Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:
WT:UKGEO

Contents


WikiProject UK geography announcements
02 Jun Flat Holm at GAC
02 Jun M54 motorway promoted to GA
31 May Skye at GAC
30 May Canterbury promoted to GA
05 May City of Salford at GAC
03 May Milnrow at GAC
01 May Lealholm at GAC
28 Apr Kingston-upon-Hull at GAC
25 Apr Ivybridge at GAC
18 Apr Navenby promoted to FA
Edit Watch


[edit] Archives

[edit] Page move

Hi. I'm not certain where this project discusses page moves, deletions etc., so I thought I'd post a note here. At Talk:Newmarket (disambiguation), I've proposed two page moves:

I've specified the reasons on the discussion page. Feel free to announce/move this message to a more relevant project if need be. Thanks. (I've also posted this at Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board.) Mindmatrix 21:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categories 'National Trust properties in Yorkshire' and 'English Heritage sites in Yorkshire'

Category:English Heritage sites in Yorkshire and Category:National Trust properties in Yorkshire have appeared in the last month. EHsiY has been populated at the expense of the mother category. NTpiY has taken its members from the mother and depopulated Category:National Trust properties in North Yorkshire and Category:National Trust properties in West Yorkshire. Is the UKGEO project happy with this categorisation? My understanding of WP:Place#Counties_of_Britain is that we use the modern administrative counties throughout. So, the two 'Yorkshire' categories shouldn't exist, rather we should stick with Category:National Trust properties in West Yorkshire (etc). Comments? Mr Stephen (talk) 10:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Usually for Yorkshire there is the category "X in Yorkshire", for small categories this may be populated as such, but the more normal situation is for it to just contain the four sub-categories of "X in the East Riding of Yorkshire", "X in North Yorkshire", "X in South Yorkshire" and "X in West Yorkshire". Keith D (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
That could be a problematic approach - parts of Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Cumbria were also part of "Yorkshire" until boundary reformation. Of course there is an obvious logic behind it, but that "N/E/S/W Yorks" are somehow "subdivisions" of Yorkshire is erroneous. The whole point of WP:PLACE is that using modern counties is... "consistent with most local and national government literature, some private sector literature, will be familiar to most readers and writers, and indeed the approach will apply even if boundaries change again. It is also easy for people to find out where a particular village is, as maps with administrative boundaries are freely available online." - it's meant to be an aid to our readers. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Meetup/London 10

Happening this sunday.Geni 20:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revisionist Welsh county geo-cats

It has just come to my attention that User Owain has created a series of inappropriate geo-cats for some of the pre-1974 counties in Wales, viz Geography of Brecknockshire, Geography of Montgomeryshire, Geography of Radnorshire (all placed as sub-cats of Geography of Powys), together with Geography of Glamorgan. In the case of the Brecknock/Montgomery/Radnor cats, he systematically removed places from the Powys geo-cats and placed them in his new categories. This is not the first instance of Owain changing article categories to suit his belief in the continuing existence of the pre-1974 counties, as some of you will already be aware. I've reverted the edits and emptied the cats for deletion. I hope that the community supports this and will help monitor the situation. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reliability of 2001 census data

Hi, can anyone help. On Somerset a discrepancy between referenced statistics for population in the 2001 census has been identified - it may be a difference in "rounding". If you compare ref 75 (ONS) & ref 80 (Vision of Britain) for BANES you will see the difference - the same applies to ref 76 (ONS) & ref 81 (Vision of Britain) for North Somerset. I would welcome comments on which is the more reliable and how to resolve this one? The discussion is probably best held on Talk:Somerset.— Rod talk 07:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, for Kingston upon Hull there was a discrepancy (of 6) between these two sources.--Harkey (talk) 09:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)