This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somerset, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somerset on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SomersetWikipedia:WikiProject SomersetTemplate:WikiProject SomersetSomerset
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Your update looks good so far. It would be good to have a record of some of the reasoning behind this merger, ie savings since sharing resources in 2013(?) and the politics and opposition to it. Not sure where this would go, but most logically in the present articles from a timeline perspective. I think it would be good to go ahead and create the new article now, to prempt someone else doing it and making a pigs ear of it. A stub, something along the lines of proposed new council solely pending central approval, although it looks like they are already working together getting things ready for the merge, so that could be included to. That would give enough content to deter a deletion. When the merge happens, I think there is some content that could be trimmed in each of the current articles: education, listed buildings. I can't see these being of much interest in the future. having said that I see now that Taunton Deane has separate list articles for buildings and monuments. Maybe do the same for west somt? Derek Andrews (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At this stage all that should be done is identification of affected articles, categories, templates and files. Some changes can be done immediately, like creation of the article for the new district (and a map of the new district). Some prep work can be done when the definite date is known, such as creating new maps and drafting new articles. They can then go live on day 1. Some other changes have to wait until day 1, such as categorisation.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree, there's no point in doing much until we know that this is definitely going to happen, however the new district article may be acceptable to be created even if the district isn't actually created. Look at this for example. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You must be logged in to post a comment.