1560:
based on wether it has a town charter. The article shows that
Middlesbrough Urabn area spills out over the boundaries of the borough. As we know a borough is not a town and is simply a district for administration and local government. The area in question is Greater Eston which is coterminus with Middlesbrough Urban area (using the 200 metre rule) and that houses and residential areas are literally split down the middle with an invisible boundary. The Eston area is counted as Middlesbrough and not Redcar as the distance between is too different. The edge of Redcar town (as in the last bit of Urban/built up area) to the edge of Middlesbrough area is approx 2 miles, where the distnace between Middlesbrough & Eston is less than 200 metres at its furthest point. A lot of people outside of the Middlesbrough council area do consider themselves middlesbrough so it would be unfair to say they are wrong. Council areas dont mean anything really in trems of towns/yrban area. I think the borough article should be merged with the Town but state both figures (182,000 urban + 137,000 for Middlesbrough council area). I myself have family whole live in Eston (redcar & cleveland council area) who deem themselves Middlesbrough and council area just means where they have to pay there council tax to.
1170:. Hence my main view is that we should still stick to an article about the official UA borough in its present form and then another about the town itself which for some is considered to cover a wider area. It really is a very touchy subject for a signigificant number of people living in the area and so Wiki should try and give the local government definiation lines but at the same time recognising the difference with town articles. As the Middlesbrough town article states it is different to other surrounding UA boroughs, which do indeed include settlements along with the major one giving the name, in that there still a few places which don't consider themselves 100% Middlesbrough (the town) but no where near as many. Ultimately it comes down to the issue of what or where local people consider themselves to be part of verses what government borders say and it is not for Wiki to be able to represent all these views and IMHO we should always concentrate on the government borders but at the same time represent that there is a difference, hence the need for seperate town articles. --
1825:) and there is a disambiguation article to direct people to the correct one. But here we have a completely arbitrary application of the principle in the interest of uniformity, to cases where no such ambiguity exists. In the case of Swindon and Milton Keynes at least (probably many more), the respective Borough has never been called by the same name, so no ambiguity arises. In both cases, the Borough covers a substantially larger area than its main town, and the terms 'Borough of Swindon' or 'Borough of Milton Keynes' are the only terms ever used. In the case of Braintree above, "District of Braintree" is appropriate because "Braintree district" is ambiguous. But Braintree (district) is wholly artificial (and still ambiguous without a capital D). So Morwen's suggestion was right, pity it wasn't picked up.
811:
road signs advertising this most closely correspond to the boundaries of the parish of
Chester within the relevant district. To my mind, the two entries, if anything, are the wrong way round. However, the official local government websites seem to be organised in a way which corresponds most closely to the structure as given so far in wikipedia. Perhaps this is an example of a lack of clarity having to be reflected somehow in wikipedia? I aim to speak to someone in the county authority soon (within a day or so), and hope they can help clear up a few things. In any case, I think some clearer specification of the entries could be carried out.
1129:- should it address Reading as a local government district since forever; since it adopted its current boundaries in 1919; since it became a non-metropolitan district in 1974; since it became a unitary authority in 1998? This is a severe structural difficulty which makes this split nonsensical, the fact that its something that most readers will be unaware of the precise reasons for the oddity is irrelevant. I would suggest the need for a a historical perspective here, and with a historical perspective we don't split this, and we don't make links to
1569:
the bricks and mortar on the ground. However, the urban area there also includes
Stockton and Thornaby and Redcar - and the decision of what part of that Teesside urban area to call Middlesbrough, what part to call Stockton, and which of the smaller entities on the fringe of Middlesbrough should be counted separately is an essentially arbritrary decision. The ONS definition of the Teesside Urban Area, by the way, identifies Middlesbrough and "Eston and South Bank" as separate urban sub-areas.
854:
the names might help considerably. In the interim, I am hoping to add some more detailed maps giving an indication of the development of the county throughout its history. I'm also going to add lists of all parishes, creating stubs where necessary, to each district. So, my notion now is to generally take a closer look at
Cheshire, and work to improve its articles and the articles of its constituent parts. I'm proposing a WikiProject dealing with this. There are such projects in existence for
2383:). The terms "West Midlands" and "Avon" are used widely without qualification and you have to work out from context which one is meant. Conversely, "Milton Keynes" and "Swindon" are always the town and never the Borough (except in a list of Boroughs). So for e.g., we don't need Swindon (town) and Swindon (borough). So I propose that we accept the term that is most widely used - but I accept that there will certainly be cases of dispute, as in the City of Carlisle district council! --
2449:
have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in
January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at
1222:- the whole concept of what constitutes a town is far too vague for that. Indeed as I alluded in my post above, it is quite common for one individual (indeed in at least one case one local politician) to hold two contradictary views on what constitutes a particular town (in this case Reading) depending on who they are talking to and in what context. Which in many ways supports your view that ideally we should not split articles in this way.
2788:
38:
2138:. I'm sure you can't be proposing that this category should boroughs in the 'b' section', all the districts in the 'd' section, all the cities in the 'c' section, and all the districts with unique names sorted actually alphabetically! By the way, actually "county of Buckingham" or "Buckinghamshire" alone is the traditional non-redundant usage, "county of Buckinghamshire" is a recent 20th century thing.
2519:. Obviously, I think it will be necessary for any project to continue to liase with this and other related projects, and so I was wondering what to do about the templates currently created by this project which are specific to Cheshire? Could someone just move them over to the Cheshire project? Once again, I do not want to cause any disagreement between this project and the Cheshire project at all.
1236:
and arguably inappropriate for links for articles on topics in the 19th century to link to a page which is so heavily biased (by the infobox) to being about the 2006 Borough. Likewise it is confusing for links on the economics of
Reading to do the same, as most of the companies which give their address as Reading are actually based on one of the buisness parks just outside the borough boundary. Etc.
1095:
definition other than the legalistic borough boundary. Perhaps the correct solution is to modify the info box to correspond to the article, or even drop the thing altogether (hint: I'm no fan of infoboxes). If that cannot be done, then I do think we need to consider segregating the infobox into an article that actually matches what is about, which means a seperate article for the borough. --
1710:
consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
2494:. I think it can easily co-exist with this project, which I would not want to diminish or withdraw from myself at all. If you are interested in contributing to this, please add your name to list at the appropriate place. If you think it might be better placed as a sub-project of this project, please say so, and let us discuss it. Many thanks.
923:. There is a perfectly good disambiguation in popular usage: I don't know why it is so difficult to persuade Wiki Admins to accept it without insisting that it can only be changed if all such articles are changed - and then it will be another (different) case of one size doesn't fit all! Any ideas on how to break the deadlock?--
1693:. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at
1277:
be the target of all general links; for example your links from 19th century articles. In order not to bias the article towards one concept of
Reading, it will *not* carry the local government area biased infobox template. Under a politics subsection, it will briefly summarise the local government situation, and will link a
2065:
Boroughs is that they contain towns outside the the major urban area that gives them their name. Can I watch while you stand in Olney market square and tell them that they live in Milton Keynes? :D (Perhaps that's why people move things out of City of
Carlisle to District of Carlisle - it's because they are emphatically
997:
split articles about places enlarged in 1974; there's a clear split: one article is about the place, the other article is about the local government district. However, if we split articles about places which last saw a boundary extension in 1911; then it is unclear what information should be on the latter article -
2754:
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on
Knowledge struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for
1463:
Maybe I didn't express myself that well. I was proposing that we change the policy for places where the 'place' is significantly bigger than the 'local-authority-boundary' to allow a principal article on the place, with a secondary article on the local government body. Much as we already do where the
1326:
I would suggest a similar solution may well apply in other places too, which is why I'm discussing it here. Yes it may well violate some current policy, but that policy was probably written before the effect of the local government area biased infobox template was properly understood. Shall we change
1088:
As a
Reading resident, I know that in practice there are several different defintions of Reading in play, and you have only to read the letters column of the local papers to know that many people talk about Reading meaning a much bigger area than the borough. The fact that the self-same people oppose
1020:
articles, as if that has anything to do with this particular case. Particularly troublesome is the use of ONS figures to identify what is considered the "town": as far as I can tell, the ONS make no use at all of local opinion surveys in deciding what is and isn't in their urban sub-areas; and these
996:
In the cases of Reading and Ipswich the current boundaries are not new ; Reading's boundaries date from 1911. I can't speak for Middlesbrough: certainly at one point the article falsely claimed the original, pre-1968 borough extended larger than when I researched the matter, it turned out to. If we
853:
Many thanks for the comment and for the offer of help. I didn't get too far in contacting a person in the council who could help me, but my time was limited, and I think Christmas was beginning to get in the way of things. I will try again after Christmas, but I think the addition of "District" after
598:
To make it clear: what I am suggesting is that the name should follow actual usage. The name of a place in Knowledge should correspond with what people actually call it. That's based on the fundamentals of Knowledge's naming conventions, which go for every article - I don't think there's anything at
350:
giving a total of 82 English counties. If, like me, you find this approach confusing, can you point me to a better description of England's administrative geography on the English Knowledge that I could translate and offer as an alternative to our francophone colleagues? I've tried to find what I'm
107:
this morning!), which doesn't seem right to me. If I set up a collaboration of the month for this WikiProject and pick a county each month, would people help try and turn them into the great articles they should be? I'm willing to do quite a bit of work on them and have some experience having done
1276:
So my suggestion is that we have a top level article on the generality of the place called Reading. This will not attempt to define a boundary, area or population for Reading; instead it will discuss the fact that there are various possible definitions, and how these have changed over time. It will
1106:
I made the Reading 'split' to avoid confusing the readers. Some articles about a town are also about an administrative region with the same name. In other cases there are separate articles. This discrepancy is compounded by the two types of infobox. There are some esoteric arguments here in support
612:
Naming conventions are useful, because they make things more consistent for readers and aid in finding information. But that only goes so far - if it turns out that a naming convention is leading to a name which is ambiguous, misleading, and not the name that people actually use, then it's time to
465:
I think a naming convention saying that government districts should have their official names would be analogous to a convention that articles about people should have the names given on their birth certificates. It works for the majority of cases, but in some cases falls down because actual usage
1568:
Sure, but I'd just note that there is not one single correct definition of "town" - which is the entire problem here! If there was, it would be simple. Clearly, the urban area of Middlesbrough extends further than the borough boundary, using the 200 metre rule or otherwise. Nobody is disputing
1235:
However most of your arguments can also be quoted against the current single article. At the moment the infobox dominates this article, and effectively turns it into an article on the 'Borough of Reading', which is a geographic and temporal specialisation of the 'place of Reading'. It is confusing
1196:
for your local area to be treated differently is not going to help define a consistent convention. Of particular relevance are Birmingham, Reading, Hull, Ipswich, Leicester, Middlesbrough, Norwich and Preston : the ONS definitions of which all include areas outside the borough. There may well be
810:
entry refers to just the city area of Chester, though there has been some discussion of what can be included in this, and there may be some anomalies in this entry depending on what is decided in any attempt to sort this out. Additionally, when one travels by road to Chester (the city itself), the
2448:
proposal for an appreciation week to end on Knowledge Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who
2064:
Yes, I accept that there might be a problem with districts (though I'd like a citation) and maybe the issue is specific to Boroughs. In UK usage at least, we haven't used the style "County of Buckinghamshire" in over 100 years, because "County of" is redundant. The particular issue with (County)
1559:
Regarding Middlesbrough. It is how you define a 'Town'. I thought the correct definition was of a continual built up area or large urban area of substantial size (such as over a certain population and land area). The Middlesbrough article for Town uses the definition for Urban area rather than
1364:
infobox rather than the district one, really the only sticking point? Perhaps we could redesign the infoboxes; so we have one infoboxes for unincorporated localitities, one for districts, and a kind of combined infobox for places which are both. Hey, we could even move the district infobox down
1035:
I do not think the Reading split was a good idea. Not only because it is not necessary but because it was not done properly. Updating the opening line, infobox and categories but leaving the body text pretty much as-is and then creating a two-line article about the borough in effect turned one ok
835:
I would agree that there needs to be some more distinction. Town / City areas can be a bit difficult to deal with. I suppose the way to deal with it, would be to say anything inside the A55 would count as Chester and the areas outside with be in the City of Chester. Most of the Chester article
437:
is an inappropriate title because only very rarely is "City of Winchester" used to mean the local government district (an area including other towns and hundreds of square miles of rolling farmland, as well as the "city" itself). To give some independent backing for this, googling Winchester City
1709:
are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please
1094:
In principal, I think the best way to handle that is (as policy suggests) with a single article and plenty of text to explain the situation. What gets in the way of this solution is that ever-so-definative, but ever-so-misleading, info box that immediately draws attention to itself but brooks no
2803:
is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating
1082:
I have taken the liberty of cross-posting the following contribution (by myself) here. It is principally about the Reading situation, but I think it has a wider relevance here. I think the real issue isn't so much about what articles we have, but more about a mismatch between our current policy
473:
article should move for these reasons, I don't necessarily think that there can be one single naming convention that can cover all cases - what should have priority is actual usage, not official names. In some cases I would expect common usage and the official name to mean pretty much the same
2171:
I've already said, I think it would be sensible to use the 'Borough of XX' format. I'm not sure that that sounds so good for districts though, I would prefer 'XX District' personally. i would help anyone if they were changing things around. BTW is the official name of the West Midlands county
1384:
I could buy something like that as a solution. In fact the text of the article lede already describes the situation pretty well anyway, it is just that is almost contradicted by the adjacent infobox. My sticking point really is that template, rather than a deep desire to split the article. --
2393:
I agree completely - I think we should use the most widely used names, in line with Knowledge's normal naming conventions, particularly in uncontentious cases where the most widely used names are clear. Looking at the "official" name of a place is relevant, but should not be the overriding
1548:
Agreed. It looks to me like that contributor is contrasting the situation after unitisation with their own private view as to what should have happened. At best that would be POV, but they have managed to make it sound like they are contrasting prior and post unitisation, which is not true.
1607:, spends a long first paragraph justifying the allegations that it is in Middlesbrough. much of this paragraph is patent nonsense : e.g. "was under the 'Rural Sanitary District of the County Borough of Middlesbrough' for parliamentary reasons." eh??? what on earth is this supposed to mean?
626:
I don't think applying naming conventions according to actual, rather than official usage, leads to a "nightmare" at all. It's the way the vast majority of articles on Knowledge are already named, including the vast majority of place names, and it works well. It's why we have articles on
1505:
articles, for example ;) , it's just that I don't think that any of the specific examples have built a strong enough case, and would like to see the criteria being proposed, if we are going to revisit this. On what verifiable basis can we justify splitting Reading but not Hull?
1464:'local-government-boundary' is bigger than the 'place'. That is not a request for a special case. However lets go with your suggestion above for now, and see how that flies. I'll try and make changes to the Reading article; perhaps you could take a look and see what you think. --
2581:
Hello fellow editors. A straw poll has opened today (27th March 2007) regarding the use of flags on the United Kingdom place infoboxes. There are several potential options to use, and would like as many contrubutors to vote on which we should decide upon. The straw poll is found
1089:
expansion of the borough for political and/or tax reasons is neither here nor there as far as WP is concerned. So what we have ended up with is a well defined, but for many purposes misleading, borough boundary, and some other very ill-defined but often more useful definitions.
2660:
I think we should consider reconstituting this project just for UK admin divisions and get the tagging/assessment working. It would be handy to have all the UK admin division articles linked in this way as they are somewhat neglected. This will then become a sub-project of
1433:
but nobody has put forward general principles for change - we've just had people saying "i think the article about the place where i live should be split", effectively. I'd like there to be some sort of big picture thinking going on here, otherwise we get inconsistency.
1191:
back in the day, and we've split a few after that; but at the time there was a feeling that this action would be opening a wormcan. It is. If there is a 'pro-split' camp here, can they review all districts and propose whether they would split the articles about them -
200:
In order to remedy this situation, all 3860 current unsubcategorised UK geography stubs have just been tallied to see whereabouts they refer to. Discussions are now underway with regard to splitting off regions or individual counties that have over 100 stub articles.
192:
Currently, there are separate geography stub categories for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. A separate category for England has been mooted in the past, but it would contain some 3800 stub articles, considerably more than is regarded as optimum according to
2394:
consideration in naming - just as the articles on people don't always follow the name on their birth certificate. This won't necessarily give totally consistent names, but at least the names should be unambiguous, recognisable and in line with actual usage.
1655:
Greater Eston is on the Redcar & Cleveland council website. It basically refers to that portion of the borough which was under the Eston Urban district. 'Eston' refers to the village of Eston as well as the townships that made up the Eston districts.
694:? It is pointless trying to guage "common use" as it is clearly very subjective. As a reader of an encyclopedia I expect to find the official terms and nomenclature of the subject even if those terms are not those I anecdotally beleive to be correct.
204:
Understandably, given the confusion between traditional counties, ceremonial counties, and the split of city areas over the last few decades, this is a thorny issue. We at WP:WSS would welcome any input that this WikiProject's members may have, at
2411:
Is this the correct place to ask for tips on how to improve the article above (Penmon) and how to get it rated (FA to Stub standard)? If it isn't please can you tell me where the request should go, and if it is then please could you rate it. --
2327:, just as "Mister" is not part of your name. The usages "County of X" and "District of X" and "Borough of X" see most official usage, followed just by "X". "X County", "X District" and "X Borough" are rarely if ever seen in formal writing .
275:, and we are are asking for your help. As you are most aware of the issues surrounding your focus area, we are wondering if you could provide us with a list of the articles that fall within the scope of your WikiProject, and that are either
2755:
the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please
1281:
article that will cover the current local government setup in more detail. The only article that will link to this directly will be ones on current local government issues. This article will carry the local government area biased infobox
740:
Of course thats true. However, there would be no point giving a place a 'higher rank' such borough, royal borough or city if it didn't use it. I know Bradford are a crazy exemption but even they can't decide on their website if they are
2635:
IMO, with other WikiProjects doing the job of guiding writing about subdivisions far better than this one, we should streamline the WikiProjects, and use those projects to coordinate the modernisation of the infoboxes. Any objections?
2224:
The name given in the 'name' column of the Act is 'West Midlands'. But then the Orders also gives the name in the 'name' column as 'Rugby' and 'Milton Keynes' and 'Pastonacres'. Just thought I'd bring it up since it seemed relevant.
1120:
how precisely does having an article about a borough which is supposedly smaller than the town it is within, saying "it is named after its main town, Reading" avoid confusing readers? Further, please address my question of the
774:
covers a much larger area than what most people would call Westminster. Looking at it again, it was not a good example of where the common usage is the same of the official one. For example, there appear to be lots of links to
2453:
where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.
652:
In summary, I don't think it's worth having confusing, ambiguous and misleading article names in order to fit in with a naming convention which very few readers of the encylopedia will even be aware of, let alone care about.
2133:
I don't quite understand what you mean by "it is far more sensible to sort the Boroughs together, then the cities/towns together, then the districts - because those are the more natural commonalities". I am thinking of
836:
appears to be about the main settlement and anything not could be removed to the district article. I don't necessairily have full knowledge to be particularly effective, but am willing to help if you need it.
1816:
because there was a redirect already in place. IMO, all the work described in this article is misconceived. Knowledge uses the style "Name (disambig)" to disambiguate two subjects with the same name (e.g.,
2616:
Those wikiprojects are more active -- actively developing standards, editing articles, rating articles, etc -- the UK geography wikiproject has far more guidelines on writing about subdivisions than this
292:
1864:
are named in the 'Borough of X' format, so I see no reason why that format should not be used for non-metropolitan districts and unitary authorities etc. Even more odd, are the articles on historic
280:
1584:
In fact, looking at lots of articles about places in Teesside, I notice many of them are claiming that the ONS recognises a "Middlesbrough Urban Area". I can't find any evidence of this at all.
132:
Well, I suggest we go for the articles whose page name is the common name of each county, that way if the county is administrative and ceremonial and traditional we'd have to mention everything.
2629:
The new infobox used for settlements appears to have been developed outside the confines of a WikiProject. With multiple WikiProjects, there was no coordinated redevelopment of the templates.
870:, respectively) and this may be a good way of concentrating and coordinating any editing of entries to ensure improvement in quality. If you or anyone else is interested, then please go
674:
I'm perfectly willing to discuss changing the naming conventions! In fact I even just proposed a change! You still haven't offered an opinion on my proposal. 09:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
565:? Flexibly-applied naming conventions with people changing things around however the hell they like, would lead to a nightmare : : there has to be some consistency, otherwise we get
1762:. I think pipes almost always lead to extra typing, especially when a district has the same name as a town (or river or whatever.) As an example, it would be a mistake to type
1348:
It seems to me that by splitting we are taking a firm stance that the town is not the borough; if we don't split we are not taking a firm stance the other way. What content would
333:
2323:
It provides only one set of names, and does not consider prefixes or affixes to be part of the name. If you want to make up your own long names, fine, but they are not officially
2604:
1635:
would kind of give it away, i would have thought, and a Middlesbrough area code (what on earth does that have to do with definining the differece between a town and country?
1188:
2039:
On Sorting, it is far more sensible to sort the Boroughs together, then the cities/towns together, then the districts - because those are the more natural commonalities.
2808:! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
2686:. I was considering suggesting "working groups" for the project, as a way to tackle areas which don't have/need their own project. An extra field could be added to
1974:
these pages, fixing up all the templates, redirects, and all the category sort keys, I'm not going to oppose this. Might even help! You might also wish to consider
1534:
which may have influenced people regarding this. As a result of this edit, the article was falsely claiming Reading's boundaries were artificially reduced in 1998.
447:
1187:? also, why is noone addressing the issue that these aren't new boundaries for the boroughs, but generally very old ones (hence the problem). I made a big list of
272:
1697:, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding
442:
288:
481:
I therefore suggest that the naming convention is applied more flexibly, to correspond more closely with Knowledge's general principles for article naming.
234:
955:
So, the convention we established, when we did this originally, was not to split articles where the borough was smaller than the urban area : thus we have
206:
123:
As long as you make sure it doesn't turn into a bun fight between traditional counties and administrative counties, then I'm certainly willing to help! :)
238:
1150:
I'll just add for now that one of the major issues with Middlesbrough is that of identity and it become very easily tied up with names or terms such as
458:
is that a name should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity. The
2450:
1083:(which on the whole I agree with) and the use of standard infoboxes which just don't match up with that policy. Here is what I had to say on Reading:-
802:
refers to the wider area of land that makes up the district council area, and it extends far down to the sounth of the county, including places like
1162:
etc all of which Boro was/is the considered centre of and the continual urban area does very much merge into what is now officially the boroughs of
2696:
to specify the WG, and narrow down categories as required. I was thinking specifically of roads to begin win. Perhaps this could be one though?
1812:
instance of Milton Keynes (borough) is a pipe to Borough of Milton Keynes. Unfortunately, I didn't have the option to just move it as you did with
2829:
2777:
2744:
2703:
2673:
2653:
2643:
2590:
2571:
2553:
2532:
2509:
2491:
2458:
2434:
2416:
2398:
2387:
2335:
2282:
2233:
2193:
2146:
2112:
2025:
2003:
1877:
1843:
1794:
1740:
1714:
1690:
1650:
1592:
1577:
1553:
1542:
1514:
1468:
1442:
1416:
1389:
1331:
1309:
1259:
1205:
1174:
1141:
1111:
1099:
1073:
1044:
1029:
945:
927:
889:
871:
840:
826:
783:
753:
723:
698:
657:
585:
485:
454:
In other words, actual usage is overwhelmingly in favour of "Winchester district" rather than "City of Winchester". The key general principle of
423:
384:
355:
322:
308:
254:
223:
182:
165:
148:
127:
115:
68:
17:
2359:
I wonder if we are getting bogged down in excessive legalisms. I really don't see that we can have a one-size-fits-all rule. Clearly we need
574:
271:, which is looking to identify quality articles in Knowledge for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing articles using
1759:
242:
141:
2732:
268:
260:
1412:. All that is needed is a change in policy to permit this; the rest can safely be left to the (mostly) good sense of the WP community. --
1627:
i can go on. there's also all sorts of stuff about the supposed signifiance of parliamentary borough boundaries from 1867-1918, the old
2767:(Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.)
552:- if if we aren't indicating city status why are we indicating borough status (and anyway, the City of Winchester is a Borough as well)
2815:
2724:
2713:
2662:
2610:
1725:
1672:
194:
172:
45:
449:. However, even of these 463 mentions, the majority are using it to refer to the city proper, and not the local government district.
1706:
1702:
408:
1852:
I would agree that 'Borough of X' or 'District of X' is far more natural and better then the current system. Nobody refers to the
318:
Would it be possible to create a box which is placed on the talk page like AirportProject box and for a set layout to be decided?
2623:
The main content on this page is infobox standards, with little (if any) guidelines on actually writing about subdivisions, but:
1698:
715:
officially the cities of Bradford and Carlisle, but that doesn't stop them from possessing borough and district status as well.
535:
798:, and I think some work relevant to these discussions needs to be done with this. I am proposing to do it. Currently, the entry
287:, with no POV or copyright problems. Do you have any recommendations? If you do, please post your suggestions at the listing of
2728:
2717:
863:
539:
87:
2091:
Changing everything will need Admin privs because many of the desired names already exist as redirects to the undesired names.
2072:
Does "West Midlands" need a "County of"? Isn't a Region? Oh no, I couldn't bear to set the Tradional County-ites going again!
1785:
However, you (Morwen) have worked on the whole country - I only moved one district, so I am open to be persuaded otherwise. --
1619:- no sources for this at all. it isn't an urban sub-area in the spreadsheet i have. is this a different name for the actual
2583:
2564:
2483:
1005:
page. So ultimately this seems to be a way for people to remove infoboxes from town articles, or up the population figures.
867:
2563:
A new infobox has been developed for use on UK places articles. If you have any concerns or appraisals, please make them at
2273:
so presumably the name must have some kind of official standing. Surely the act gives only the short version of the names?
1732:
should be a redirect to that article. This has broader implications for effectively all boroughs where we have a split.
498:
for Winchester. Can you address the general questions? I am here proposing as the logical conclusion of what you saying :
2797:
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that
523:
197:
guidelines (which roughly state that stub categories should have between 100 and 600 items to be of best use to editors).
103:
There are a lot of county articles that are stubs with an infobox and a list of settlements (just look at what we had for
1040:
a while ago; the split was done badly but then edited by various people and we ended up with a mess for quite some time.
711:
Well, "Metropolitan Borough of Bradford" is also a perfectly good official name, as is "District of Carlisle". They are
2476:
1628:
455:
1604:
749:. Interestingly borough is not a word they ever seem to use. I'm still in favour of a "highest status" naming scheme.
276:
155:
2649:
Agree - shut it down and use the Geography wikiproject for all that doesn't come under Parliamentary constituencies.
2054:
instance of X (borough) is a pipe to Borough of X. So the present arrangement just makes editors jump through hoops.
1361:
690:
covers a much bigger area than Westminster, the two are hardly the same. Is Maida Vale or Paddington really part of
1163:
1610:
1365:
into the "local government" section of the article. Any of these options would be better than splitting, I feel.
566:
515:
1768:
It is more natural to type this, and the user knows before clicking a link what article they are likely to see:
2427:
1801:
1758:
before I came here, and I tend to agree with Oliver; and that is also how I interpret the current guideline at
1360:
is the place for detailed local authority information such as wards and councillors. Is that people want the
908:
613:
either depart from the conventions (which have never been rules set in stone), or change the naming convention.
2135:
2757:
915:, a style that is completely unknown and unnatural. The same is true for the unnatural Knowledge artefaxct "
2805:
2799:
2787:
2515:
Given the support shown, I thought it useful to create an initial project page for Cheshire. It can be seen
1805:
1668:
1357:
971:
912:
284:
2017:, right? with brackets in a name you can type ] and then this gets expanded out in the article text as ]
2364:
2360:
1979:
1954:
1620:
412:
23:
2761:
and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my
1711:
2586:. If joining the debate, please keep a cool head and remain civil. We look forward to seeing you there.
2046:, which is clearly not what is needed. It actually creates an artificial ambiguity. What is needed is
1779:
1599:
A review of localities in the borough of Redcar and Cleveland shows the following problems with articles
1408:
Incidentally, there is absolutely no need to call up those people in favour of this change in policy to
963:, etc. I've noticed people seem to be creating splits and should like to get others' opinions on this.
531:
404:
250:
1664:
462:
title fails that test completely - it's both unrecognisable, even by locals and experts, and ambiguous.
1694:
2740:
2384:
2109:
2014:
1861:
1840:
1790:
1660:
1167:
1130:
924:
570:
1561:
1041:
1036:
article into a badly written article and created a stub. This is similar to the problem we had with
779:
that are really talking about Westminster proper rather than the current local government boundary.
750:
695:
549:
511:
2814:
To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to
2548:
2527:
2504:
2445:
2430:, where there is a discussion ongoing about how to name categories for local government districts.
1950:
1946:
1938:
884:
821:
776:
771:
687:
632:
545:
527:
519:
475:
400:
319:
303:
2380:
1613:, doesn't actually mention that it is outside the borough boundaries, although vaguely hints at it
37:
2700:
2640:
2516:
2455:
2108:
But that's twice I've contributed, so back to Morwen's question - What do other people think? --
1813:
1775:
1755:
1353:
1278:
1155:
1126:
1054:
1002:
998:
980:
960:
920:
507:
470:
459:
434:
430:
396:
373:
classed as "counties", except those in the metropolitan counties and non-metropolitan Berkshire.
216:
179:
162:
112:
2482:
I hope I haven't trodden on any toes by doing this, but I took as a precedent the project about
1945:. I'd previously advocated just abandoning this convention to use "City of ", and instead have
1061:- fiercely resist being considered part of Hull - same with Birmingham's eastern exurbs such as
438:
Council's website (i.e. the council that administers the "City of Winchester" district), shows:
395:
Not getting into the issue of whether these articles should be split at all, but someone moved
2043:
1942:
1822:
1751:
1686:
1550:
1465:
1413:
1386:
1349:
1328:
1096:
986:
916:
369:
the administrative geography. The legislation is in such a mess that most unitary authorities
52:
1754:
had parentheses, which always invite me to find a more natural alternative. I moved that to
2690:
2683:
2413:
2332:
2230:
2143:
2022:
2000:
1934:
1930:
1737:
1647:
1589:
1574:
1539:
1511:
1439:
1306:
1256:
1202:
1193:
1138:
1108:
1070:
1026:
1013:
942:
720:
582:
495:
420:
296:
246:
2825:
2773:
2762:
2736:
2279:
2190:
1874:
1853:
1062:
799:
379:
1832:(Borough)' needs to be redone, so that the change is to 'Borough of <Borough-name: -->
1786:
1001:
can't really be fleshed out with any information at all which isn't also relevant on the
2670:
2541:
2520:
2495:
2405:
2395:
2181:
1865:
1857:
1502:
1298:
1171:
875:
812:
780:
654:
482:
97:
639:
without the need for a new "naming convention for people called William", for example.
2697:
2650:
2637:
2587:
2568:
2431:
2372:
2177:
1975:
1818:
1616:
975:
967:
938:
904:
837:
210:
176:
159:
109:
2735:, and is where all the options (merge, redirect to or from etc) can be voted for. --
2626:
These infoboxes are way out of date, ignoring the advanced template code we now have
233:
Any editors who were involved in this project may be interested in recently created
2804:
easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested,
1914:
actually, the media often use district names bare without noting they are districts
1009:
628:
1352:
actually have other than the infobox, and a restatement of information already at
1410:
review all districts and propose whether they would split the articles about them
411:? What about the existing (borough) disambiguator? Get rid of that too and have
2328:
2226:
2139:
2018:
1996:
1911:
tables and lists typically use just the short form, including locality infoboxes
1733:
1643:
1585:
1570:
1535:
1507:
1435:
1302:
1252:
1198:
1159:
1134:
1066:
1058:
1022:
716:
691:
578:
416:
352:
300:
83:
As of May 2005 there are only three UK subdivision articles that are featured:
2821:
2769:
2376:
2371:
is more problematic, so is a disambig article with many variations (including
2274:
2185:
1869:
1251:
Post towns don't necessarily bear much resemblance to local identity either.
1037:
636:
374:
145:
124:
2666:
956:
855:
156:
list of English counties roughly ordered by quality of their Knowledge entry
2042:
On the pipe trick, it doesn't produce the desired effect. ] produces : -->
2818:. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
1497:, where the case is clear enough - i have no problem with having separate
2487:
2444:
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of
1151:
1017:
919:" except in that case an editor was able to move it to the more sensible
859:
795:
983:
now asserts it is a district which is named after its main town, Reading
403:
without changing anything else. Shall we just give up on this and have
207:
Knowledge:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria#Further_split_of_UK-geo-stub
990:
807:
140:
We already have a policy about traditional/administrative counties etc
1724:
Watchers of this project may be interested at the debate currently on
1498:
803:
92:
2176:
if it is then we should consider moving it to that title along with
1833:' (or occasionally, 'Metropolitan Borough of <Borough-name: -->
1729:
1053:
It will be especially interesting if anyone tries to do this with
2479:
talk page, to enable people to comment on it here, if required.)
1868:, which usually didn't include the places they were named after.
1065:, which are included in the Birmingham urban sub-area ONS total.
941:
about the use of the England place infobox on Cornwall articles.
2368:
1774:
For Braintree, I see only two correct and natural alternatives
1327:
the policy to allow this solution where it is appropriate?. --
494:
You aren't really addressing the general questions here: still
108:
Dorset up to featured, but hopefully we can get more involved.
1933:
and suchforth: we periodically get people moving things from
1800:
I agree completely. Exactly the same problem applies at the
794:
I've been looking at the entries of the constituent parts of
2786:
1771:
South Marston is a village in the ], just outside ] itself.
2271:
1218:
Morwen, of course nobody can provide verifiable source for
911:(the Borough). Some pedant created the Borough article as
44:
Due to lack of activity, this project has been merged into
1890:
Couple of reasons why the status quo might want to remain
1549:
Unitisation had no effect on the borough boundaries. --
974:, which also asserts that it contains other places than
351:
looking for on the English Knowledge, without success.
1531:
1107:
of this, but most readers are not going to aware them.
104:
1532:
someone added a lot of nonsense to the Reading article
2605:
Knowledge:WikiProject UK Parliamentary Constituencies
2057:
On tables, hard cases make bad law. If a table says
1929:
also, this then further entrenches the problems with
933:
Use of the England place infobox in Cornwall articles
899:
I've been trying to solve a very similar issue - see
2620:
No serious activity has occured here in a long time.
2613:
is dealing with most (all?) other geographical areas
1642:when I get time i shall have at these with an axe.
1220:
what or where local people consider themselves to be
1185:
what or where local people consider themselves to be
2270:The WMPTA website calls it County of West Midlands
1970:but hey, if someone wants to do the slog of moving
1189:
Knowledge:List of English districts to disambiguate
900:
478:, whereas other cases may be more like Winchester.
334:English metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties
2061:, is it too terrible to have a little redundancy?
2682:A lot of the subdivisions are already tagged by
1830:So all the work to change '<Borough-name: -->
433:article. In that particular case, I think that
340:metropolitan counties (including Greater London)
2600:I propose disbanding this WikiProject because:
1197:others, which is why a full review is needed.
1021:are not declared by the ONS to be definitive.
951:Splits where borough is smaller than urban area
291:, and if you have any questions, ask me in the
2467:Proposed Project (or sub-project) for Cheshire
747:City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
158:to help get an idea of what needs to be done.
874:and add your name to the entry for Cheshire.
466:does not correspond with the "official" name.
8:
2486:. I've listed a proposed project concerning
235:list of rural and urban districts in England
1057:: the residents in Hull's western exurbs -
1012:, and has cited the fact we have separate
441:200,000 mentions of "Winchester district"
239:list of rural and urban districts in Wales
32:
24:Knowledge talk:WikiProject UK subdivisions
2451:User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week
2050:of Swindon. Furthermore, as noted above,
1765:South Marston is a village in the ] of ]
1639:has an area code associated with a town)
1493:Sure, I have no objections to doing that
522:, which will remain there rather than at
1856:as 'Rugby' as it states in the article.
1750:I stumbled on this page when I saw that
1183:can you provide verifiabile sources for
2492:Knowledge:WikiProject Council/Proposals
2426:Interested editors may like to look at
1691:Knowledge:WikiProject Council/Directory
1008:Someone has argued with my re-merge in
561:Do you think that would be a good idea
18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject UK geography
937:There is a discussion taking place on
770:You are right and I was mistaken, the
743:Bradford Metropolitan District Council
575:City of Bradford Metropolitan District
171:OK, I've started a new Wikiproject at
2750:Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
2013:oh, and everyone does know about the
1760:Knowledge:Naming conventions (places)
446:463 mentions of "City of Winchester"
332:The French Knowledge has an article,
243:list of hundreds of England and Wales
7:
1778:(lowercase 'd', no parentheses) and
343:administrative (shire) counties, and
328:English counties on French Knowledge
261:Knowledge:Version 1.0 Editorial Team
55:for historical interest only and is
2477:Knowledge: WikiProject Uk geography
970:now asserts that it is larger than
195:Knowledge: WikiProject Stub sorting
2816:Knowledge:WikiProject X/Newsletter
2725:Subdivisions of the United Kingdom
2714:Subdivisions of the United Kingdom
2663:Knowledge:WikiProject UK geography
2611:Knowledge:WikiProject UK geography
1726:Talk:Metropolitan Borough of Wigan
391:City of Foo / Foo (district) again
173:Knowledge:WikiProject UK geography
69:WikiProject UK geography talk page
31:
409:Metropolitan Borough of Wakefield
57:not a current editorial guideline
989:, I spotted and re-merged in to
536:Metropolitan Borough of Bradford
36:
2729:Countries of the United Kingdom
2718:Countries of the United Kingdom
901:#Unnatural disambiguation names
864:Knowledge:WikiProject Sheffield
540:Metropolitan Borough of Salford
293:Work Via WikiProjects talk page
88:Traditional counties of England
2607:deals with constituencies fine
2565:Template talk:Infobox UK place
1746:Unnatural disambiguation names
1637:everywhere in the damn country
1362:Template:infobox_England_place
868:Knowledge:WikiProject Cornwall
469:While I think the name of the
289:all active Places WikiProjects
65:edit the contents of this page
51:This page is maintained as an
1:
2554:22:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
2533:22:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
2510:17:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
2459:21:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
2435:14:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
2388:18:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
2336:19:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
1995:What do other people think?
1949:. Should we just have it at
1530:Also, I've just noticed that
1133:from 19th century articles.
928:22:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
890:10:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
841:19:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
827:19:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
599:all special about Winchester.
524:London Borough of Westminster
429:I'm the person who moved the
67:. Direct any comments to the
2830:16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
2417:14:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
2283:21:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
2234:21:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
2194:21:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
2147:20:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
2113:18:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
2026:15:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
2004:15:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
1878:00:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
1844:12:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
1795:10:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
1741:23:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
1715:17:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
1651:21:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
1629:Middlesbrough Rural District
1623:urban area the ONS identify?
1593:21:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
1578:21:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
1564:21:25 26 October 2006 (UTC)
1554:14:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
1543:13:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
1515:13:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
1469:13:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
1443:13:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
1417:12:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
1390:13:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
1332:12:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
1310:13:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
1260:13:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
1206:08:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
1175:23:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
1142:07:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
1112:21:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
1100:14:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
1074:08:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
1045:06:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
1030:22:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
946:20:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
577:all in the same namespace.
456:Knowledge:Naming conventions
255:14:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
2778:22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
2765:. Thank you for your time!
2723:A poll is talking place on
2596:Disbanding this WikiProject
2399:01:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
2059:Borough: Borough of Swindon
1831:' to '<Borough-name: -->
1605:Grangetown, North Yorkshire
516:Metropolitan Borough of Foo
336:, which lists as counties:
267:Hello. I'm a member of the
79:Proposal for collaboration?
2845:
2704:09:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
2674:09:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
2591:11:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
2572:02:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
784:18:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
754:19:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
724:09:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
699:15:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
658:18:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
586:06:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
486:00:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
424:13:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
309:18:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
269:Version 1.0 Editorial Team
2745:18:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
2731:. The Merger proposal is
2654:13:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
2644:02:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
1689:has recently updated the
1611:South Bank, Middlesbrough
806:. On the other hand, the
567:Borough of Wellingborough
385:14:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
356:14:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
229:Lists of former districts
224:03:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
2758:review the proposal here
2471:(This section up to the
2428:Category Talk:Merseyside
2136:Category:Shire districts
1839:Does anyone disagree? --
1802:Borough of Milton Keynes
1297:But which article would
909:Borough of Milton Keynes
323:14:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
183:11:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
166:17:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
149:20:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
128:17:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
116:17:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
46:WikiProject UK geography
2577:Infobox flag straw poll
2475:comment is copied from
2174:County of West Midlands
1806:Milton Keynes (borough)
1358:Reading Borough Council
972:Middlesbrough (borough)
913:Milton Keynes (borough)
474:thing, such as perhaps
2791:
2783:WikiProject X is live!
2365:West Midlands (county)
2361:West Midlands (region)
1980:West Midlands (county)
2790:
1862:Metropolitan boroughs
1780:District of Braintree
532:Canterbury (district)
405:Winchester (district)
2440:Knowledge Day Awards
2015:wikipedia:pipe trick
1955:District of Carlisle
1808:. As with Swindon,
1621:South Bank and Eston
1168:Redcar and Cleveland
1131:Wokingham (district)
903:below. My issue is
413:Charnwood (district)
365:confusing, but that
1951:Carlisle (district)
1947:Carlisle (district)
1939:Carlisle (district)
1687:WikiProject Council
777:City of Westminster
772:City of Westminster
688:City of Westminster
633:William Shakespeare
528:Carlisle (district)
520:City of Westminster
476:City of Westminster
401:Winchester district
346:unitary authorities
2792:
1814:Borough of Swindon
1776:Braintree district
1756:Borough of Swindon
1354:Reading, Berkshire
1279:Borough of Reading
1127:Reading (district)
1055:Kingston upon Hull
1003:Reading, Berkshire
999:Reading (district)
981:Reading (district)
961:Kingston upon Hull
921:Borough of Swindon
526:. this will mean
471:City of Winchester
460:City of Winchester
435:City of Winchester
431:City of Winchester
397:City of Winchester
295:or directly in my
2768:
1982:at the same time.
1943:Carlisle District
1823:Xscape (building)
1782:(uppercase 'd').
1752:Swindon (borough)
1681:Project directory
1677:
1663:comment added by
1350:Reading (borough)
987:Ipswich (borough)
917:Swindon (borough)
383:
314:Talk page message
222:
188:UK-geo-stub split
76:
75:
22:(Redirected from
2836:
2794:Hello everyone!
2766:
2712:Poll on merging
2695:
2689:
2551:
2546:
2545:
2530:
2525:
2524:
2507:
2501:
2500:
2325:part of the name
2277:
2188:
1935:City of Carlisle
1931:City of Carlisle
1872:
1854:Borough of Rugby
1695:User:B2T2/Portal
1676:
1657:
1194:special pleading
1014:City of Bradford
887:
881:
880:
824:
818:
817:
496:special pleading
377:
306:
299:. Thanks a lot!
219:
214:
154:I've produced a
40:
33:
27:
2844:
2843:
2839:
2838:
2837:
2835:
2834:
2833:
2785:
2752:
2721:
2693:
2687:
2598:
2579:
2561:
2549:
2543:
2542:
2528:
2522:
2521:
2505:
2502:
2498:
2497:
2469:
2442:
2424:
2422:Category Naming
2409:
2385:Concrete Cowboy
2275:
2186:
2110:Concrete Cowboy
1870:
1866:rural districts
1858:London boroughs
1841:Concrete Cowboy
1789:(or Hrothulf) (
1772:
1766:
1748:
1722:
1683:
1658:
1063:Castle Bromwich
953:
935:
925:Concrete Cowboy
885:
882:
878:
877:
822:
819:
815:
814:
800:City of Chester
571:Stroud district
393:
330:
316:
304:
265:
231:
217:
190:
175:for all this.
81:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2842:
2840:
2784:
2781:
2751:
2748:
2720:
2710:
2709:
2708:
2707:
2706:
2677:
2676:
2657:
2656:
2633:
2632:
2631:
2630:
2627:
2621:
2618:
2614:
2608:
2597:
2594:
2578:
2575:
2560:
2557:
2536:
2535:
2496:
2468:
2465:
2463:
2441:
2438:
2423:
2420:
2408:
2406:Penmon (place)
2403:
2402:
2401:
2357:
2356:
2355:
2354:
2353:
2352:
2351:
2350:
2349:
2348:
2347:
2346:
2345:
2344:
2343:
2342:
2341:
2340:
2339:
2338:
2302:
2301:
2300:
2299:
2298:
2297:
2296:
2295:
2294:
2293:
2292:
2291:
2290:
2289:
2288:
2287:
2286:
2285:
2251:
2250:
2249:
2248:
2247:
2246:
2245:
2244:
2243:
2242:
2241:
2240:
2239:
2238:
2237:
2236:
2207:
2206:
2205:
2204:
2203:
2202:
2201:
2200:
2199:
2198:
2197:
2196:
2182:County of Avon
2158:
2157:
2156:
2155:
2154:
2153:
2152:
2151:
2150:
2149:
2122:
2121:
2120:
2119:
2118:
2117:
2116:
2115:
2099:
2098:
2097:
2096:
2095:
2094:
2093:
2092:
2082:
2081:
2080:
2079:
2078:
2077:
2076:
2075:
2074:
2073:
2070:
2062:
2055:
2040:
2011:
2010:
2009:
2008:
2007:
2006:
1988:
1987:
1986:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1963:
1962:
1961:
1960:
1959:
1958:
1922:
1921:
1920:
1919:
1918:
1917:
1916:
1915:
1912:
1909:
1906:
1896:
1895:
1894:
1893:
1892:
1891:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1847:
1846:
1836:
1835:
1827:
1826:
1770:
1764:
1747:
1744:
1721:
1718:
1682:
1679:
1625:
1624:
1614:
1608:
1601:
1600:
1596:
1595:
1581:
1580:
1557:
1556:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1503:City of London
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1299:county borough
1288:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1178:
1177:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1115:
1114:
1103:
1102:
1091:
1090:
1085:
1084:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1048:
1047:
994:
993:
984:
978:
952:
949:
934:
931:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
876:
846:
845:
844:
843:
830:
829:
813:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
704:
703:
702:
701:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
591:
590:
589:
588:
556:
555:
554:
553:
550:Foo (district)
543:
512:Foo (district)
502:
501:
500:
499:
489:
488:
479:
467:
463:
452:
451:
450:
444:
392:
389:
388:
387:
348:
347:
344:
341:
329:
326:
320:Flymeoutofhere
315:
312:
283:, B-class, or
273:these criteria
264:
258:
230:
227:
189:
186:
169:
168:
138:
137:
136:
135:
134:
133:
101:
100:
98:Bath, Somerset
95:
90:
80:
77:
74:
73:
41:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2841:
2832:
2831:
2827:
2823:
2819:
2817:
2813:
2809:
2807:
2802:
2801:
2800:WikiProject X
2795:
2789:
2782:
2780:
2779:
2775:
2771:
2764:
2760:
2759:
2749:
2747:
2746:
2742:
2738:
2734:
2730:
2726:
2719:
2715:
2711:
2705:
2702:
2699:
2692:
2685:
2681:
2680:
2679:
2678:
2675:
2672:
2668:
2664:
2659:
2658:
2655:
2652:
2648:
2647:
2646:
2645:
2642:
2639:
2628:
2625:
2624:
2622:
2619:
2615:
2612:
2609:
2606:
2603:
2602:
2601:
2595:
2593:
2592:
2589:
2585:
2576:
2574:
2573:
2570:
2566:
2559:New infoboxes
2558:
2556:
2555:
2552:
2547:
2540:
2534:
2531:
2526:
2518:
2514:
2513:
2512:
2511:
2508:
2503:
2493:
2489:
2485:
2480:
2478:
2474:
2466:
2464:
2461:
2460:
2457:
2456:Badbilltucker
2452:
2447:
2439:
2437:
2436:
2433:
2429:
2421:
2419:
2418:
2415:
2407:
2404:
2400:
2397:
2392:
2391:
2390:
2389:
2386:
2382:
2378:
2374:
2373:Avon (county)
2370:
2366:
2362:
2337:
2334:
2330:
2326:
2322:
2321:
2320:
2319:
2318:
2317:
2316:
2315:
2314:
2313:
2312:
2311:
2310:
2309:
2308:
2307:
2306:
2305:
2304:
2303:
2284:
2281:
2278:
2272:
2269:
2268:
2267:
2266:
2265:
2264:
2263:
2262:
2261:
2260:
2259:
2258:
2257:
2256:
2255:
2254:
2253:
2252:
2235:
2232:
2228:
2223:
2222:
2221:
2220:
2219:
2218:
2217:
2216:
2215:
2214:
2213:
2212:
2211:
2210:
2209:
2208:
2195:
2192:
2189:
2183:
2179:
2178:Avon (county)
2175:
2170:
2169:
2168:
2167:
2166:
2165:
2164:
2163:
2162:
2161:
2160:
2159:
2148:
2145:
2141:
2137:
2132:
2131:
2130:
2129:
2128:
2127:
2126:
2125:
2124:
2123:
2114:
2111:
2107:
2106:
2105:
2104:
2103:
2102:
2101:
2100:
2090:
2089:
2088:
2087:
2086:
2085:
2084:
2083:
2071:
2069:in the City).
2068:
2063:
2060:
2056:
2053:
2049:
2045:
2041:
2038:
2037:
2036:
2035:
2034:
2033:
2032:
2031:
2030:
2029:
2028:
2027:
2024:
2020:
2016:
2005:
2002:
1998:
1994:
1993:
1992:
1991:
1990:
1989:
1981:
1977:
1976:Avon (county)
1973:
1969:
1968:
1967:
1966:
1965:
1964:
1956:
1952:
1948:
1944:
1940:
1936:
1932:
1928:
1927:
1926:
1925:
1924:
1923:
1913:
1910:
1907:
1904:
1903:
1902:
1901:
1900:
1899:
1898:
1897:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1886:
1885:
1884:
1879:
1876:
1873:
1867:
1863:
1859:
1855:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1845:
1842:
1838:
1837:
1829:
1828:
1824:
1820:
1819:Xscape (band)
1815:
1811:
1807:
1803:
1799:
1798:
1797:
1796:
1792:
1788:
1783:
1781:
1777:
1769:
1763:
1761:
1757:
1753:
1745:
1743:
1742:
1739:
1735:
1731:
1727:
1719:
1717:
1716:
1713:
1708:
1707:collaboration
1704:
1700:
1696:
1692:
1688:
1680:
1678:
1674:
1670:
1666:
1662:
1653:
1652:
1649:
1645:
1640:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1622:
1618:
1617:Greater Eston
1615:
1612:
1609:
1606:
1603:
1602:
1598:
1597:
1594:
1591:
1587:
1583:
1582:
1579:
1576:
1572:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1563:
1555:
1552:
1547:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1541:
1537:
1533:
1516:
1513:
1509:
1504:
1500:
1496:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1470:
1467:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1444:
1441:
1437:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1418:
1415:
1411:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1391:
1388:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1333:
1330:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1311:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1280:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1261:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1221:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1207:
1204:
1200:
1195:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1176:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1148:
1143:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1113:
1110:
1105:
1104:
1101:
1098:
1093:
1092:
1087:
1086:
1081:
1080:
1075:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1046:
1043:
1039:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1028:
1024:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1006:
1004:
1000:
992:
988:
985:
982:
979:
977:
976:Middlesbrough
973:
969:
968:Middlesbrough
966:
965:
964:
962:
958:
950:
948:
947:
944:
940:
939:Talk:Cornwall
932:
930:
929:
926:
922:
918:
914:
910:
906:
905:Milton Keynes
902:
891:
888:
883:
873:
869:
865:
861:
857:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
842:
839:
834:
833:
832:
831:
828:
825:
820:
809:
805:
801:
797:
793:
792:
785:
782:
778:
773:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
755:
752:
748:
744:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
725:
722:
718:
714:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
700:
697:
693:
689:
686:
685:
684:
683:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
659:
656:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
638:
634:
630:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
587:
584:
580:
576:
572:
568:
564:
560:
559:
558:
557:
551:
547:
546:Foo (borough)
544:
541:
537:
533:
529:
525:
521:
518:, except for
517:
513:
509:
506:
505:
504:
503:
497:
493:
492:
491:
490:
487:
484:
480:
477:
472:
468:
464:
461:
457:
453:
448:
445:
443:
440:
439:
436:
432:
428:
427:
426:
425:
422:
418:
414:
410:
406:
402:
398:
390:
386:
381:
376:
372:
368:
364:
360:
359:
358:
357:
354:
345:
342:
339:
338:
337:
335:
327:
325:
324:
321:
313:
311:
310:
307:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
285:Good articles
282:
278:
274:
270:
262:
259:
257:
256:
253:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
228:
226:
225:
221:
220:
212:
208:
202:
198:
196:
187:
185:
184:
181:
178:
174:
167:
164:
161:
157:
153:
152:
151:
150:
147:
143:
131:
130:
129:
126:
122:
121:
120:
119:
118:
117:
114:
111:
106:
99:
96:
94:
91:
89:
86:
85:
84:
78:
72:
70:
66:
64:
58:
54:
49:
47:
42:
39:
35:
34:
25:
19:
2820:
2811:
2810:
2806:check us out
2798:
2796:
2793:
2756:
2753:
2722:
2634:
2599:
2580:
2562:
2538:
2537:
2481:
2472:
2470:
2462:
2443:
2425:
2410:
2381:Avon (river)
2358:
2324:
2173:
2066:
2058:
2051:
2047:
2012:
1971:
1809:
1784:
1773:
1767:
1749:
1723:
1684:
1665:82.11.17.113
1654:
1641:
1636:
1632:
1626:
1558:
1551:Chris j wood
1529:
1495:in principle
1494:
1466:Chris j wood
1414:Chris j wood
1409:
1387:Chris j wood
1329:Chris j wood
1219:
1184:
1122:
1097:Chris j wood
1010:Talk:Ipswich
1007:
995:
954:
936:
898:
746:
742:
712:
629:Bill Clinton
562:
394:
370:
366:
362:
349:
331:
317:
266:
249:
232:
215:
203:
199:
191:
170:
139:
102:
82:
62:
60:
56:
50:
43:
2567:. Regards,
2539:End of Copy
2473:end of copy
2446:Esperanza's
2414:Casmith 789
1728:on whether
1703:peer review
1685:Hello. The
1659:—Preceding
1631:- the name
1301:link to?
1160:Tees Valley
1109:Alan Pascoe
1059:Haltemprice
943:Alan Pascoe
907:(the town)/
692:Westminster
508:City of Foo
263:cooperation
247:Warofdreams
2737:Matt Lewis
2544:DDStretch
2523:DDStretch
2499:DDStretch
2377:River Avon
1908:pipe trick
1699:assessment
1038:Manchester
637:Billy Joel
563:in general
61:Please do
2763:talk page
2684:WP:UK geo
2396:Enchanter
1562:dj_paul84
1282:template.
1172:Achmelvic
1156:Cleveland
1042:Mrsteviec
957:Leicester
856:Sheffield
781:Enchanter
751:Mrsteviec
696:Mrsteviec
655:Enchanter
483:Enchanter
297:talk page
105:Wiltshire
2651:Regan123
2617:article.
2588:Jhamez84
2569:Jhamez84
2488:Cheshire
2484:Cornwall
2432:Regan123
1673:contribs
1661:unsigned
1164:Stockton
1152:Teesside
1018:Bradford
860:Cornwall
858:and for
838:Regan123
796:Cheshire
277:featured
211:Grutness
2691:WPUKgeo
2379:but no
2048:Borough
2044:Swindon
1905:sorting
1787:HroĂ°ulf
991:Ipswich
808:Chester
281:A-class
53:archive
2550:(talk)
2529:(talk)
2329:Morwen
2227:Morwen
2140:Morwen
2019:Morwen
1997:Morwen
1734:Morwen
1705:, and
1644:Morwen
1586:Morwen
1571:Morwen
1536:Morwen
1508:Morwen
1499:London
1436:Morwen
1303:Morwen
1253:Morwen
1199:Morwen
1135:Morwen
1067:Morwen
1023:Morwen
804:Malpas
717:Morwen
635:, and
579:Morwen
548:-: -->
510:-: -->
417:Morwen
353:Kahuzi
93:Dorset
2822:Harej
2812:Note:
2770:Harej
2698:Joe D
2638:Joe D
2276:G-Man
2187:G-Man
2052:every
1871:G-Man
1810:every
1730:Wigan
1720:Wigan
1633:rural
1123:scope
862:(see
542:, etc
375:Owain
177:Joe D
160:Joe D
146:G-Man
125:Owain
110:Joe D
16:<
2826:talk
2774:talk
2741:talk
2733:here
2727:and
2671:Talk
2667:MRSC
2584:here
2517:here
2506:talk
2369:Avon
2333:Talk
2231:Talk
2144:Talk
2023:Talk
2001:Talk
1978:and
1860:and
1821:and
1791:Talk
1738:Talk
1712:B2T2
1669:talk
1648:Talk
1590:Talk
1575:Talk
1540:Talk
1512:Talk
1501:and
1440:Talk
1356:?
1307:Talk
1257:Talk
1203:Talk
1166:and
1139:Talk
1071:Talk
1027:Talk
886:talk
879:DDS
872:here
866:and
823:talk
816:DDS
721:Talk
713:also
583:Talk
421:Talk
407:and
380:talk
301:Tito
251:talk
241:and
218:wha?
142:Here
2716:to
2701:(t)
2641:(t)
2490:on
2367:.
2180:to
2067:not
1972:all
1953:or
1941:or
1937:to
1125:of
1016:vs
745:or
514:or
399:to
371:are
361:It
213:...
180:(t)
163:(t)
113:(t)
63:not
59:.
2828:)
2776:)
2743:)
2694:}}
2688:{{
2669:•
2665:.
2375:,
2331:-
2229:-
2184:.
2142:-
2021:-
1999:-
1834:'.
1793:)
1736:-
1701:,
1675:)
1671:•
1646:-
1588:-
1573:-
1538:-
1510:-
1438:-
1305:-
1255:-
1201:-
1158:,
1154:,
1137:-
1069:-
1025:-
959:,
719:-
631:,
581:-
573:,
569:,
538:,
534:,
530:,
419:-
415:?
367:is
363:is
305:xd
279:,
245:.
237:,
209:.
144:.
71:.
2824:(
2772:(
2739:(
2363:/
2280:*
2191:*
1957:?
1875:*
1804:/
1667:(
382:)
378:(
48:.
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
