Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 21

Placename, town/city

What do people think about cases when we disambiguate by town/city rather than (ceremonial) county even when there is only 1 place in the county?

There are several cases I can think of:

• Woodbridge, Suffolk, its a town and CP in East Suffolk district but is part of Ipswich BUA but its a separate BUASD and is separated by some rural land though aparently not enough for the 200 metre rule
• Fulwood, Lancashire, its an unparished area in its own right in Preston district its part of Preston BUA but its a separate BUASD and is attached to Preston its self
• Stanley, West Yorkshire, its a separate unparished area in Wakefield district but is part of Wakefield BUASD however it apparently was a separate BUASD in the 2001 census, it is attached to Wakefield its self
• Stourton, Leeds, its part of Leeds BUASD in Leeds district however its part of Rothwell unparished area, its attached to Leeds its self
• Pinewood, Suffolk, its a CP in Babergh district but is part of Ipswich BUASD and attached to Ipswich its self
• Topsham, Devon, its in Exeter BUA and Exeter district/unparished area but is a separate BUASD and is just separated but the M5
• Great Cornard, its a CP in its own right (as is Sudbury) but its part of Sudbury BUA and is attached to Sudbury
• Tamerton Foliot, its in Plymouth BUASD as well as Plymouth district/unparished area but does not appear to be attached to Plymouth though it may have been recently
• Millbrook, Southampton, its in Southampton BUASD as well as Southampton district/unparished area and is attached to Southampton but was a village in its own right
• Chantry, Suffolk, its in Ipswich BUASD as well as Ipswich district/unparished area, it was never a separate village but is a housing estate

Should we consider abandoning this rule and always using the county if its sufficient and only using the district/CP/unparished area if there is still ambiguity. IMO always using the county would simplify things and be less ambiguous for everyone since even people who know a place is in a town/city will still think if it as being in its county. However we would need to decide what to do with the like of The Bridge School, Ipswich that is there despite not being in the district/unparished area of Ipswich. I suppose the town/city is far more likely to be known than the district so maybe if a place is ambiguous within a county but not district and is considered part of a town/city but the district has a different name the town/city may be better though. Hayton, Carlisle is probably likely to be known which one is being referred to since people would know its in/near Carlisle but probably wouldn't know which one Hayton, Allerdale is but obviously this doesn't matter since neither Hayton is part of a town/city and with the 1st example some people claim that its confusing since it suggests its part of the town/city its self when district is used. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it depends on the place in question. For example Mansfield is a town, district and is in Nottinghamshire. It seems to be able to have it's own District page despite only having one town and that is Market Warsop. Yet Chesterfield is covered by both a town and borough page. With only Staveley being the only other town. Maybe a village town or city if it covers a wider area should be placed under a ceremonial county the it's wider district or ward. Like for example Batley is a town in West Yorkshire within the borough of Kirklees. Or Runcorn is a town in Cheshire within the borough of Halton. To name a few RailwayJG (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I think we should be disambiguating by the county unless its unambiguously in a town/city. If you changed Woodbridge to Woodbridge, Ipswich, you'd start a civil war. Eopsid (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I certainly agree with not moving Woodbridge and would strongly oppose a move however do you think Stourton should use the county disambiguator? I think it should. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Quite. Chantry, however, is part of Ipswich - and really obviously so. I would suspect that most people living there consider themselves to live in Ipswich. The statistical built up area definitions aren't reliable for this. Common sense and, where necessary, local knowledge are much better. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

To be quite honest I would echo what was said back at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/August#section break 2 "The county disambiguator has the advantage of being well defined and historically more stable" and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 13#Medway or Kent being a can of worms. While we may be able to define a place by BUA/BUASD/district/unparished area/civil parish that doesn't mean that the place is unquestionably part of the settlement so I'd say the county is just plainly simpler and easier. I'm also struggling to see significant benefits to using the town/city rather than county for suburbs, the only 2 that I can think of is that people are more likely to refer to inner city areas as being in town/city than county and that the town/city disambiguator is more likely to be seen as appropriate for buildings and similar as opposed to settlements but the drawbacks of being more complicated seem to me far worse. S with Chantry while it is clearly part of Ipswich IMO the county disambigator is sufficient unless the one in Orford is also notable which is below an OS settlement and doesn't show up at all. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The one in Orford is a barn conversion. Next to a rather nice old farmhouse with an interesting date not he wall. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The present policy works well. Of the examples you cite all comply with the policy except Chantry, Suffolk and possibly Pinewood, Suffolk (both categorised as districts of Ipswich). I don't see a problem with any of the others. Would you seriously move Millbrook, Southampton to Millbrook, Hampshire? The point of disambiguation to to help users find the right article most easily. and I would guess that more people know where Southampton is than know which county it is in.--Mhockey (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes I would consider moving Millbrook since IMO a simple and clear guideline is better than an unnecessarily complicated one, the ceremonial counties are usually used by most people to locate most places and being consistent with separate settlements seems desirable. As noted consider people's differing views and pride etc on places with NPOV, some will be fine with them being disambiguated by town but some may feel they should not be disambiguated by town if they still think the place has some independence, while this problem will also come up with categories and text on if they should be described/categorized as suburbs or not I still think a clear and objective guideline for titling is better than an ambiguous and subjective one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wolverhampton

[[1]] - can I ask for a discussion on here please. For the article split. Cheers RailwayJG (talk) 08:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Better to keep the discussion in one place at Talk:Wolverhampton#Splitting_the_article_into_a_borough_and_the_city. PamD 09:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• I see that your undiscussed splitting of the article has already been reverted. WP:BRD, so now discuss it there, where people knowledgeable about the area will join in. You've flagged up the discussion here, but don't split it. PamD 09:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• But if you were going to create the new article, it should have been at City of Wolverhampton, overwriting the existing redirect, rather than at the non-standard "The ..." title. PamD 09:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The City of Wolverhampton

I have made a new article for Wolverhampton due to two reasons. One: It contains notable settlements such as Bilston, Wednesfield and Tettenhall which are towns and villages in the city. And two it also takes in small parts of the South Staffordshire, Walsall Metropolitan Borough and Dudley Metropolitan Borough. Plus the city article it was attached to was not very clear and formative on the wider settlements enough so I have added them to the new borough article. Happy for the checks to be done but I think it can stand on its own a bit like with Wakefield, Bradford and Salford. RailwayJG (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I've added categories but although I personally don't have a problem with having 2 articles I think others will object since it appears to satisfy all but possibly 1 criteria to have 1 article at WP:UKDISTRICTS, probably those at User:Crouch, Swale/District split#Partly parished that have the most crosses should be looked at instead. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• @RailwayJG: When you say "I have made a new article", I think you mean "I have split the existing article, copying work done by many other editors over the years to create a new article in my name, with no acknowledgment of their work". This is not the same. You are effectively claiming credit for the work of those other editors. Please read WP:Copying within Wikipedia and WP:Splitting for the correct way to do this sort of thing, and take the time to learn how to do things before making such large changes to an existing article. I note that your copying has been reverted. PamD 09:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't mean it like that. I wanted to make something that focused on the other areas around the city aside from Wolverhampton and had a bit more about the wider city. I never meant it like I'll take credit for others work at all. RailwayJG (talk) 09:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Town/District Splitting

Following on from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 19#Article for both Borough and town? It seems we have another new Borough article being split off from the town with the Borough of Chesterfield. I'm not particularly opposed to this but I've decided to create a new article City of Sheffield because I think thats another district which deserves its own article instead of being merged with the city its named after. Eopsid (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

One couldn't oppose chesterfield one anyway for one reason. It contains the town of Staveley which is also a town and has a town council. And the village of Brimington has a parish council. Plus Chesterfield is the second largest settlement after the city of Derby. Of course aside from Mickleover. Derby has no major town or village to warrant a separate article. Sheffield has a chance with of course Stockbridge and the former parts of Derbyshire it annexed RailwayJG (talk) 10:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you. Whether Mickleover is distinct from Derby is debatable, it doesnt have its own parish. Eopsid (talk) 10:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, on my table Sheffield failed all but 1 test to be combined. Chesterfield is indeed a borderline case in that the BUA does include Staveley and Brimington. Derby is a single unparished area. As I noted with Middlesbrough I think we need to look at merging most of England's district councils at Category:District councils of the United Kingdom into their district's articles with the exception of the likes of Plymouth City Council when the district is combined with the settlement as well as the Isles of Scilly and possibly London boroughs. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Crouch: Why should we look at merging districts and councils? They are distinct subjects (geography, politics) with separate claims to notability. Councils' party compositions, histories, logos etc wouldn't be good jammed in with the articles on the areas which they govern. This is irrespective of whether the district includes areas extra to the main settlement within it. I think this would be a big change requiring extensive discussion and a very clear consensus. Rcsprinter123 (articulate) 23:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Rcsprinter123 all the histories and logos tend to need to be in the district's article as well as compositions, see South Hams v South Hams District Council, most of the information is duplicated apart from the wards which should probably be in the district article to. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

County Durham (district)

Would some editors be okay with linking the villages, hamlets, towns and city of County Durham to the new County Durham (district) which was made to seperate it from the ceremonial county and cover the wider County Durham Unitary Authority district. Be appreciated. RailwayJG (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I've alerted the relevant project at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_North_East_England#County_Durham. PamD 15:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Claims of Bristol being a "Major City"

It seems a lot of anons keep putting the term "major" in the heading of Bristol. But in context there is nothing unique to call it major...It is a county and city and I get that. But just like Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Leeds, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Sheffield and London. The term major is very subjective. The ones listed are much larger then Bristol and to me it seems to be a constant every other edit battle. Only a university and gsce site use major. Other sites don't and Bristol is much smaller in population terms to the cities above which are higher and have borough, unitary authority or county included. I would appreciate your lots input. RailwayJG (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is not usual practice to use subjective terms when introducing a topic, which could be controversial. The usual format is "X is a city and [type of district]" or "X is the largest city in X county/region". Your IP was also changing the population higher than that in the cited source. Although, I do think being the largest city in the south west does make Bristol fairly major in UK terms. Rcsprinter123 (jive) 19:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't change the population unless it was on a revert. I think it passes from place to place ips do but I think as said Newcastle upon Tyne and Manchester are much larger but don't have major city in their leads. Most populous would work but major is like from my understanding referring to a city with over a million or roughly. But given Bristol isn't at a million yet. I don't see how major would be as you said subjective as it is a major city but of course other biggish cities are Gloucester and Cardiff although the latter is in Wales. RailwayJG (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Current version is fine. Let's not complicate anything. Rcsprinter123 (pronounce) 19:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Describing it as something like an important regional city would be a fairly accurate and uncontroversial description. But I agree 'major city' is too subjective. Although by any standards London would qualify as a major city. G-13114 (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Although I agree that 'major' is subjective and should in generally be avoided, to measure a city's claim to being 'major' by its population count, as do you, RailwayJG, is a practice equally to be avoided: subjectivity measuring subjectivity? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I guess yes RailwayJG (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

My fault :(

Hi all sorry I made two new articles and keep forgetting to use the redirects to the articles I am creating..Fochriw new railway station and Talgarth new railway station. Could someone delete, merge or remove them please as they are duplicates and I can't do them myself...regards RailwayJG (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

If you replace the article with #REDIRECTname of article to redirect to it will create a redirect. If you want them deleted this shows how Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, and it will be deleted after 7 days. It's basically just copying this {{subst:Proposed deletion|concern=reason for proposed deletion}} to the top of your articles. Eopsid (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

It will probably be easiest just to replace all the current article content with a one line #Redirect as Eopsid suggests, it probably isn't worth the effort to get them deleted. I assume you will be redirecting to a section so don't forget to include {{redirect to section}} (or {{redirect to anchor}} in your (now) redirection article as well. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Eopsid and John will make sure to do that next time...regards RailwayJG (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Ceremonial and administrative counties that are concurrent

Suffolk and the Isle of Wight apparently have the same boundaries for the ceremonial and administrative county/UA yet in the infobox the population for Suffolk is 758,556 for the ceremonial county and 761,350 for the administrative county, the Isle of Wight is 141,538 for the ceremonial county and 141,771 for the administrative county. Unlike Essex and Durham (see Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about districts#Districts that are also counties) which do cover different areas why do the 1st 2 apparently have different populations? Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I looked into Suffolk. It seems that the figures and ranking in the infobox are taken from tables on Ceremonial counties of England (for ceremonial) and List of two-tier counties of England (for non-met). The former uses 2018 population data, while the latter uses 2019 estimates. I can see the figures from each year on the source ONS table, which match up - 758k to 761k. The solution would be to update everything to 2019 population and apply across tables, ranking and infoboxes. Rcsprinter123 (confabulate) 17:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Rcsprinter123: That's what I thought it might be however the area for Suffolk ceremonial is 3,798 and administrative 4,106. IOW is 384 ceremonial and 372 administrative. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Clarity on Lancashire and Yorkshire

I might be a bit naive asking this but why did they split Yorkshire but keep Lancashire aside from (Greater Manchester (Part), Merseyside (Part) and Cumbria (Part).) as one county but Yorkshire has been split into four different counties but all share the same Yorkshire Day and Cricket Team? I am interested as a fellow Yorkshireman. Nobody I have asked can explain clearly why...RailwayJG (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

As the second sentence of the Yorkshire article says: "Because of its great size in comparison with other English counties, functions have been undertaken over time by its subdivisions, which have also been subject to periodic reform." And elsewhere: "[The three ridings] were in many ways treated as separate administrative counties, having had separate quarter sessions and also separate lieutenancies since the Restoration. This practice was followed by the Local Government Act 1888, which made each of the three ridings an administrative county with an elected county council." That is, Yorkshire historically formed three county council areas, whereas Lancashire only had one (plus, in both cases, the county boroughs - I'm simplifying). Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

First, RailwayJG, nothing was split except in people's imagination: the areas you refer to were all freshly created. Once that mindshift takes place, IMO, the answer to your question becomes a little easier. I'm speculating, but the newly created areas were given names that had a close association with those areas, such as Merseyside or West Yorkshire (ie West riding). Merseyside could just as easily have been called South Lancashire. The same reasoning has been followed all over England. The powers that be were simply trying to make people feel at home and in many places it almost worked. Of course, almost is not the same as completely, as the residents of Humberside will attest. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

"Merseyside could just as easily have been called South Lancashire...." There would have been riots in the streets of Meols... Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Those make sense thanks 🙂 RailwayJG (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be discussed a bit more at Merseyside#History but it is discussed a bit at Local Government Act 1972 where it notes Greater Manchester was SELNEC. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Status of New Towns in 21st Century

Now given New Town's in the UK were founded and formed between 1949 and 1980. As well as an odd few in modern times. Is there an official cut off point for the term after say 50 years. Some prime examples are Telford, Milton Keynes, Newton Aycliffe, Peterlee, Washington, Corby, Stevenage, Cwmbran, Preston, Stoke-on-Trent, Peterborough, Northampton, Hemel Hempstead and Newtown. I think if the 50 years has passed, then the term new becomes meaningless and instead either large town, town or founded as a new town seem better placed. As I did add New to Milton Keynes but the census was New doesn't apply but on Cwmbran. The term does still apply. So I am asking for a wider census. Should the term still be applied to all new town articles or just put in a tab mentioning it as the pages linked have different meanings. Some were after the war and after 60s and 70s. RailwayJG (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Instead of saying "is a new town" or "was a new town", why not say something like "was designated a [[New towns in the United Kingdom|new town]] on (date)"? But probably not in the first sentence unless the place is/was particularly notable for being a new town. -- Dr Greg  talk  01:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Dr Greg I agree. Places like Wixams in Bedford for example can be put as new town as it is still in development and has been since 2009 so is relatively newish. But places like Cwmbran are far from new as they are already built and not as new as some editors on there say it is. RailwayJG (talk) 04:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

There are also places like Cambourne that [I believe, could be wrong] are "new towns" but not "New Towns" because their existence is not due to the New Towns Act.

Either way, we should not open an article by saying "X is a new town", still less "X is a New Town". Think of the worldwide readership. The "new town" text should be in a later sentence, along the lines of "was founded as", "was extensively expanded as" or similar wording depending on the location. -- John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Btw, I have been bold and edited Cwmbran along the lines above (so it no longer says that Cwmbran "is" a New Town). Does anyone disapprove? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the point is being missed here. People are incorrectly assuming the term 'new town' is an adjective followed by a noun; but it is actually one compound noun. That means the time from when it was first built is of far less importance than some of us claim. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly - something like New College, Oxford retains the name even though it was founded in 1379! Perhaps a closer analogy would be the private schools that are known as public schools following the Public Schools Acts. The construction that followed the New Towns Act forms a recognised grouping like New wave music or the French New Wave, the "new" is not an indication of recency. Yes, there is potential for confusion for non-Brits, but that can be resolved with a wikilink to New towns in the United Kingdom Le Deluge (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

As Roger 8 Roger points out and the article New towns in the United Kingdom explains, "new towns" were a specific form of planned development that were legislated for – it doesn't just mean a town that was built recently, or is newer than other towns. So it will always remain a relevant term in explaining these towns' origins, regardless of how actually "new" they are. Obviously this becomes less relevant to their current status as time passes and further developments occur, so John Maynard Friedman is quite right to suggest that introducing this information in context and later in the lead would be appropriate. Jellyman (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Clarity on the following

Hi so I've just been browsing Swansea and Powys. Now it's saying that the town of Ystradgynlais is the second largest town in Powys. However looking at Brecon page it is actually bigger in population by another few hundred. So I was wondering...shouldn't Brecon be classed as the second biggest town given its larger by a small fraction then Ystradgynlais? RailwayJG (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Are they using the same source? If its only a few hundred the difference might just be because the population is from a different date. Eopsid (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The reference is for the same source and date but the link doesnt load for me. I wouldnt be surprised if the population differed from what the reference says, thats something that gets changed a lot. Eopsid (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

It's all about the built up area for Ystradgynlais - see the end of the first paragraph of the article (where the reference does load as it's not the crappy 2011 census ones all added by the same person). The OS map is instructive as well - whilst Brecon has a clearly defined edge and is remote from other significant settlements, the nature of settlement around Ystradgynlais means that it sprawls up and down the valley into places like Abercraf, which, for example, seems to be part of the built up area per the article, and places such as Y Gurnos (not that one) and across the county boundary to Ystalyfera - look at the typical South Wales valley sprawl; anyone not from the area would have difficulty telling which village they were part of in my experience as they all merge together. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

If we look at the built-up area for Ystradgynlais then its part of the Swansea Urban Area. That first paragraph is misleading its confusing built-up areas and built-up area subdivisions... I will change it. Eopsid (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Llanelli edits and possible need for further article clearance

I have just been looking through the Llanelli article and the amount of clutter, badly compiled summary and the poor picture in the lead. I had to make a few edits. I have given a clearer summary as opposed to this one: [[2]] to my new version. There was a lot of text which could have gone in the history or governance tabs. It looked like the article was not given much thought of being cleared up or tweaked so I did and it looks a lot more clearer including a more inviting photo of Llanelli. Also the tab used the BUA population then the main town population. So that caused some confusion saying the town was 26k but the lead said 49k. I also think some of the other town, city and village tabs might need a look at for clarity, population and lead trimming. Just a suggestion...RailwayJG (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Splitting towns and possibly creating a civil or parish article for each?

So me and @Crouch, Swale: were just discussing whether some places like Totton(29,421, urban 34,976), Shaw, Greater Manchester(18,349), South Hayling (16,020) and Shotley Gate (1,454). Should be given their own articles as they form their own BUA and I think some of the towns especially Shaw and Crompton should be seperated and Shotley Gate on the basis the towns still exist although were likely joined on articles to save hassle. It is a little similar to the parish of South Kirkby and Moorthorpe. But both the town and village have seperate articles but are part of the civil parish which as well has an article? So maybe some of these could be kept as a civil parish and each town and village in these parish has their own article? RailwayJG (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I would support splitting them if you have secondary sources about the areas. I think for most of those examples they probably exist, but I haven't checked. But I'm not sure what the Totton split would be. There already is a Totton article? Eopsid (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually I'm an idiot we dont have a totton article. Yeah I would support splitting them (assuming sources exist, which I think most likely do). I'm surprised those aren't split already to be honest. Eopsid (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know what you'd write in an article for Shotley Gate that wouldn't be in an article about Shotley. Given the historical development of the place - take a look at early 20th century maps. It's not unreasonable to perhaps have an article on it, but I'm not sure there's an awful lot of point. (e2a: as a general point, just because it's a name on a map doesn't mean we need an article on it - South Hayling as a case in point) Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Well Shotley Gate is a separate ONS BUA to the rest of Shotley (which covers the rest of Shotley parish) I guess indeed per the previous discussion there would be overlap but that doesn't mean that there can't be separate articles with some information summarized in the Shotley article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Personally I would like to have articles for every BUA seperate from the main parish, I dont think there are that many which dont have their own articles. But the problem is quite a few are lacking in sources. I wanted to create one for Crow Hill but couldnt find any real sources talking about it. Eopsid (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd generally agree though as you say Crow Hill doesn't appear to have any other good sources so does being an ONS BUA automatically make a place notable even if there aren't any other sources? Then I suppose we should ask what should happen with the likes of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area that are named after multiple settlements? I've produced a list at User:Crouch, Swale/BUAs of the BUAs in England from City Population without articles and then produced a list at User:Crouch, Swale/BUAs/Revised excluding those that match the area of a parish (or are otherwise the same) as well as non-OS settlements and then further revised at User:Crouch, Swale/BUAs/Revised 2 which may provide some examples that should be created. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Per Blue Square; but also I think we're running into the issue that we are talking about creating articles for areas created by an algorithm based on maps and data that are not functional areas for the purpose of secondary sources. Koncorde (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

We don't need articles on every statistical "built up" area. As Koncorde says, this is algorithm based - we need better sources than that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

But in this case what would you add other than to say "it's here" that wouldn't need to be in the Shotley article anyway? Just because someone decided that it's a statistical thing doesn't mean we need to do anything else with it.

Tbh the Shotley article right now needs a total re-write anyway. That would be a much better use of time than creating a stub article on what at least one source says is what's known as Shotley in the local area. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I think Shaw and Crompton could be sepeate as they are both towns and would stand a chance. RailwayJG (talk) 12:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I you read the article it does a good job of explaining the naming and nature of the area. Based only on that, I'm unconvinced about splitting the article (e2a: it's also an FA, so I'd certainly leave well alone). Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Clarity on the status of Wragby, Malpas, Penkridge, Brewood and Tuxford.

I am looking through these articles and they seem to have the rare once a town and now either a town or village status. I can find references to town status for Malpas, Brewood and Tuxford. But not much for Wragby and Penkridge. Are these towns or villages? RailwayJG (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

FYI — Infobox UK place template

Just so that you are aware of the recent RFC ... adding a field for historic county ... and resulting changes to the template {{Infobox UK place}} (talk) — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 20:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Longstanding wikipedia guidance that has been in place for over 15 years should not be overturned by a straw poll on a two week rfc on a template talk page, only advertised here after it had been closed, and still unmentioned on the talk page of the guidance that is seeking to overturn. Even under those "under the radar" circumstances there was clearly no consensus on the RfC itself, with a large number of reasoned objections by longstanding editors with long and varied editing histories. The RfC was closed and declared to be a consensus by a wikipedia editor who had made no other edits for 4 years, on the basis that it was supported by "Around two-thirds of contributing editors", which very clearly doesn't constitute WP:CONSENSUS. This is clearly a subversion of wikipedia process and should be reverted pending consensus on changing the guidance it is trying to undermine. JimmyGuano (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I saw the changes being made and assumed there was a bigger RFC I missed at some point. Now it makes more sense. Koncorde (talk) 09:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• It's best to add comments there, rather than here, to avoid a split discussion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Fair point. Degree of hypocrisy on my part there. Just got a bit frustrated when I saw the notification here and vented the spleen. JimmyGuano (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Cheadle Hulme

I have nominated Cheadle Hulme for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Ipswich

Can somebody please confirm for Geography purposes that Ipswich is the county town of Suffolk... User:LakeKnowledge keeps changing the lead and also has proposed the merger of Ipswich Built-up area...RailwayJG (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Just looking at the talk page on Ipswich, LakeKnowledge opposed the merger. And the merger proposal has been there since April. It was proposed by Crouch, Swale. You might want to check the sources in County town that will probably help confirm that it's Suffolk's county town. Eopsid (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Northamptonshire

@G-13114 and Eopsid: Following on from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 20#Updating Northamptonshire articles I've made around 78 updates though a few lists and similar remain such as some of the lists of districts that are updated as of 2019 and Midlands#Divisions. The new parishes for Corby and Wellingborough aren't yet on the OS so these aren't yet on List of civil parishes in Northamptonshire but Kettering Town parish does show up but it currently only shows it as covering the part "A" in map 1 of the order so I suspect like the other 2 the changes to the unparished areas haven't been processed but the changes to the boundaries like Cransford have so I'd just assume that in October the OS will update to show Kettering Town parish as covering the unparished area as well. If not then it becomes like Scotforth/Scotforth (parish) where we would need 2 articles if the parish doesn't include the namesake settlement otherwise a redirect to Kettering will do since "Kettering Town" is just an alternative name for "Kettering". Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Borough of Blackpool

Just to alert fellow editors...I have made a new page for the redirect of Blackpool Borough so please check it out, comment on talk page and find what needs to be find to bring it to scratch...I have made it because Blackpool covers a wide area with its urban area and notable settlement of Bispham. If you feel it should not exist or why was is it? It's a bit like the Borough of Middlesbrough page and why that was made but given that there is a notable settlement and urban area...it has a strong stance...RailwayJG (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Just like Wolverhampton Blackpool's unparished area is the same as the district and Bispham is a suburb of Blackpool and the borough appears to cover a smaller area than the town at least the ONS BUA. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
• fair enough RailwayJG (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• I've mended a messy table and made a couple of comments on the talk page and RailwayJG's user talk page. PamD 16:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Oldham FAR

I have nominated Oldham for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Why does it need featured article editing? RailwayJG (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@RailwayJG: This is a notification, not a discussion. You should comment at the FAR itself, linked above. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

IP User: 180.150.81.68

• 180.150.81.68 (talk)

It seems this IP has made some unconstructive edits on some of the Greater Manchester articles. They used suburban town or an suburb. While I know the areas in question are built up. Using suburban town doesn't work unless it is actually almagamated with other towns like for example Stoke on Trent or Brighton and Hove. The term cannot be applied to all of Greater Manchester as some towns are actually protected by greenbelt from other towns like they put Sale and Altrincham as suburban towns. It would work but then they did it for like Cadishead which has actually got greenbelt around it. So I was hoping some editors might take a look at my edits on Altrincham etc and my reverts of the IP and reach their own conclusions... RailwayJG (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Sale is kinda suburban, Altrincham more so. But Greengate, Salford is about as inner-city as you can get - you can kick a football through the windows of Manchester Cathedral from there. Maybe a mass revert? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Not Hyde Cadishead etc they are in a valley and quite rural then suburban but Sale is already a large centre for Trafford suburban should be used for those closer to Manchester as it can be a bit confusing if they are surrounded by greenbelt too RailwayJG (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Chocolateediter and his recent edits

I have reverted Chocolateediter (talk · contribs) recent unsourced an controversial edit on South Bank, Redcar and Cleveland by changing it from town to a suburb of Middlesbrough. There is plenty of sources in the lead to clarify this was a town and none for the suburb. Could some editors take a concensus to the lead as Chocolateditor has made some recent and very questionable edits to many of Teesides articles...as is the Eston article and Teesville ones to name a few ...RailwayJG (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

A fascinating place - the maps and 2009 street view imagery are well worth reviewing. I wouldn't want to say this is a market town - let alone an historic or ancient one. It seems to me to be much more likely to be an industrial revolution creation to serve the foundaries along the Tees - the grid pattern of streets shown on the late 19th century maps suggest this. Yes, it has/d a market and a town hall, but that doesn't make it a market town - which the article defines as one which had a charter in the Middle Ages. Given that the first church parish seems to have been established in the 1880s that seems very unlikely. The 1857 OS map has empty fields - so, yeah, it's Victorian.

e2a: but it seems reasonable for us to say it's part of the M/boro urban area - from map work alone I'd identify it as a suburb personally, but I'd want to see some local press articles to be sure. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing: I do agree with the market town bit which would mean it would have needed a charter to get the ability to hold markets and the area is interesting for sure. I think with using suburb...it needs to be clarified as to call it a suburb of Middlesbrough but it is in Redcar makes it confusing...If it was say considered a suburb of Middlesbrough although a town which looking through some sources I found this saying "The unitary authority’s northwestern portion along the Tees estuary, including the towns of Eston, South Bank, Grangetown, Lackenby, and Redcar, is the most heavily industrialized part of the Teesside metropolitan area. Steelmaking was long an important component of the local economy, but by 2015 the major steelworks at Redcar had been shuttered, though steel continued to be processed at a facility in Lackenby. The reclaimed mudflats of the Tees estuary below Middlesbrough provide spacious sites for industrial and port installations, which include an oil refinery and the international port of Teesport. A direct pipeline supplies offshore North Sea oil to the refinery." from here and here "South Bank, formerly called Tees Tilery, was a populous market town, having a station on the Darlington and Saltburn line of the North Eastern railway, and is three miles from Middlesbrough. It came into existence with the establishment of the steel works of Messrs. Bolckow, Vaughan, & Co., Limited, and the works of the Clay Lane Iron Co., Limited. Another industry of the place which gave employment to a large number of the inhabitants was the manufacture of bricks and tiles, which was carried out extensively by Messrs. Johnson & Maw, the North Eastern Brick and Tile Co., and the Cleveland Brick and Tile Co."

Also this came up "For parliamentary purposes, South Bank is included in the borough of Middlesbrough, but the remainder of the township is in the Cleveland division of the Riding. A large portion of the place is under the jurisdiction of the Normanby Local Board of Health, formed in 1865; and the following year gas works were erected by a limited company. The Town Hall, with Covered Market, was erected in 1878, at a cost of £5,500. It is an imposing structure of white brick, built from the designs of W. Duncan, Esq., Middlesbrough. The main room, which is used for public entertainments, will accommodate 800 persons. The Local Board and also the School Board have their offices in this building. The market was held weekly on Fridays, and was well patronised." from the previous website...

It seems to be a case of mistaken identity one says a town and the other says a market town but was in the Borough of Middlesbrough but part of the Redcar and Cleveland borough...RailwayJG (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The uses of words like market town aren't often all that technically correct. I do think it has an accepted use, in the UK at least, as a small town which developed to serve a wider, general rural community as a service centre (Christaller had things to say on this...). Whether or not one has a medieval charter isn't vital to me, but I don't think I'd consider South Bank a market town in any sense that the term is generally used to describe places in this country. It's a town that's now essentially part of a big urban area. It happens. Th really quite recent development of any of the settlement is actually what makes it really interesting. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I think town should be used and not suburb as robbing it of its actual status as a town is dangerous it also had a town hall which was sadly demolished...but it is a town and I am hoping @Chocolateediter: will leave it as such and find sources to clarify suburbs as saying they are without a backing source or sources can be challenged as seen here...RailwayJG (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

To quote the source we're relying on somewhat[3]:

SOUTH BANK, formerly called Tees Tilery, is a rapidly increasing and populous market town in this township, having a station on the Darlington and Saltburn line of the North Eastern railway, and is distant three miles from Middlesbrough. It is entirely a recent creation, which has sprung into existence since the establishment of the steel works of Messrs. Bolckow, Vaughan, & Co., Limited, and the works of the Clay Lane Iron Co., Limited. Another industry of the place which gives employment to a large number of the inhabitants is the manufacture of bricks and tiles, which is carried on extensively by Messrs. Johnson & Maw, the North Eastern Brick and Tile Co., and the Cleveland Brick and Tile Co. For parliamentary purposes, South Bank is included in the borough of Middlesbrough, but the remainder of the township is in the Cleveland division of the Riding. A large portion of the place is under the jurisdiction of the Normanby Local Board of Health, formed in 1865; and the following year gas works were erected by a limited company. The Town Hall, with Covered Market, was erected in 1878, at a cost of £5,500. It is an imposing structure of white brick, built from the designs of W. Duncan, Esq., Middlesbrough. The main room, which is used for public entertainments, will accommodate 800 persons. The Local Board and also the School Board have their offices in this building. The market is held weekly on Fridays, and is well patronised.

So it was a township / pastoral area, developed into a "town" with a market due to industrial development, slowly subsumed and now a ward of a bigger town / borough. What that makes it today is a bit of a mess. I wouldn't be too hung up on it being a suburb - but it shouldn't be "only" a suburb. Koncorde (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you Koncorde, it can be quoted as a suburb but the problem is Chocolateediter had removed all the sources and put suburb and these articles are very reliable as they cover the town and if they do happen on this discussion as I have pinged them a few times and wrote on his talk page...Chocolateediter (talk page) hopefully they will engage and explain their reasons for the removal and edits...I have advised them to use sources... — Preceding unsigned comment added by RailwayJG (talk • contribs) 16:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I would say its a de facto suburb but de jure a seperate town because its not in the Borough of Middlesbrough but is inarguably part of Middlesbrough's built-up area. I hesitate to use the term suburb because it "belittles" towns like this. Eopsid (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Alright I have come into the discussion, was travelling down south yesterday by car. Good thinking time though.

On hindsight, I’d use township (England). The Greater Eston area is like a federal town, each area having something but not everything that makes a town. In this case it is definitely an unofficial part of Middlesbrough, which is obviously why it is in the town’s (I’d like to stress not borough) built-up area subdivision.

Middlesbrough clearly has areas that can be their own town, previously I used suburbs. I had defined a suburb: with its own history, a former main settlement of an ecclesiastical parish, multiple housing-estates/wards and or good amenities. Maybe this is more of a township’s definition, with suburbs and housing estates being the same.

So a suburb lead could be “… is a Middlesbrough suburb of the … township. …insert geographic information… . It is in the borough of …, …insert county…, England/Northern England”(geographic information breaks up the nesting doll like list)

A township article could be “… is a Middlesbrough township in the borough of …, …insert county…, England/Northern England”

Nominations for township articles in Middlesbrough: Acklam (Acklam and Kader), Linthorpe (Linthorpe and Park, Ormesby (cross borough Park End-&-Beckfield and Ormesby), Coulby Newham, Hemlington, Marton (Marton East and Marton West with Ladgate , Greater Eston (since the council have named it as such and we have the article spare) and central. North Ormesby (North Ormesby, Berwick Hills and Brambles-&-Thorntree).

Trimdon and Beechwood-&-Longlands are a bit less defined but match up with Acklam and Marton, respectfully due to the name being in common use in those areas, Aryesome is either half Acklam and half Linthorpe or just Acklam. The current parishes are parishes, counted in Borough of Middlesbrough however not the town. Groups of 2015 wards should be used until they are officially changed.

Neighbouring Stockton has made a point of not making townships become there own towns.

South Bank: no to historic market town (more like area with or had a market that has history just not that old to merit to be called as such) and yes to Victorian architecture.

I have now typed this out twice Wikipedia app sometimes blocks the editing section even when editing articles, hope they fix it (grrrr) atleast it has cut out babbling. Probably missed a point I was going to make but hey ho, spent too long typing this now. Chocolateediter (talk) 11:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

While I agree with some of your edits User:Chocolateediter, you need to be very careful with the lead there are three references clarifying South Bank is a town which I sourced and added. Suburb would not work as subdivisions aren't really used for leads in UK articles something User:Blue Square Thing has mentioned before...if it is defined by local government as a suburb of Middlesbrough then it should be in lead but if it was a village before it should still be as even contiguous villages and towns can still keep their respective status unless changed by local government or a council. It's a bit like Batley Dewsbury and Heckmondwike. They form a big part of Kirklees but are not classed as suburbs of like Leeds Wakefield or Huddersfield as they are defined towns. Same with Lincoln too with Skellingthorpe North Hykeham and Washingborough. They are close to the city boundary with North Hykeham contiguous with Lincoln but they are not suburbs despite their close proximity and BUA RailwayJG (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC) RailwayJG (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Peterborough

It recently came to my attention that the Peterborough article is for both the main settlement itself, and adjacent villages which may not necessarily be considered part of the P'Boro proper, though are governed by Peterborough City Council. Places like these are confusing, as it is can be hard to identify the size and population of a said settlement, when there is both the BUA and local government district to consider, but the latter is named after the main settlement. Though this may seem like a stretch, could we consider having two separate articles - one for the traditional area of Peterborough (i.e. the existing city article), and one for the entire area covered by Peterborough City Council. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I would support such a split. Eopsid (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know the details of Peterborough but we should be careful that the article(s) properly recognise today's reality. Is Kensington part of London? Of course it is: while it is interesting to observe that once upon a time it was a village out in the wilderness, it would be nonsense to pretend that it has nothing to do with London today. The Peterborough article should cover the Peterborough Built-Up Area as identified by the ONS as being Peterborough as it is today, not pretend that the Peterborough of a hundred years ago still exists. Conversely and equally true, the Peterborough article should not imply that rural villages and hamlets in the Unitary Authority area but outside the BUA are nonetheless part of the city. For other major settlements, we have resolved this by having a separate article "City of X" or "Borough of Y" for the UA (which also provides a convenient place for the politics of the Council). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree per WP:UKDISTRICTS, see User:Crouch, Swale/District split#Tables. Peterborough is the only one other thank York split in the early days that isn't split now. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Looking for information on the Dunt stream in Gloucestershire

Does anyone know sources for the length, source, mouth, etc. of this (minor) stream? (I know it probably doesn't qualify as notable enough anyway, seeing as Google results are sparse and mostly referring to a poem about the stream. Just asking because I couldn't find any Google results specifically about the river.) Quanstizium (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what your specific interest is but a look at https://maps.nls.uk/view/101453805 and surrounding maps may be of use. One could infer it to be the Duntis Bourne, though the lower end near Cirencester seems to have the name Daglingworth attached to it as at https://maps.nls.uk/view/120757451 Geopersona (talk) 08:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The lower end appears on the maps as the Daglingworth Stream which joins the Churn at the end of Barton Lane in Cirencester. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Daglingworth stream information is here. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Consensus on County Durham (district) article

I for one think the article has enough good stead to be a solo article from the ceremonial county and council articles for two reasons...

1. It is formed of seven former districts and boroughs which were once separate but now merged. 2. The council article doesn't really cover notable towns and Durham well in the article and as a result the article covers the wider unitary authority and it satisfies WP notable for geographical reasons...

So I'm pinging the redirecter of the article @Super Nintendo Chalmers: to join the debate and his reasons why it can't be a seperate article...

Also pinging users @Eopsid: & @Crouch, Swale:. Who are often involves in these debates...

Can we try to reach a concensus on the article... RailwayJG (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Article is here County Durham (district) RailwayJG (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Personally if anything I'd merge Durham County Council to the district. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for setting it up as a discussion. For reference, I initially created County Durham (district) as a redirect to Durham County Council on the 6th May 2021 as I saw it as a red-link on the page List of English districts by population. I followed the principle that redirects are cheap and that as someone had created the link, it was a plausible enough term that future editors may want to use.... and so created it, redirecting to Durham County Council as this is the area to which the page was referring.

I was surprised in July that the new page had been filled out with some text, but noted that the intention behind creating the new page was essenitally sound - the content at Durham County Council was all about the council itself, rather than the area governed. However, on review, the unique content at County Durham (district) was also really very brief, so I merged that back into Durham County Council (see diff here). It is worth noting that the page County Durham also exists, which is a much fuller article with geogrpahical and historical mateiral, but refers to the historical borders of the county.

There's basically no need for three pages. County Durham (district) could probably redirect to either, or it could even be a disambiguation page (or redirect with a hat-note). It's the least natural name compared to the other two so the most suitbale to be a redirect, and I think looking at its use the contemporary local authority page is the most appropriate - but could live with it redirecting to County Durham instead. I do think that the page Durham County Council could benefit from a little more on history and geography specifically of the contemporary council area itself, probably a longer 1-2 paragraph section with {{Seemain|County Durham}} at the top of it to indicate that there's a lot more there. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

To be honest I think the county council page should be merged into the district it would make more sense and the unitary authority exists as a district a bit like Borough of Middlesbrough and Shropshire district...so maybe the Durham council one should be redirected as Crouch Swale said...it be pointless adding geographical area to the council page as that page is more for political then geographical use RailwayJG (talk) 09:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Category for every parish?

Dewiki appears to have a category for every one of the 2,095 municipalities in Austria, I wander what percentage of parishes in England can have their own category? I've created quite a few but haven't checked quite a lot of the country yet. I'd expect that unlike Austria that there are many that are too small/unpopulated to have a reasonable number of articles added so should probably (at least for now) not be created. I've only created those that are also OS settlements and are standalone settlements and have also generally only created those that have 10 or more articles to add or have a sub category like people from. I'm not sure how much SMALLCAT would apply since it says that those that have a prospect of expansion can be allowed to remain since new articles could be created at anytime for something in a parish as opposed to a category like "Churches in Foo" when Foo only has 1 church. There was similar discussuin last year at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 17 but indeed my view is generally wait for the articles to be created then create the category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Categorisation: Towns in.../Market towns in...

Gladryn St John and I have a disagreement at Wantage, which is already in Category:Market towns in Oxfordshire and which Gladryn St John wishes to add to Category:Towns in Oxfordshire. I maintain that this breaches WP:SUPERCAT, whereby a page should not appear in two categories where one is a subcategory of the other. But I see Gladryn St John's point that it's useful for the "Towns in..." categories are comprehensive for their county. Any thoughts? Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Category:Towns in Oxfordshire is a bit of a mess anyway with several towns appearing as sub-categories and in the main category. I would go with the Supercat argument. Thinking further, Wantage appears in the Oxfordshire county nav box with the other major towns, which solves Gladryn’s point.Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I tried nominating the market towns category for deletion, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 18 #Category:Market towns but others suggested that they were different enough things so maybe they should be in both categories? Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Use of commuter, dormitory and suburb for towns in UK

While I agree some towns and cities lie near or within arms length of each other. I for one oppose using the derogatory terms "dormitory", "commuter" and "suburb/an" in the leads or articles. Unless there is a clear lot of references that people work in major towns and cities. This language should be used sparingly if not at all.

Two reasons why is because:

1) Commuters might use the services (buses, trains, trams etc) to go to work say from Harrogate to York. Or Harrogate to Leeds. But others might work at Hull, Middlesbrough, Halifax, Manchester etc...its is a subjective term. 2) How can it be proved people work in just these three cities?

DragonofBatley (talk) 08:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

DragonofBatley, I agree. A lot of places will have grown to their current size due to the proximity of transport links and that should be recognised in their history sections, but that's different from saying "X is a commuter town [of Y]" in the introduction. WaggersTALK 11:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Those aren't derogatory terms - they're perfectly acceptable, geographically sound descriptions. Where it's appropriate there's no issue with using them. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing: it is if there are more then one or so urban areas. Those terms need to be backed by some sources because commuters (assuming people who work, study and live) in or at these cities. Would not only be for example. If one called Doncaster a commuter town for Sheffield. Then whats to say people don't work at Hull, Lincoln, Wakefield, Leeds, Huddersfield etc...my point is Blue Square, it should only be used if a major city is the only one for miles. But for Harrogate which I edited. It said it was a commuter town for people in Leeds, Bradford and York. But failed to mention Ripon, Hull, Beverley, Scarborough, Teesside etc. Same with Grimsby. Major town and Louth would not fall under a commuter town as it would have people working in Mablethorpe, Lincoln, Horncastle, Skegness, Hull etc...my point is unless it is deemed a commuter town or so. by official sources. It should be used sparingly or not at all. Some people likely travel to London, Birmingham, Newcastle for all we know. It is not a good term to use for towns unless they lie within say five miles of the nearest city or town. People work or commute to more places then just say Leeds or Bradford in Kirklees. I know I work at Manchester but commute from Batley to my job. I for one know it takes me around an hour on train or driving less. So i think they are very open to interpretation if there are more major towns and cities around the area then just the namesake ones DragonofBatley (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Do significant numbers of people from Harrogate commute to Leeds, Bradford and York? Is that a documented feature of the housing market in Harrogate? If it is, we can say that. The distance is increasingly less of a factor - plenty of people commute from Ipswich or Sittingbourne to London, for example and that's probably an hour train journey in both case. I'm sure people commute to other places from both as well, but that simply gets silly if we want to list all of them. Major towns or cities is fine.

I wouldn't use the term dormitory town for either of those examples as it happens, but it's not unreasonable to note that commuting is a significant feature of both. Certainly in the case of Sittingbourne describing it as a commuter town is fair I'd say. I would quite happily use dormitory town for Cambourne though. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

If reliable sources describe a place as a "dormitory town" or "commuter town", so could we, if it helps give information to readers. There is nothing at all "derogatory" about the words "suburb" or "suburban". Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle:, yes there is not anything wrong with suburb or suburban. But it needs to be from sources. Saying somewhere is a commuter or dormitory towns without anything reliable is very open to criticism. It should only be used if towns surround a major city town or urban area. I know areas of East Riding can be assumed to be commuter towns for Hull, York, Teesside, Scarborough etc but as Blue Square Thing noted. "plenty of people commute from Ipswich or Sittingbourne to London, for example and that's probably an hour train journey in both case. I'm sure people commute to other places from both as well, but that simply gets silly if we want to list all of them. Major towns or cities is fine.". It should only be used for towns surrounding one or more urban areas. If one called here is a brilliant example. If one called the town of Ellesmere as commuter town. Then it would be up for debate given towns like Shrewsbury, Wrexham, Whitchurch, Telford, Chester, Stafford and Market Drayton are nearby. People could work at any and without a railway station it really couldn't be a commuter town given it is miles from each settlement. Newton le Willows could be a commuter town as it sits near Manchester, Liverpool, St Helens, Wigan, Warrington and all but going too much into it would clog up a lead. But cities should not be the only ones mentioned if so. DragonofBatley (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

We could use the ONS terminology here - which talks about "working" towns and "residential" towns, based on statistical criteria. I'm not suggesting that we do, but it is a reliable and statistically robust source. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad you no longer regard "suburb" as derigatory; in planning, it can be a vital term in determining the appropriate level of density and make a big difference to whether planning applications are approved.

You seem to object to a town being called a commuter town if the commuters are travelling to different places, but it's how many people are commuting from the town that matters, not how many different places they're going. We might describe a place as a commuter town "for A", "for "B and other conurbations", "for C, D, and E" or "for many nearby centres", whatever describes the situation best. NebY (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think a town can be a "commuter town" just based on how many people commute from the town. Many people commute from Reading and Slough, but more people commute into those towns than out of them (at least that has been the case). And I don't think many would call Harrogate a "commuter town" - it is not a cheap place to live and some people commute into Harrogate from York or Leeds.--Mhockey (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

What about the overspill estates such as Hattersley? There was no pre-existing industry: the settlements were built with the intention that people would commute to the larger centre. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know Hattersley, but it sounds like the dictionary definition of a suburb. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mockey: fair point. I was trying to counter the argument (as I read iot) that it can't be a commuter town if the commuters are going to more than one place. You're right, it's the overall net flow that would count. NebY (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)