Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography

Shortcut
What's new

Proposed deletions

  • 05 Mar 2026 – A250 road (talk ·  · hist) was PRODed by Yasslaywikia (t · c): This article does not satisfy criteria for inclusion solely per WP:GEOROAD as it is a part of the local road network, nor does it satisfy WP:GNG due to lack of widespread coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.

Redirects for discussion

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

Requested moves

Articles to be split

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 354

  • A591 road, Lake District - June 2009 Edit 1
    A591 road, Lake District - June 2009 Edit 1
  • Aerial View of Edinburgh, by Alfred Buckham, from about 1920
    Aerial View of Edinburgh, by Alfred Buckham, from about 1920
  • Canary Wharf from Limehouse London June 2016 HDR
    Canary Wharf from Limehouse London June 2016 HDR
  • City of London skyline from London City Hall - Oct 2008
    City of London skyline from London City Hall - Oct 2008
  • Lancashire 1610 Speed Hondius - Restoration
    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 (2025-12-08) • 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 hillforts and ancient settlements in Somerset (2025-06-02) • 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)

Reached maximum of 5 out of 8

Watch

Archives

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]

Short descriptions for English counties

Hi. User:Squishy5454 recently changed Essex short description from Ceremonial county to just county. I reverted the change as its inaccurate, but User:A.D.Hope changed it back to just County stating it was standard across counties. But should it be? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From the appropriate article: Taken together, the title and short description concisely explain the subject of the page—for example, to help a user identify the desired article in a list of search results. So the sd needs to differentiate the county article from, eg the US naval vessel. English county is obviously different from USS Essex or even Essex County MA. The whole point of short descriptions is that they are short. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Search is not the only use for SDs; they are also used to annotate articles listed in a See Also using {{annotated link}} (or just {{anl}}. This usage is particularly important for unfamiliar topics, to give readers a clue as to why the article might be of interest [unlikely in this case, admittedly]. So a See Also that only has
is rather unhelpful but
  • Essex – County of England
gives the required clue. Similarly, compare
versus
to see the value.
But in neither the top-down (aka search) or bottom-up (anl) does the actual type of county matter. An SD is not a definition but, as Murgatroyd49 observes, it is information to be read with the title to permit a reasonable guess as to its content. So the word "ceremonial" does not seem ever so useful. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you didn't mind me doing that, @Davidstewartharvey. The issue simply (and wrongly!) struck me as unlikely to need a full discussion, which is why I gave my rationale via edit summary. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I raised it here to see opinion. There is a group of editors on here who are anal about sd's (English or Scottish instead of British for example) and I thought it was best to ask what others think. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Essex is more than a ceremonial county and the article is about "Essex" in various senses, with varying boundaries. It is also a non-metropolitan county and has been an administrative county and a postal county, as explained in the article. It is also referred to as a "historic" county and "geographic" county. "County" better describes what the article is about. And I would guess that most people know what a "county" is whereas only a minority outside WP know what a "ceremonial county" is.--Mhockey (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merging English city districts’ pages with their namesake cities’ pages

This is now a pretty clear case of WP:REFUSINGTOGETIT and this editor has been blocked before for similar behaviour. Let's stop feeding the trolls and move on with our lives. WaggersTALK 14:52, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On the City of Bradford, Leeds, Sheffield, York, Doncaster, Wakefield, Salford, Preston, and Lancaster districts’ pages on Wikipedia, it states that they consist of their namesake cities and other areas, when actually those areas became part of the namesake cities when the districts were formed, just like when Greater London was formed, many areas outside London became part of it. Because of this, I believe it would be a good idea to merge these districts’ pages with their namesake cities’ pages. HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I can't speak for the others but City of Carlisle and City of Milton Keynes include substantial hinterlands that have significant further settlements. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is different because those namesake cities are not proper cities, as they are more of big towns, besides the City of Carlisle district has remained dissolved for nearly three years now. On the other hand, these districts I have listed are proper cities, therefore I stand with merging these articles. HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What's a "proper" city? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A city with towns and areas inside it HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a definition you've invented yourself? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:17, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is common knowledge that proper cities like London contain towns and areas inside them HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So when did London become a proper city, and what was it before then? NebY (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
London has always been a proper city ever since it was created HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What towns and areas did it include when it was created? NebY (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If it is such common knowledge, you will have no problem supplying reliable sources which:
  • Give a definition of "proper cities", and what differentiates them from improper cities (inappropriate cities? fake cities? what is the antonym here?), so that we can improve Wikipedia's articles about cities by including discussion of these two types of city
  • Provide a definitive list of which UK cities are proper cities and which are improper cities
Wikipedia is built on verifiable sources. If you want to contribute to it, you need more than assertions, you need verifiable published facts. The articles that you're currently arguing are wrong have reliable sources to back them up, so you not only need to supply reliable sources for your position, you need to show either that those current sources are incorrect and your sources are superior, or else that the sources are equally valid and that both points of view should be presented.
As it is, you've failed to convince anybody at all in this discussion, and it's probably time you gave it a rest until you can bring something new instead of just repeating the same assertion you started with. Joe D (t) 17:22, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are significant other settlements in these areas that makes them significantly different to the settlement which they are named after. Keith D (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are many settlements in London, such as Bromley, Upminster, Ilford, Sutton, etc, that are different to the majority of London, however they are still part of London as they are part of Greater London. So because of this, I stand by my suggestion of merging these articles. HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But Greater London does have a separate article from London, so that doesn't support your case. I don't have strong feelings about whether any of those articles should or should not be merged, but the arguments put in favour of doing so don't look good so far.
With good reason, we don't do separate articles for all city districts (or city counties, in the case of Bristol), and I think the ones where we don't are generally those where there is general consensus that the area of the city and the area of the district are the same. I can imagine that in some cases where the articles have been separated maybe an argument could be made that there has been a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. But you would have to argue that on a case-by-case basis, I don't think it can be done in bulk, these scenarios are all different. Joe D (t) 21:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Alright well the main articles for these cities should at least be edited to have the same area and population of their districts. HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 06:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your RS for that? The population of City of MK is 287,060. The population of Milton Keynes urban area is 264,349, but that includes part of Bedfordshire.[ONS data]. Which do you want to use? Why? Why not? There are similar definition problems at Leicester and Nottingham that I know of so there must be plenty more.
Buried deep in the ONS spreadsheets are the figures for the agglomerations and those are the real world populations of the cities. Admin district boundaries serve other purposes. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The MK urban area includes areas outside MK, while I am talking about English cities and their districts’ pages and why they should edited to have the same area and population. I still stand by what I say. HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 10:30, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So how have you managed to decide what is inside or outside MK when there is no RS that defines such a thing? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Milton Keynes is more of a huge town that was gained city status, and the wider district contains nearby towns. On the other hand, cities like Leeds, Bradford, Sheffield, etc, are proper cities. HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A large part of Cambridge (the urban area) is outside the City of Cambridge civil parish. The difference is over 35,000 people. All of it is in Cambridgeshire. Which figure do you want to use? Why? How many more examples do you need that one size dies not fit all or even most? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Cambridge urban area contains areas outside the Cambridge district, while I am talking about cities and their districts. I still stand by at least editing their pages to have the same area and population. HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If they have the same area and population, they are the same topic and should be merged. The entire reason that the articles in question are split is because the sources demonstrated that they are about two different topics, with different areas and populations. Joe D (t) 11:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed to death previously and it's a big fat no. Some of the reasons are set out (again) here but I advise you to look at some previous threads on the matter. If there are no new arguments in favour, the consensus remains in tact. WaggersTALK 13:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided valid reasons as to why they should be edited to have the same area and population. HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How do you manage that for the examples quoted above? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
By at least editing the namesake cities’ pages to have the same area and population as their districts HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 09:59, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Which they don't have, you can't force them into your preferred format. English (UK?) political geography is a nightmare at the best of times as it is almost constantly changing. More changes coming soon! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@ @HamzaTheGreat2007 I live in City of Lancaster administrative district. My rural village is about 10 miles from Lancaster, Lancashire and is a very different place. PamD 17:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are many settlements in London such as Upminster, Bexleyheath, Ilford, Sutton, Bromley, Hornchurch etc, that feel completely different to the majority of London and were in the home counties but became part of London when Greater London was formed. So it is a similar case to the Lancaster district. HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And Greater London is not the same as London. (I went to school in Sutton, in Surrey when I started and in London by the time I left: Sutton is in Greater London but not in London). PamD 22:57, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The "city of" articles are the administrative districts which are named after the city that is within them, and do not reflect the actual settlement themself. In addition, the "city of" is not actually the administrative areas correct name, but the common name used by the local authority. For example, the City of Chelmsford administrative area is legally Chelmsford District. The local council use the name City of Chelmsford after Chelmsford was awarded City status. However the district, other than Chelmsford is rather rural, with the largest settlement outside of Chelmsford being 8 miles away in South Woodham Ferrers. They are completely distinct places, and South Woodham Ferrers is definitely not part of the actual city. The only time the administrative area and settlement should be together is when the actual administrative area and the city itself have the same boundaries. However, even this is not set in stone, as City articles can be large and the administrative area may need to be merged out.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Those districts are different to the ones I am referring to, as the ones you have listed are not proper cities. HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So you are also an expert on what is a "proper city" too? So do tell: where are the boundaries - the medieval walls? an administrative district defined in 1925? 1950? 1975? 2000? 2025? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see he is trying to impose his version of reality on individual webpages (Leeds and Bradford so far) despite not coming to agreement here;. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This question is completely irrelevant to my original suggestion on merging the cities’ pages I have listed with their districts’ pages. HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You have not got what the concept of a city is have you? A city in the UK is defined by the Monarch at the time issuing Letters Patent granting the status. It is not the size nor its makeup that define a city. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am not talking about cities given city status; I am talking about cities like Leeds, Bradford, Sheffield, York, etc, who for some reason are considered not to be coextensive with their districts, despite other cities like Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, etc, being considered both cities and districts. Therefore, I still stand with merging these cities’ pages with their districts’ pages. HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@HamzaTheGreat2007 What other cities are there in the UK other than those which have city status? Can you name one? Bazza 7 (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To name a few, there are Coventry, Wolverhampton, and Sunderland. HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All of those do have city status. You were asked to name somewhere you consider a city that does not have city status. WaggersTALK 11:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
York HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That will come as a surprise to the good burghers of that city. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See City status in the United Kingdom#City status conferment, including the last paragraph of that section for the repeated confirmation of York's status. NebY (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@HamzaTheGreat2007 It is just by inconsistency of naming that City of Leeds is not called Greater Leeds, and Kirklees not called City of Huddersfield, and City of Lancaster not known as "Lunedale" or similar. Please stop this persistent arguing. You may find yourself reported to ANI again and blocked for longer if you continue wasting the time of other editors with your incorrect assertions. Just WP:DROPTHESTICK, and let everyone get on with more constructive editing. Thanks. PamD 15:58, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, in the case of Kirklees/Huddersfield it is due to there being no settlement with city status in the borough. But I otherwise agree! 😊 Rcsprinter123 (gas) 19:37, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have given completely valid points on my argument, so I do not understand how I am “wasting time” and giving “incorrect assertions”. HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You assert that I live in Lancaster, Lancashire (because my rural village is within City of Lancaster) and that a resident of Otley lives in Leeds. Both these are incorrect assertions. PamD 08:53, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are many areas of London such as Ilford, Barking, Dagenham, Romford, Upminster, Sutton, Bexleyheath, etc, which were part of the home counties before Greater London was formed, and to this day, many people still refer to them as being part of those counties, even though they are truly part of London. So I am certain it is the same case with these cities I have listed. HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
London may be a special case, but I know through my lived experience that my village is in City of Lancaster (an administrative area established in 1974, comprising Lancaster and surrounding rural area including several settlements) but not in Lancaster, Lancashire (a city established by the Romans). PamD 21:46, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Greater London (a London which includes Ilford, Barking, Dagenham, Romford, Upminster, Sutton and Bexleyheath) isn't a city. There is an an administrative area called Greater London and a ceremonial county of the same name whose outer border is the same as the administrative area's but which has a hole in the middle, the City of London which is another ceremonial county as well as being a city. Both Greater Londons do include the City of Westminster, west of the City. The Greater London Built-up Area is greater than the other Greater Londons but isn't a city either. NebY (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. Greater London is the authority for all the boroughs of London. HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 13:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Greater London Authority is an authority for all the administrative area which includes all 32 London boroughs and the City of London too. The GLA was established by the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which did not designate Greater London a city. NebY (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My point still stands on Greater London being the authority of London. So similarly, these city districts I have listed should be considered as an authority for their cities. HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This also means that the places in the districts considered to be outside the city itself should now be considered to part of the city proper, just like how many places which were in the home counties before Greater London was formed are now part of London proper. HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Faulty reasoning from false premises still. Escape Orbit's right. Bye. NebY (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what that means, but I still stand with my suggestion as I have given valid points to my argument as shown above. HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]


HamzaTheGreat2007, it's time to give this a rest. You are attempting to enforce a consistency on Wikipedia where there is none in real life. You are defining things either to your own definitions, or are picking ones that suit your case while ignoring others. The way settlements are described by reliable sources within the UK is full of anomalies and peculiarities if you want to pick them apart. But it is by reliable sources we must be guided. If sources indicate that a settlement is notable, and they have enough to say about it to justify it having a separate article, then that's how it is on Wikipedia. Arguing the toss about how it's done for one city/town/county/village, compared to another, gets no-one anywhere. You are never going to devise a consistent way of doing this that fits everywhere, and you are never going to get consensus on what you are trying to do. Please try to devote your undoubted enthusiasm on more productive work. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are only saying this because you cannot accept that I have provided completely valid points to my argument, and you do not want to follow my suggestion simply because you feel like it is a waste of your time. HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, for the reasons given by numerous editors above: fundamentally, cities and their administrative areas are not the same thing. Dave.Dunford (talk)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Good article reassessment for Islands of the Clyde

Islands of the Clyde 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) 23:49, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of historic buildings

Hi. User:Tilman2007 is doing some great work on creating Lists of Historic buildings, however, I am not sure if tge work he is doing is in the right location. Firstly, he is creating lists based upon a parish, which is creating lists that are far bigger than most parish articles, which many are stubs, for example White Notley. Should these not be merged into the main article? Secondly, he has created Listed buildings in Sible Hedingham and linked it to the main article, but the main article already has the list started on its page? Should the page be put to AFD as the information already exists? Thirdly, he has created pages for districts, like Listed buildings in the Borough of Basildon, and Listed buildings in Castle Point, but these districts will no longer in 3 years time. Should these either be mergered into the settlements (as list is broken down by settlement) or be moved to list by settlements instead? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the case where the info is in both a listed buildings page and on the article for the Parish, i'd put a merge proposal on the article. My preference is a page per village/town/parish etc but the district may be better in cases where we dont have a clear definition of the town e.g. if its in an unparished area. Eopsid (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidstewartharvey: I'm not sure that the listed building articles being longer than their associated parish articles is a problem. User:Peter I. Vardy has been assiduously compiling similar list articles for parishes in northern counties for years without any obvious objections. In fact, the proposed solution may be worse than the perceived problem: some parishes have a lot of listed buildings, not all of them of great interest to the non-specialist, and you'll end up with parish articles that are dwarfed by the listed building sections. The ideal approach would perhaps be a prose summary of the notable buildings in the parish articles (these are often headed "Landmarks", for some reason), with a {{main}} link to the detailed list of all the listed buildings. I do, however, agree that the duplication at Sible Hedingham#Listed buildings and structures in the parish isn't ideal, though it may only be temporary. Dave.Dunford (talk)
The idea to merge a parish article with the list of their listed buildings might be interesting but may be impractical. If you look at Listed buildings in England and click on most of the northern counties, you will find that there are many hundreds of lists potentially to be merged with parishes, a task that would take someone many months or more. What I have done is to make a list of the listed buildings, and link it to the parish or electoral ward, by See also, or sometimes by a {{main}} link, when appropriate. This seems to work practically as Dave.Dunford has confirmed. As he says, some parish articles with many listed buildings would be overwhelmed by the list.
I am not happy with the format used by some editors, including the examples quoted above. They contain a lot of dry facts, but rarely any description of the buildings themselves. WP is about notable people, buildings, etc. and, by definition, all listed buildings are notable. But not all listed buildings merit a full article, so the solution I have come up with is to include them in a list with a short description, plus of course location, references, etc. and a photo when available. If the building is very notable, and has an article, it is linked to the list. The format I use, with some minor modifications, was developed many years ago when I successful promoted a number of lists to featured status, for example Listed buildings in Runcorn (urban area) and Listed buildings in Widnes. The format was clearly accepted as being appropriate, so I have used it ever since. IMO there is no problem. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem where a parish or settlement is linked to a list where the list would make the article to big. However, when a parish such as White Notley is as small as it is, having a separate page to list listed buildings is ridiculous. One point I made in the past to other editors, is that separate pages for main articles have very low viewing figures compared to the main article. The history of New York or London pages are only have the smidgen of the readers that the main article has as people are generally lazy and don't want to go beyond the one page. Which, is why, if a parish or settlement page is small, why have a separate page about its notable buildings? I also agree that a small prose should be made into some of the most notable buildings before having a list. The editor in question has agreed in some part to my points, taking Castle Point and moving them into the settlement/parish page. However for Sible Hedingham he has gone down the route of keeping the list and deleting the part in the main article.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking up in support of Peter's format for lists. They give valuable descriptive information about listed buildings which are not notable enough to hvae their own article, or do not yet have the article they ought eventually to have. By being freestanding they can be included in hierarchical categories of lists of listed buildings. I commend Peter's format for stand-alone lists, and am impressed by the huge effort he has put into creating them over the years. While thanking @Tilman2007 for their work in creating lists such as Listed buildings in Sible Hedingham, I think that Peter's more informative format is preferable. I see that there is a template {{English Heritage listed building row}}, created in 2013, which Tilman uses, but I don't think it produces optimal lists. PamD 09:49, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with PamD. In a settlement article itself, surely it is enough to name-check any Grade I listed buildings and note that there are n Grade II*s and m Grade IIs citing the national database with search arguments. We really don't want to swamp the settlement article with that level of subsidiary detail, but just say where to find it – whether that be a Wikipedia list or the EH/HES/Cadw website. (In the past I might have declared WP:NOTDB, why are we replicating those databases but (after creating Scheduled monuments in the City of Milton Keynes, which took an inordinate amount of work) this single sortable table format is much more accessible and 'opens doors'.
Wikipedia is not on paper, we don't need to cram everything onto a linear narrative, we have hyperlinks to facilitate and encourage deep dives into particular areas of interest. Also it may be important to note that not all CPs are equal: there are some very large settlements like Northampton that are all in one parish, 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One example may be Bath, Somerset (a featured article) which is unparished & the district Bath and North East Somerset has 663 Grade I listed buildings ("one of the highest concentrations in the country"), so a few are hihglighted in the main article and the detail is at Grade I listed buildings in Bath and North East Somerset (a featured list), with more detail at Buildings and architecture of Bath. It would be impossible to include these in the main city article, before I even start talking about Grade II* listed buildings in Bath and North East Somerset.— Rod talk 10:39, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
PamD's observation about "list of listed buildings" articles allowing for hierarchical organisation is a strong one. There's a whole tree of structured information starting at Listed buildings in England that would be lost if these articles didn't exist. Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with PamD. The template {{English Heritage listed building row}} is not ideal. You have to activate notes if you want to enter a description. I don't like the formatting of the columns and line breaks. You must split the list after a certain number of lines depending how many pictures, references and text you add. In the midterm the rendering of long tables will be changed, but for the time being splitting is the only way to display all buildings for York or Canterbury without table overflow. I added a link to this tool wikitools.toolforge.org/listcoord.php? at the end of each page I created. This tool displays all coordinates in a list using this template. The blue markers show objects without pictures which is helpful for planning photo tours. In some pages I'd like to add scheduled monuments like the market cross in Castle Combe or the city walls of Canterbury and parks and garden like the one of Saltham House. Some buildings are scheduled and some are part of a garden, some castles are scheduled, some are listed, some both. I chose not to include scheduled monuments and parks because they do not agree the page name indicating a list of listed buildings. I didn't want use Historic England's cumbersome term listed buildings and protected structures. Any suggestion's on that? Tilman2007 (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty#Requested move 8 February 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty#Requested move 8 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 07:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:List of urban areas in the United Kingdom#Requested move 10 February 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of urban areas in the United Kingdom#Requested move 10 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 05:03, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of UK cities by GDP

Is that article beyond redemption? It reminds me of the "proper cities" delusion above. It seems to me that the whole article is an ill-conceived mess because of grotesque cherry-picking. The ONS source cited has sensible groupings so that there is at least some attempt to compare like with like. Here we have 'Greater Manchester' (not 'Manchester') compared with 'Liverpool' (but not 'Merseyside'). And sorting by absolute GDP is amateurish - London is bigger than anywhere else, who knew? It reads like a silly willy-waving competition and a waste of space.

Any reason not to send it to AFD? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just send it and let the wider community decide. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:12, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Which would only invite the obvious question: what have you done to improve it? Which is why I posed the question here first: is the underlying concept so fundamentally flawed that any work on it would be a waste of effort? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
i will double check the articles source when i have some free time but from a quick glance the article at least needs renaming to list of city regions by GDP Eopsid (talk) 08:12, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
After checking the source, it doesnt mention cities at all, its local authorities or groupings of them. And then the grouping of them into city regions for use by the article is in my view original research. For some reason they decided West Yorkshire counts as a city region but not South Yorkshire. And thats not to mention large towns and cities which arent in the data because they aren't grouped into a "city region" Northampton for example. I would support deletion. Eopsid (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress at Talk:Guildhall

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Guildhall regarding the titles of articles about guildhalls. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography