Shortcut
What's new

Today's featured articles

Articles for deletion

Good article reassessments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

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 308

  • 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 (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

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]

Deletion of articles on built-up areas

It kinda follows on from a discussion we had on here 2 or 3 years ago. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 25#Debate on merging "urban area" ("built-up area") articles into the primary settlement area But a number of these articles have now been nominated for deletion here:

I don't feel that strongly about keeping or deleting any of these. It would be good to get more opinions on these. Also would be good to get a second opinion on the discussion on the Burnley built up area deletion, I feel like I'm going insane arguing that because the conurbations of Great Britain book from 1966 (which can be borrowed freely from Archive.org) has a section on Burnley that there is a conurbation centred around it. Eopsid (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move from Virginia Water Lake to Virginia Water.

Please see the discussion at Talk:Virginia Water Lake Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wards

Hi, I know this was a discussion a while back, where we discussed should Wards come under WP:NPLACE, and I believe the concensus was that they dont and should come under the settlement. However User:MRSC has reverted both Westborough Ward and Chalkwell (Southend-on-Sea ward) merges from the related settlements. With the current ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features) regarding Confusing wording of NPLACE I thought this discussion should be brought to the fore again! Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how we can escape from the fact that the names and boundaries of wards are subject to change, especially in places that have population growth or decline. We need to think of them as we do Parliamentary constituencies. (Civil parishes are far more stable but unfortunately these are not ubiquitous and some are even the same as the town as a whole (Northampton, for example) rather than a neighbourhood or a small group of neighbourhoods.) That's not a reason to reject wards outright but it does limit what we can do with them. IMO anyway. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wards are not geographic places, they are political constituencies. MRSC (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore it then has to meet GNG, which they both fail.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Political constituencies are notable. This is an odd response to an article being expanded and improved. MRSC (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take WP:GNG.
1. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Based upon this, Are Wards notable and us there enough to write an article on - answer no in the case of Chalkwell (Southend-on-Sea ward), [[Milton (Southend-on-Sea ward) and Westborough (ward) which are just a list of election results. Remember we are an Encyclopedia not a Gazetter.
2. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
Is there significant coverage of the wards - no there is not, not even in local press.
3. "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. Yes the references are generally reliable, however fir the results of the elections and this takes us to
4. "Sources"[3] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[4] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. Well the main source used is the official electoral results from Southend-on-Sea City Council, which us therefore not secondary.
5. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. Which as per above is not independent. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That could equally be applied to Parliamentary constituencies and I'm pretty sure you would come up with the same result. Are we going to start arguing for their deletion as well?
FWIW, I think we can agree that a list of wards is notable and that perhaps that is where the energy should be focussed. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where do we draw the line at political constituencies? Parliamentary constituencies at government level are clearly notable, and will have plenty of verifiable secondary evidence to meet GNG. As per previous discussion, Wards do not fit into NPLACE, so must meet GNG, which most wards just don't as they rarely get that coverage. A list of election results is a Gazetter not Encyclopedic and the articles nominated have no other info that is not already within the actual settlements - which Chalkwell and Westborough had been moved to originally. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's why lists of wards are useful. You might struggle to find notability of individual wards but you won't for the wards as a collection. Boundary changes are widely reported and several news outlets cover the results of local elections. Even the nationals publish results of local elections - look at the pages the BBC produce every year. Wards as a collective definitely are notable if not as individuals. My personal view is that wards are individually notable but I can see where consensus is going. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that wards are individually notable but I agree with the rest of your argument. I think the vast majority of, if not all, wards would come under WP:INDISCRIMINATE but the concept as a whole is notable as an aspect of local politics. Constituencies may have better sourcing as there is often reporting done on their demographics and attitudes and there are examples of (non-political) studies based on them.[1][2] Orange sticker (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In any disussion about wards, and also in writing about them, we need to distinguish between wards/electoral divisions which elect councillors to (a) parish/town councils, (b) district councils (c) county councils, with (d) unitary authority councils also in the mix. There has been a lot of work done recently to clear up a large number of articles created on non-notable wards, most of which didn't distinguish what kind of ward was under discussion (some places are covered by wards with the same or similar names but different boundaries, for two tiers of elections). On the whole I'd say that district/county /UA wards should be redirected to the big lists like List of electoral wards in Lancashire (which records changes over time), and parish council wards to the article on the parish which can list the ward as part of the description of the parish council. PamD 12:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the local authority article can include a section on each ward, it we must have it.
Sorry, back on my hobby horse that, for significant settlements or districts, we should always have separate articles for (a) the physical, social and economic geography -v- (b) the political geography. Article (a) is about the settlement or district, article (b) is about its local authority (CC, DC, UA). Too many combined articles are clogged [IMO!] with boring political detail because it is easy to collect and be completionist about. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hounslow baseline (for first OS)

Can anyone help resolve the quandary at Talk:Principal Triangulation of Great Britain#GPS measures an ellipsoid? In summary, the two eighteenth century measurements concur almost precisely but a poorly documented modern survey using GPS differs by 1%. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Smithfield, London

Smithfield, London 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) 19:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Somerset Coal Canal

Somerset Coal Canal 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) 17:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography
No tags for this post.