previously distinct settlement. For example Littleton was a parish adjacent to Bigboro. Until the 20th century it was a distinct settlement, but housing estates and commercial development now make it difficult to see where the boundary between Bigboro and Littleton is. In the late 20th century, both Littleton and Bigboro became part of the unitary authority of Megacity. However, the name Megacity is somewhat unpopular and residents sometimes refer to the whole area as Bigboro. The electoral wards have been redefined to match population changes and the Anglican parish structure has been modernised. In the 1990s, the local technical college became Bigboro University and built a new campus in what used to be Littleton. Do we say that the university is in Littleton or Bigboro? (Names have of course been changed to protect the innocent.) Rjm at sleepers 09:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In which article?  Is it the university article, or one of the geographical ones?  I would also look to see if the ONS declare Littleton to be an Urban Subdivision - if so, then it can be still said to be a separate settlement; or whether it is in the list of Towns in whichever consitituent country it's in.  Which I would use would depend entirely upon the context. Fingerpuppet 11:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Settlements absorbed by urban expansion 

message: A vote is currently in progress to move Windermere (lake) to Windermere. I thought some Wikipedians here might be interested in participating. Reginmund 06:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote on [[Windermere (lake)|Windermere]] 

message: I have nominated Blyth, Northumberland for FA (candidate page).  If anyone would like to comment or offer their support it would be very much appreciated, thanks. Dbam Talk/Contributions 06:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blyth, Northumberland FAC 

message: Can someone explain why the articles about the Southampton city suburbs have the suffix Hampshire rather than Southampton? e.g. Shirley, Hampshire rather than Shirley, Southampton (which is now a re-direct). As a Shirley resident, I don't consider that I live in Hampshire but rather in the City of Southampton, and I'm proud of it.  On looking at the edit history, most of the articles were re-named in November 2006, with the edit summary "correct form of disambiguation". Where is this policy set out? Can you imagine renaming say, Edge Hill, Liverpool to Edge Hill, Lancashire simply because it falls within the boundaries of the old county of Lancashire?   Daemonic Kangaroo 07:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since posting this, I have spotted that this was discussed earlier here although there was no firm conclusion. Daemonic Kangaroo 07:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem more sensible to me to use the name of the town or city of which the place is a suburb, as this would almost certainly correspond more to local usage, and not cause too many problems.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with User:Warofdreams' statement in the old discussion that the advantage of using the county in the name is that it has no subjective element (e.g. is x a suburb of y? Or is it a separate settlement?). However, if Shirley is clearly a suburb and not merely a neighbouring village, I would support its move back to Shirley, Southampton. Epbr123 09:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The map in the article about the Southampton Urban Area shows the position clearly. Those places marked with "O" are within the boundary of the city of Southampton and, in my opinion, should be known as "XXX, Southampton", whereas somewhere like West End, whilst adjoining the city, is outside the boundary and is therefore correctly titled as West End, Hampshire, even though its postal address is West End, Southampton. To me it's rather ludicrous that Northam, which is adjacent to the city centre, should be known as Northam, Hampshire. I see nothing subjective in this at all; either it's part of the city or it's not. Daemonic Kangaroo 11:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment - it wouldn't be Edge Hill, Lancashire though - it would be Edge Hill, Merseyside. DWaterson 17:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess the problem is that there will be places which are clearly part of a town or city, and those which are clearly not part of a town or city. These won't cause much problem. In between these limits, there is a grey region of places which is unclear. The easy solution would be to say all of them should be X, Z-shire. However, a bit more work in searching out what official maps show us, and what local verifiable and citable sources tell us can reduce this grey region. If we are lucky (and I guess that usually we won't be), this grey region will be eliminated, but usually we will be left with a grey rump region (GRR). It is this GRR that contain the really difficult cases. An overriding problem is a veneer of people, who, for various reasons, deny what official sources say, and push a POV that should not be weighed very heavily. The easy solution does away with all the difficulties, but introduces a lack of precision, as its solution works at the level of attending to editor convenience, or need to reduce argument to sort out verifiable sources, etc. I'm not at all sure that this would be a good solution, because it does sacrifice precision for convenience too easily. No doubt, if the amount of work required to get verifiable evidence about grey regions and GRR becomes prohibitive, then some decision could be just imposed. But with a bit of work (work which all good editors should realize is required at times) a better idea of what to call a place could be found than X Z-shire, and the number of cases where a policy decision is used could thus be diminished. All in my opinion, of course.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much this exact discussion is also happening on WikiProject West Midlands regarding suburbs of Birmingham - the gist being that there are problems with the X, Y-shire format where there are two suburbs with like-names within one county, see Springfield, Birmingham and Springfield, Wolverhampton along with Willenhall, Coventry and Willenhall. Fingerpuppet 18:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not suburbs, but even more of a problem: in Cheshire, when (if) the new local government arrangements come into being, there will be two villages and civil parishes named Burton within the same unitary authority, neither of which could really be said to be a suburb of anything (see Burton, Ellesmere Port and Neston, and Burton, Chester.)  DDStretch  (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Naming of articles about city suburbs 

message: Highworth has been vandalised with nonsense for over a year. Every time it gets removed, single-purpose account editors re-add more nonsense. Can people here put this article on their watchlist as no one else seems to be watching this? I'm not on Wikipedia often, so I only notice the vandalism occasionally. 172.141.136.88 17:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Highworth]] article needs watching for long term vandalism