Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

County Templates

(copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties as no-one replied there)

I've recently created new county templates for Leicestershire, Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire and Hertfordshire all using Template:County, however I've noticed that several county templates are using Template:Navbox instead and there is inconsistency as a result.
So..am I correct in thinking that Template:County is the preferred template to use, and should any templates using Template:Navbox be converted to Template:County for consistency?

Some other questions:
1. Some county templates such as Template:East Sussex are using alternative colours - is this encouraged or should all templates use default colours for consistency?
2. Should county templates be added to settlement articles (eg villages) that aren't actually linked in the template, or just to those articles that are?
3. Is there a list somewhere of preferred topics to be included in county templates?
4. Some counties also have "Places in" templates such as Template:Places in Bedfordshire and Template:T&W places. Should these be replaced by county templates and phased out, or retained and used as well?? My own view is that they're unwieldy and unnecessary since "Places in" can be accessed from the main county template, but what do others think? Dallan72 (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is probably something we should discuss and formalise (again?). It would be my preference that these are standardised. Consistency promotes professionalism and a harmonious appearance for Wikipedia. If that means that some of the more "exotic" minority versions that are outside of Template:County have their ideas integrated into this template (like a symbol), then sure that's fine by me, so long as we have a standard template.

I'm not in favour of alternative colours for the reasons above, but some counties are likely to have topics different to others (Dorset will be different to Merseyside for example), and so that doesn't worry me.

I know there was a lengthy discussion at Template talk:Cambridgeshire that is very relevant to this discussion. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Question: What do the asterisks mean?

In the guide there are asterisks beside "Infobox" and "Lead". What do these mean? I can't see any explanation. Possibly it's meant to show that these two are compulsory, perhaps the asterisks are supposed to lead to the "note" above, or perhaps it means there is some dispute or optionality about these sections. As I've just quoted the piece of text about Infobox in a discussion at Talk:Leeds (a place where discussions sometimes get a bit heated and people like to see sources), I'd like to know! Have I missed something? PamD (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there used to be a link, but you're right, it's to do with "NOTE: "Infobox" and "Lead" are not headings in their own right, and should not be included on articles as such." Probably needs (re)making clearer. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I've come looking for guidance and consensus before trying to make the pronunciation info more consistent. The following elements seem to make up this info:

• sometimes the word "pronounced"
• a recording, usually with a link to media help and "info", sometimes with the word listen
• IPA transcription (sometimes for more than one accent), usually with a link to Help:IPA for English, but sometimes with a link to the sound file
• sometimes a pronuncation respelling key

My preference is to do it like this:
Birmingham ({{pron-en|ˈbɝːmɪŋəm}}, ) is a city ...

I like that:

• the IPA transcription, which enables any English speaker to say the word in their accent, comes before the recording, which is of a specific speaker's pronunciation
• the IPA transcription is linked to an explanation of this rather than just a sound file
• the sound file options are all together, rather than before and after the IPA, as in some articles
• neat spacing (though I'm undecided about the comma)
• it uses standard templates (Template:pron-en, Template:Audio)

I'm also intending to revise the IPA transcriptions in accordance with the guidance at Wikipedia:IPA for English. Birmingham follows these conventions with regard to the use of the r-coloured vowel. At first I thought this was wrong, not being a standard British transcription, but have come to think that it makes sense to use the international transcription as recommended in the article.

The current article at Birmingham has an example of the "pronunciation respelling key". I'm not in favour of this because I think IPA is superior, but I'll listen to what others say. If this is wanted, my example becomes:
Birmingham ({{pron-en|ˈbɝːmɪŋəm}}, BəH-ming-əm, ) is a city ...

Gailtb (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, using Template:respell, I think the correct version is BəR-ming-əm. Gailtb (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation, include?

Many settlements seem to mention IPA pronunciation in the lead, should this be included? Dharmaquila (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Only include pronunciation e.g. (2 squiggly brackets)IPAc-en|letters per Help:IPA for English|'|.....{close brackets) where the place should be in List_of_names_in_English_with_counterintuitive_pronunciations or where two well known accent alternatives exist like Bath. Adam37 (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Grammar and layout checklist

# Web references preferably should include the language (if not English) and format (if not HTTP). "HTTP" ??? HTML surely. e.g. |format=PDF (oops already modified it) - roll it back if you disagree Stuffed cat (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Internal Drainage Boards

In a discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_UK_place#Internal__Drainage_Boards we have discussed having infobox fields for the Internal Drainage Boards of areas they operate in. The conclusion there was to include the details in the prose, which I have already been doing for some time. But since I am editing existing works, my additons have sometimes gone in under local government and sometimes in the lead article. What would be the preferred solution? Consider Twenty,_Lincolnshire, Pode Hole, Crowland and Spalding, Lincolnshire as examples.

It was further suggested in the infobox discussion that the matter ought to be be resolved here Brunnian (talk) 09:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

IDBs are mentioned in the Somerset Levels article but not in individual village/parish articles, therefore I would suggest leaving them out of the infobox & just mentioning them in the text where they are significant (in either governance, history or "drainage" sections). The most appropriate articles may be SSSIs or similar which cover particular areas of geography eg Southlake Moor or Westhay Moor or waterways eg King's Sedgemoor Drain or River Huntspill rather than the village which on the levels tend to be on the higher gound.— Rod ^talk 09:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

We probably need to elaborate on them in the WP:UKCITIES guide, especially for England's lowlands it seems. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

How to write about districts

Please note I am drafting Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about districts and it has some overlap with this policy. MRSC (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Transport

Can the Transport section actually be useful to people? For a London suburb say, is there a consensus that it is acceptable - even welcome - to include a link to a zoomed-in, positioned, and cropped area of the relevant Transport for London bus map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdudding (talk • contribs) 21:08, 24 September 2009

Is there a specific article that is causing trouble/conflict? I sense from your comment there is... --Jza84 |  Talk  22:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I put the above in for a suburb, and it was taken out. I don't want to get in a editing war, so I am after policy. I have also had a link to the "journey planner" on the TfL site removed, which seems legitimate to have, since a newcomer would not even know what TfL is. It depends what a settlement page on Wikipedia is for. I see it a bit like BBC4 - to "broaden minds". But is also needs to have quick access to the basics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdudding (talk • contribs) 13:25, 25 September 2009

Which page is it, please? I'm struggling seeing where the conflict lies you see. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Finchley. "...an on-line journey planner is available at Transport for London,and a Finchley bus map is at TfL bus map." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdudding (talk • contribs) 22:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Village/hamlet, Manor and Hall

I'm taking a fairly parochial view here, but there are many cases in Staffordshire where the history of the village and the mediaeval manor are inextricably intertwined. However, there are several cases where separate articles have been created for the hamlet and the hall, both of them necessarily fairly short. Is there a consensus as to whether the two should be merged together, or should stay separate. My own view would be to merge under the name of the village or hamlet, with a redirect from the hall, retaining any categories on the redirect (unless the hall is exceptionally notable in its own right, for example, Sandringham). I have done this unilaterally for Thorpe Constantine, where the manor and parish are peculiarly identified with each other, but not all cases need be so clear cut. Among those where I seek guidance are Swinfen village and Hall, and Armitage village and Park. Any pointers? Jan1nad (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The approach we have adopted in Somerset is to keep them separate (but have links between them & a short sentence about the Hall in the village article & give the village as the location of the Hall). The rationale would be that those interested in local geography would want to know about the village (which we tend to combine with the parish - generally the same name) whereas those interested in architecture would want to know about the old buildings. The consensus from WP:HSITES etc seems to be that Grade I and II* buildings are inherently notable in their own right, although this is less clear for Grade II. If you retain categories eg "Grade II* listed building in X", or "Year XX architecture" in the general village article these will be removed as not talking about the building. A simple rule of thumb may be that if there is enough info (supported by several references) to make a separate article which would avoid AfD then the separate article is justified.— Rod ^talk 20:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The category would be on the redirect, not on the main page, so should not confuse the main article. Do other counties agree with Somerset? Jan1nad (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Jan1nad's solution saves unnecessary separation for most non-Grade I non notable "manors" in villages (and their wider civil parishes): e.g.s seen in Surrey, such as Ewhurst, Surrey where you simply categorise a redirect page if there is one, if not consider creating one, using the usual squiggly brackets, however the policy in towns and cities is hard to make out. I think best there to keep separate where the manor is still a major (often civic) attraction to avoid digression Adam37 (talk) 09:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Note regarding the Welsh Place Names debate

There appears to be significant anonymous meatpuppetry going on in this debate and edit war from the following (and possibly others):

• 78.33.93.185 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 81.142.88.133 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 86.128.32.170 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 86.128.189.47 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 86.153.79.13 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 86.162.105.1 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 92.9.73.203 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 92.10.110.147 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 92.12.121.237 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 92.14.197.200 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 92.14.254.212 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 217.39.132.9 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )

These IPs all have very short contribution histories that mainly or only include edits related to this particular topic of discussion and edit war. This should be taken into account when determining consensus. Please see WT:ENGLAND#Welsh names on English Locations (where the debate appears to currently be centered) and WP:ANI#Abuse of admin powers by User:Hoary. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Swansea

Editors may be interested in commenting on a dispute about the scope of this article here.--Pondle (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Education: two things to ask

i have two things to ask here. first of all, is it a good idea to mention any conservation area(s) that may be included in a village/town/city and any important or historic buildings within the boundaries on the landmarks section. second thing is on the education section, is it a good idea to include info about the history of education in the town/village/city (such as first school; schools established under the education act of 1872; no. of primary schools in modern town and making a note of the ones with the largest nos. of pupils) Kilnburn (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

We should include all current mainstream schools - no need to really to write no. of pupils unencylopaedic in my view, as what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). As to history, certainly in a subsection the past names of schools and schools no longer there is fine if you wish to carry out the research; generally as may prevent chronological subsections do not put under the history section - better to put in Education # History of Education in ... Adam37 (talk) 09:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Culture / Community / Public services sections

I have moved up the "optional" Culture and Community sections to the example structure area as they are very standard, and I look for them when doing a GA review. I have moved down the Public services to the "optional" area as that section is not so common. SilkTork *^YES! 11:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Strabane

Just a heads up, we seem to be having an IP effort to remove the town of Strabane from Northern Ireland and remove detail from the lead. It seems some editors have decided to continually remove references to the country the town is in from the article lead, and replace them all with just north-west Ireland (as in the island.) Just a heads up so some people can keep a watch on it. Canterbury Tail talk 12:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile leaving a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Northern Ireland. Nev1 (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Town twinning

A couple of questions:

• Where should town twinning go within a UK settlement article? Some articles seem to have it as a separate section, others have it as part of culture or governance.
• What about flag icons? I loathe the things and don't agree with editors who put them next to twin towns e.g. in Leeds. Even worse is what has been done in Manchester. I much prefer a simple, referenced list such as Bath, Somerset or better still plain prose as in Bristol.

What do people here think? If we can get consensus, can we get it documented in this article? --Simple Bob (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• My preference is to put it into the prose of the governance section. No flags or bullet pointing etc. Even though I've done differently when writing articles, I think I've come to dislike it now. Hm, don't know if it's just me going crazy, but I could've sworn I used to see some US articles that had the option merged into their infoboxes. That too is a good idea, because it doesn't really belong in the governance section. On the other hand, some places that have lots of twin towns could end up with large infoboxes as a result. In such cases, probably resorting to the prose of governance section would be best. Jolly Ω Janner 18:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the flags either, but don't have particularly strong views about layout or positioning. I tend to think they are part of governance as these sorts of agreements are generally a function of the city/town/parish council, but can see why they may be relevant in culture. As both Manchester & Bath are FA's presumably both ways are acceptable.— Rod ^talk 18:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This rather lends itself to the table format and having a look at the articles quoted think I would go with the Manchester table and keep as a separate section towards the end of the article. Keith D (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not wedded to the idea of having flags, but since one of the major points of twin towns is the connexion with other countries/areas, the emphasis the flag icons provide seems, to me, more appropriate than many places. As it happens, I'm doing some work with French communes, and produced an English language template, which is up for deletion [1], to match the French equivalent. It sounds like opinion is moving away from that bulletted list format. The nominator suggested I come here and join the discussion. Whatever format the text takes, I think having the 'Twin Towns' as a separate sub-heading makes a lot of sense... David V Houston (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Notable people

{{main|List of people from exampletown}}

• All persons under this section must satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people).
• A note on what people from this settlement are called, (e.g. people from Manchester are called Mancunians).
• A note on any notable births in the settlement.
• A note on any notable residents in the settlement.
• Do not use a list format in this section. Please write this as prose, reference each person, and do not use the word "famous".

The above is what the guideline currently recommends. Ideally articles should aim for the highest standards, and that includes "comprehensiveness". For a notable people section to be comprehensive it would have to include every notable person linked to the place; in a large settlement such as London this would create a ridiculous imbalance, with a large portion of the article devoted to a list of people who happened to live or were born there, but who might not have had much impact on the place, or the place on them. Then there is the problem of deciding how valid the link is. In the modern era, most people are born in hospitals, so might skew the section and how long does someone have to live somewhere before it becomes worth mentioning them? My view is that notable people sections should not be compulsory, but neither should they be culled. It should be an editorial judgement, but I'm concerned that this guideline doesn't make that clear at the moment. It is perfectly possible for articles to become Featured without notable people sections, eg: Manchester, Ashton-under-Lyne, Weymouth, Dorset, Bath, Somerset, and (the most recent I can think of) Little Thetford. If someone had a significant impact on a settlement, or vice verse, then it should be very easy to mention them elsewhere. In the case of Sale, Greater Manchester, there's a link in the see also section to a list of people from the area which does the job. I'd like to see if there's consensus to add a note to this section that it's optional, and that "notable people" can just as easily be integrated elsewhere in the article (eg: mentions in the history or sport section). Nev1 (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be very much in favour of that; Notable people is second in my most-hated list only to In popular culture. You can't really have a blanket rule that it's in or out either, because there's obviously a vast difference in the scale of the problem between London and Stretford, for instance, and if IIRC the reason Little Thetford doesn't have a Notable people section is that it hasn't had any notable people born or living there. On the other hand you do sometimes see such lists in local history books; I seem to remember that Cooper's book on Salford has one. The "notable births" is a bit of a nightmare too, as you suggest. I can't recall the number of times I'v removed Ian Curtis from the Stretford article. Sure he was born in a matenity hospital there, but he never lived there. Malleus Fatuorum 16:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of this section either, but where it does exist I try to ensure that people are referenced and that only people with existing Wikipedia articles are listed. I tend to remove redlinks to stop section becoming a magnet. I would appreciate some insight/advice from the good people of this project. We seem to be having a bit of a disagreement at Taunton over the inclusion of people who were educated at schools in the town - people who are definitely notable e.g. Arthur C. Clarke - but who never actually lived there. In the case of Clarke he lived in a village well clear of Taunton's borders and the presumption is that he attended the school in the town because it was the nearest grammar school. My opinion - backed by other editors - is that the guidance is clear about the section's use for births and residents. People who were educated at a school in a settlement as children - even if it was a boarding school - were never actually resident in the town and therefore don't merit listing (other than as alumni in the article for the specific school). A good example of this precedent was the removal of Roald Dahl from the Weston-super-Mare article, which was in my opinion the right decision. What do you think? --Simple Bob (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I would think that being born in a place and that is all would not merit an entry in an article or linked list. Similarly attending a school there, unless they are notable for something at the school, would not merit a mention in the place article. These people should be in the place article where they normally resided. Keith D (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It would be great to add something to this "how to write about..." guidance along these lines. --Simple Bob (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I am puzzled by apparent discord between "Do not use a list format in this section. Please write this as prose" for listing Notable people and what is actually done. I have looked at articles for about 20 towns and villages in England, and they all have one-line-per-item lists. It would be much better to use prose style (1) it allows groupings of people with commonality, (2) it allows 1 word comment on each of several people and 10 word comment on another that does not look excessive (or others look short), (3) it saves paper in the inevitable printouts. Can someone point me to an article that conforms to the recommendation. Thanks Michael P. Barnett (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC).

You could try Kingston upon Hull, though many just have a list article pointed to in the See also section such as York. Keith D (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

A lot of time was spent on notable people in the Eastbourne article. There was a list but this was pruned drastically. For creating prose, we found it easier to avoid a notable people section altogether including names within other relevant sections instead. If you look carefully, you will see name dropping all over the place. MortimerCat (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Both examples very helpful. Will do what I can to introduce them in situations where appropriate (one or other in most). Nice to know "Notable people" section not mandatory.Now I am encouraged to ask a few more questions. Some go back to earlier dialogue on other sites, but repeated in view of experience since then.Michael P. Barnett (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Exclusion of people who are not the subject of articles: I put Robert Allen Smith into the article about Malvern, Worcestershire without objection. The site is monitored actively by several editors with common experience who agreed, in the Discussion, that he should be mentioned . He merits a substantial article. I put Mrs. Foley Hobbs into List of rose cultivars named after people with rationale in Discussion, even though I do not think she merits an article.

Verifiability:This applies to people for whom there are sites already, and for other people, too. For example, article about John Battiscombe Gunn omitted fact he lived in Malvern, Worcestershire. Verifiability found in obit by another editor. Does/should WK have article that discusses how verifiability of where people lived (and particularly, supporting personal recollections) can be accomplished, or article to which suggestions can be added. For deceased, relatively easy, from obituaries. Links to useful sources would be helpful, e.g. I was alerted to using Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society, for scientists, by another editor. Parochial, by some standards, but if there is not info in WK already could a reference librarian be asked to put some together? For living scientists, a Scopus or Web of Science search that returns bibliographic data that includes affiliation shows where they worked (but not necessarily resided). Would work for anyone who publishes in scholarly journals. But for other people, we can be stuck with emailing around. Is this a job students could be assigned, perhaps in relevant geographical area. I realize that the fact that someone went to elementary school in a place does not justify their mention, but sidestepping that, I was a classmate in 1938 of the subject of an article, but have not thought of way to provide verifiability. Had brief interesting exchange on verifiability in Talk:Garden roses Michael P. Barnett (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that to be mentioned in a geographic article, a person has to be notable enough to merit their own article.

May I construe this as "mentioned under Notable people" and "merit, even though it has not been written yet". Do you have objection to mention of people in body of article who are not amongst the "Notable people" and who do not merit article on their own, when they meet other criteria? Michael P. Barnett (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Further to that, I feel that they need to have a worthwhile connection to the town or village. We need a notability test "Has that person made a difference to the location". These are articles about the town and should only contain content that has contributed to the character of the town. If a person has become associated in culture with the town, if there is a statue or blue plaque, then the person gets a mention.

Do you accept having administrative authority for several hundred employees of an organization in the town for several decades (which can be considered a role that affects their lives)? This is verifiable. I would like it be enough. But activities such as being a member of Vestry, a supporter of local amateur dramatics, helper of school activities, officer of chess club are non-verifiable. A statue or plaque is strong justification, but how many individuals under "Notable people" heading, about whom articles have been written, are memorialized in blue plaques or statues. Other criteria can be iffy. How many people for whom park benches have been dedicated, streets named, warrant their own article? Michael P. Barnett (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability goes someway towards this. We should have a rule stating that there must multiple independent citations associated the location with a person. This would eliminate all the tenuous connections, leaving those who genuinely are linked to the article subject. ++ MortimerCat (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Are multiple citations necessary when association is in an obituary in an authoritative source, or mentioned in Dictionary of National Biography, or Encyclopedia Brittanica, or a CUP or OUP history monograph, or a happening covered in newspapers read internationally?

Conversely, should someone about whom an article has been written be included in "Notable people" of settlement when the article does not mention this association. Should the person be listed in the articles about settlements two or three away in an area of continuous urbanization?Michael P. Barnett (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:N lends to the criteria above, deprecating unless very notable and long-connected, deprecating in the UK the sycophantic, dated practice you will see in the national Lewis 1848 Topological Dictionaries of Scotland, Wales and England of each place and the latest free-to-use 1911 County Histories [2] à la Shenley Mews House is the seat of Mr P. J. Smythe. Where a notable person resided throughout in a small neighbourhood or listed building a section in that relevant part only is ample. Never include them where possible in a wider district/city article as these are too subject to change, assuming where a city, the person lived in a separate, notable article place. Adam37 (talk) 10:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Governance section

Why is the recommended name for the section "Governance"? Surely the standard UK English usage for the administration of and exercise of political authority over an area is "Government"? For example the phrase "local government" is ubiquitous, but when was the last time you saw a newspaper article on "local governance"? I appreciate that "Governance" isn't actively wrong, it just seems unnecessarily obscure and slightly affected as an specific recommendation. Shouldn't we stick to the simplest available language and most common usage wherever possible? JimmyGuano (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's objected to this, but bearing in mind both WP:Silence and consensus and Wikipedia:Silence does not imply consent when drafting new policies, I'm going to change the guideline here and change the title on a few high-profile articles to see if that provokes any further debate before rolling it out widely. Anybody who strongly objects, please shout! JimmyGuano (talk) 07:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Having changed London, Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow, most of these use the word "government" for sub-sections, sub-articles and within the text of the section itself anyway, so there is probably a consistency argument in favour of this change too. I'll wait to see if any debate is provoked now though. JimmyGuano (talk) 08:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to this change, however I'm daunted by the prospect of having to change it on hundreds (? thousands) of pages - would a bot be able to do this if everyone has agreed?— Rod ^talk 13:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a very good point, but I'm concerned that the evidence of consensus here is a bit weak to suddenly start the automated rewriting of so many articles. I'll try and change some more by hand and see if that provokes any more debate; if not we could maybe post a request at WP:BOTREQ? Or am I being overly cautious? JimmyGuano (talk) 07:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally I do not think that Government would be appropriate when we are talking about parish council level of the structure. Governance is more appropriate in this case. May be some other word can be used. Keith D (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do you feel it's inappropriate? It's the word the National Association of Local Councils use, for example - "Local (parish and town) councils are the first tier of local government in England" [3] and local councils such as Horspath - "Horspath Parish Council is part of the lowest tier of local government in England"[4], Tarporley - "The Parish Council is the tier of Local Government closest to the people"[5], and St Peter's Worcestershire "St Peter's Parish Council comprises 9 councillors and it forms the first tier of local government for St Peter's residents"[6] use it to self-describe. JimmyGuano (talk) 12:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I prefer Local Government. Governance is obscure. And it connotes these days the place is an institution, or is in need of tight governance, in an age when all police and order governance is County-run and/or centralized. I've Jimmy changed it a few times over the years, with not a single objection in the Talk section.Adam37 (talk) 10:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Statements that advertize restaurants and list town council meetings

In the "Leigh-on-Sea" article, the statements "... sample the legendary fish & chips courtesy of The Peter Boat ...", "Osborne Bros specialises in ... supplying ... around the world", look like advertizing. The schedule of "Town Council meetings for January 2011" (ref. 13) seems inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I think these should be deleted.

However, I do not think I have been working with WP for long enough to change spirit of article so much without checking that would be on the right track. Accordingly, I rearranged the article to put most of the material that concerns me under Leigh-on-Sea#Tourist information, commercial activities and civics schedule in December 2010 and put a help request on the Talk:Leigh-on-Sea page. I got routed here. Hope this message is not too abrupt. My attempt to be gentle on Talk:Leigh-on-Sea was not clear. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, amusing writers about our seaside towns, and all touristy cities and villages! Occasionally only use the heavy measure of adding the warning logo peacock|section|date=April 2012 (in squiggly brackets) where far too over the top, to be made encyclopedic in style and to insert a few verified citations. In your e.g. definitely omit council meeting dates - a link ought be included to the appropriate upper menu of every council website, in the article about that authority's place only, linking to Council Meetings (often disguised as Council Agenda or more obscure Administrative Matters used to deter people contributing which many councils do not make at all clear), remove all peacock terms such as the three above and perhaps include The Peter Boat as an External Link, better still an External Link as one of many brief ones linked back to "the notable number of [chippies] in town" in a reference/note. An international business dimension should not be overlooked, past encyclopedias have always included what wares, goods and services are exported, but again please limit names of small players to citations only.Adam37 (talk) 10:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Population data for 1971-1991?

I am doing a graph for the population of Cullompton over time but I am struggling to find census data from 1971,1981 and 1991. The earlier ones seem to be freely available via http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk and more recent ones via ONS and in my case Devon County Council. Cullompton began to grow rapidly at this point in time so I really could do with the data from these census. Is there anyone that can point me to the right data? Graph attached so you can see why I need it!

Data now found with the help of the West Country Studies Library.--NHSavage (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

External link discussion

A discussion which may interest members of this WikiProject has been stated at WP:ELN#eastkilbride.co.uk regarding an external link currently in use on an article within scope of this WikiProject. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

flagcons in settlement infoboxes

At present there is a discussion ongoing about putting flagcons in settlement info boxes. See: Template_talk:Infobox_settlement#flagcons_in_settlement_infoboxes --S. Rich (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Schools in settlements

After a trawl around guidelines and projects, I can't find an answer to my specific problem of being confronted with text about a non-notable school, as part of an Education section or not, in a place article, that can be almost a mini article in its own right. Non-notable schools (usually Primary) are allowed mention in smaller settllement articles, and I have no objection to this, but should this school text also be micro-structured, and fall under the same recommendations, as in WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG. Acabashi (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes a very good point, given the excellent schools databases of government and press such as at WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG, Primary School features such as pupil numbers, number of lessons, sports even specialisations not in the school's name etc are not appropriate to the place article, being subject to much change and best left to parental direct source and media research (in that link). By all means create a new link for each secondary school which can have its own article. Adam37 (talk) 11:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Distance to London

Discussion is taking place at Talk:Newport on whether, or where in the article, any mention should be made of distance to London. Editors are welcome to input at that page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Good article vs Featured article requirements

There is quite a lot in the guidelines on what meets Good Article (GA criteria) status, but very little on how to go the extra mile, and meet Featured Article status. It would be useful to have something. --Iantresman (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Synthesise without plagiarising what the other FAs do in terms of style, and then recommend it for FA status after soliciting (encouraging) as much discussion on the Talk page as possible about becoming a featured article, also get it worked on by as many others in the project about the county and country as possible. (Just some tips) Adam37 (talk) 11:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox section

I have reworked the infobox section to remove a reference to a non-existent infobox and make the text better reflect the examples of good practice linked from the text. Please correct it if I have misunderstood something. PeterEastern (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have tried doing a bit of a cleanup on the page to make it easier to understand for the first time reader (which I was when I came to it this evening). I have taken care not change any actual policy or guidance. I have simply reorder and reformatted what was already there to remove duplication (of which there was quite a bit), move existing content into some clearer headings, and simplified the layout by converting some of the boxes into body text. Does that help? PeterEastern (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification

A disagreement between myself and an experienced editor has arisen at GAN and it has been suggested that I raise the issue here.

Does the following section of this guidleine:

Articles should almost always conform to the basic structure of a lead/infobox followed by history, government, geography, demography and economy, as those sections contain much of the basic information about any settlement. Beyond that, editors are advised to come to a consensus that works best for the settlement in question. Additional or alternative headings are listed under the "Optional headings" section below.

mean that those sections stated above are essential and that all others are optional, or, should all of the 'primary' sections be included as a matter of course with just the 'optional headings' being, as the name suggests, optional? Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at your disagreement, but my interpretation of the guideline would be that there are three classes of sections relevant to any well-developed article on a UK settlement:

1. those that should always be present ("Infobox" to "Economy" - this advice has been in the guideline since 2007, and follows global wikiproject recommendations);
2. those that would normally be present - especially in a GA candidate - unless there's consensus that inclusion isn't warranted ("Culture and community" to "External links" - though there should always be "References", of course); and
3. the "Optional headings" that can be added if there's enough information available to make their inclusion viable.

Hope this helps,  —SMALLJIM  12:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

As I noted above I did a pretty serious series of edits to this article a while back to make the guidance a little clearer and easier to understand. Personally I think the current guidance is good, but that there is room for more discussion and work on the guidance text. PeterEastern (talk) 12:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Good bold edits! It's interesting that no-one has amended anything since, which either means that you got it all spot-on, or that no-one is interested any longer. What would you feel about a Template:TOC right to fill up the blank space at the top?  —SMALLJIM  13:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added TOC right which seems to be very helpful. PeterEastern (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Self-declaration of potential conflict of interest, by PeterEastern

To declare my interest. My company, ITO World Ltd, is developing a tourism website which suggests destinations based on public transport accessibility. It combines Wikipedia content for UK settlements with OpenStreetMap for map data and open public transport schedules for bus/tram/ferry and train routes. We are including the lead para and lead image from WP into the website (with acknowledgement and appropriate links). It is looking very pretty, but did lead me to first try to understand how we can expect UK settlement articles to be organised and also to understand what photos we might reasonably expect to find and then to update this article to clarify what I thought people were recommending. You can try our website here. Fromex.info. In due course will be include links and content from tourist destinations and for other parts of the world. PeterEastern (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I must admit that I hadn't looked at your user page before I replied above, but in view of your disclosure (for which thanks) I think it would be politic for you to avoid editing this guideline further. This is because it would be possible for you to subtly adjust the guidance to ensure that articles are formatted to the benefit of your company - a particular concern considering the present low level of participation here. I'd suggest that to avoid any allegations of WP:COI, you should request any changes on this talk page (per WP:COIC). Am I being over-cautious? - it would be good to hear other editors' opinions.  —SMALLJIM  16:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I do think these pages would benefit from some more attention, if only to summarise the guidance more clearly with less words. However, I will limit myself to making suggestions on this talk page for the reasons you wisely give. Needless to say, I mentioned this potential COI specifically because there was genuine potential for just the sort of concerns you mention arising.

Fyi, we are also going to be adding a bunch of map views reconciling OSM with geocode WP articles using our ITO Map service in the near future and will be talking about this at GLAM-Wiki 2013 in London early next year. Our intent with that initiative will be to help contributors improve cross-linking between the projects and improve WP geo-coding completeness and accuracy. We will also be explicitely encouraging people to use summary content from Fromex to improve the transport sections for UK settlement pages and citing Fromex if appropriate. All riddled with potential for COI, but also for very constructive co-operation. I need to update my home page with a bunch of this stuff as well.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 10:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Notable people (2012 discussions)

Wikipedia:Notable people currently redirects to the "Notable people" section of this page, at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 October 9#Wikipedia:Notable people it has been proposed to retarget this to Wikipedia:Notability (people); your comments would be welcome.

Related to, but separate from, the above I have started a discussion about generalising the guidance on this page about notable people to apply to more than just UK settlements. Possibly this would include moving the guidance off this page to a more general location and/or merging or summarising it at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Lists of people. Your comments on this would be particularly welcome at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Lists of people from settlements. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

How to Write about... Deserted Medieval Villages

We need a policy on this and due to a lively debate at: Talk:Gatton,_Surrey we have formed a consensus. Please add further contributions here and then we will add a subsection of how to write about deserted ancient/medieval villages to the main guidance (this article). The conclusion of the debate so far is below:

"I'm pleased consensus is tending towards keeping, and just want to add a few points to my earlier comments. First, Adam37's arguments for merging have focused on Gatton's dwindling claims to be a physical village and settlement; my (and others') arguments for keeping focus on its historic status as an ancient parish and medieval borough. An ancient parish is something that is fairly clearly defined: there were about 140 in Surrey, and I'm willing to bet they virtually all have their own Wikipedia articles. Boroughs were a much more select group: Beresford and Finberg, English Medieval Boroughs (1973, plus a supplement of 1981), list just 10 in Surrey, including Gatton. The only one that doesn't have its own article is Eashing, an Anglo-Saxon burh – though admittedly the remaining 8 have all survived as fairly substantial settlements. It's on those historical grounds that Gatton appears in numerous printed and online gazetteers etc – for example, A Vision of Britain through Time, or the Online Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs in England Wales to 1516. The point I'm making is that, although the village was never large, it did have a certain administrative and social significance, and it just seems perverse to bury its history in an article on a different topic.

On another tack, I've just discovered that there is in fact an entire Wikipedia category for Deserted medieval villages in England (I don't know how to make that appear as a link), with four county subcategories, containing in all well over 60 articles on specific places. Admittedly there are a few examples there of deserted villages discussed within articles on larger surviving settlements, but as far as I can see those were all hamlets, never parishes in their own right. Have a look at, e.g., Babingley, Norfolk, or Lancaut, Glos., for examples of how a quite substantial and respectable article can be written about a lost settlement. If nothing else, I suggest the first thing we do once this discussion closes is to add Gatton to that category! GrindtXX (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

GrindtXX's research is watertight and supports a new policy, as there is none, of How to Write about deserted medieval villages. I therefore accept after all keeping. For the additional policy in UK settlements: (I will add this to the Talk page) The first question should be did they have their own ecclesiastical parish (if just a large hamlet then please put under their civil parish/town of today). If they had a parish, then on a case-by-case basis identify whether a new name for a city/town/village is focussed so close to its centre and absorbing almost all of it that it is right to include it as a mention under the area's history and create a Redirect for the medieval parish. If users estimate it is a stand-alone sui juris old village and there is sufficient material to make a Good Article then the Deserted Village can have its own article. (E.g. Gatton) The category Deserted medieval villages in England should begin to group together these; well found. Adam37 (UTC)}}" Adam37 (talk) 12:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

There are actually some overlapping categories that perhaps need to be taken into consideration here: Deserted medieval villages in England, Former populated places in England (and corresponding categories for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) and Ghost towns in England; and see also the List of lost settlements in the United Kingdom. I believe the term Deserted Medieval Village has rather fallen out of favour in recent years among medievalists and historical geographers ("deserted" is disliked because most villages shrank over a period of years, and may have had, or continue to have, some sort of vestigial survival; and "medieval" isn't always entirely appropriate because the shrinkage/desertion may have happened for a variety of reasons in the medieval or post-medieval periods). However, I'm not sure what new term, if any, has come along to replace it. I think of "Ghost town" as a more American term (other than in metaphorical contexts). On the question of when a settlement is deserving of its own article, I entirely support Adam37's contention that an important first principle should be whether a settlement had its own parish (in northern England, that should probably be extended to cover townships). Another factor, though, should be whether or not there are substantial remains (standing or archaeological). GrindtXX (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair point as sufficient content for a Good Article that is notable and geographically separate e.g. Silchester (parish)'s roman settlement, Calleva Atrebatum merits its own article; as too should a settlement perhaps mostly built-on with a litany of material to create a "History of [present settlement]" article. And rarely, as with Eboracum or Camulodunum specifically for Roman Britain or before then the old name itself. Additional pages for a largely historic places such as Dunwich or Covehithe are most likely excessive as we are talking about a small Roman history and would neglect to tie the old periods to the new, consider in those cases what purpose would a wholly arbitrary division of the place achieve? And are its people really by no remains or museum divorced from the past all around them? Naturally act on a case-by-case basis by WP:Consensus however as general guidelines we are on course to having some sort of coherent guideline drawn up for the main article here. When to hive off the History section when a place is largely deserted into a separate {{main|History of xxxx}} article remains a tricky question; views are needed. Adam37 (talk) 11:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Manorial histories

A major omission exists in the guideline, namely discussion of Manors. The topic was raised above by Jan1nad on 29 Sept 2009 ("Village/hamlet, Manor and Hall"), who mentioned many cases in Staffordshire where the history of the village and the mediaeval manor are inextricably intertwined. The problem he identified is not restricted to Staffs, but to every county and village in England. The discussion following missed the crucial issues, largely because some of the contributors thought that "manor" = "big old building in the village" (i.e. manor house) (Adam37 talked above about "Grade I manors", completely missing the point) and failed to understand the true meaning of manor as a feudal landholding and jurisdiction of the manorial court covering the whole area, village and cottages included, generally co-terminous with the parish. Manor thus really equates to the history of the village itself. Indeed the village was just a part of the manor, where the manor's villeins lived. In many cased the lord of the manor built and owned many of the houses in the village, and often built or extended the village church. The influence of the manor over the village was thus very great if not totally dominating. Thus the importance of the history of the people exercising that power, the families who were lords of the manor. In England the village and manor are virtually inseparable, virtually every village is a former manor, as well as being a parish. In the USA many villages sprang-up from the dust in the 1850's, and the history of an American village might be a fairly 2-dimensional article, but not in England. Here is my query: is an article titled e.g. Combe Martin just about a collection of buildings which stand today, i.e. "a village" or is it about the whole historic entity of Combe Martin? Indeed is it the case that Combe Martin is about "the village" and not equally about the manor and parish? I generally amend intro's to read: "Combe Martin is a village, parish and former manor situated...". The Victoria County History series appears to equate village history with manorial history, and is surely a good precedent which WP might follow. Often there is little to write about the surviving buildings in a village but a lot on the manor. Should the two be amalgamated? At present most WP "village" articles are stubs. The great opportunity for expanding every one is to develop text on manorial history, for which many sources exist. When the Victorians and their predecessors wrote about "villages" they wrote largely about manors, certainly regarding Devon, my main area of WP contributing (i.e. Daniel Lysons, Magna Britannia; Tristram Risdon, Survey of Devon; & in the 20th.c. William George Hoskins, A New Survey of England: Devon' treats manorial histories fully. But most "standard works" of county histories, apart from VCH already mentioned, treat "villages" as manors, i.e. Bigland, Gloucestershire etc. I suggest that if most WP "village" articles are to progress from stub-status, they need to open up to manorial history as an integral element. My post here arises because several of my contributions re Devon manorial histories have been "hived off" by another editor to separate articles on manorial history, on the basis that the material contravenes this guideline as it exists. Will this set the precedent that manorial history must in future be artificilly divorced from "village" articles? Indeed I would like the matter considered whether "village" articles are about "a collection of buildings which survive today" and/or "the parish of the same name" and or "the manor of the same name", or as I would suggest about all three together. Why should the "village" element appropriate to itself the name of the former manor? In historical articles, incl. in WP, and in standard ref works such as History of Parliament about for example 16th.c. English MP's, the sentence "John Smith was the son of John Smith of <village name>" usually refers to the manor of <village name>, not the collection of buildings of <village name> indicating his seat as lord of the manor. It does not mean he was born in the village. This is another reason why it's important for WP articles to include manorial histories so that such links can be meaningful. By following the link to <village name>, the reader can read about the Smiths of <village name>, who may have been there since the Domesday Book, and built most of the village and the church and manor house. The problem is that villages don't have histories of their own divorced from the manors in which they were situated. A WP article on a village should be multi-faceted to match the complex and multi-dimensional nature of the entity today called an English village. Comments please. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC))

A very comprehensive essay on the development of English (note) villages. Having raised the issue myself some years ago I do of course agree with you, though I didn't have the tools, nor the confidence with regard to Wikipedia, to progress it further at the time. What needs to be done to take it forward? Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 12:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

As the other editor who "hived off" Lobsterthermidor's contributions, I agree that some details of the former manor would be relevant in the history section, but with the vital proviso that a balance of content, as described in WP:DETAIL, must be maintained: I've explained this to Lobsterthermidor (Lt) before, here.

No-one should reasonably object to moderate additions, such as those to Kentisbeare, that, even though they comprise the majority of the article at present, stand a good chance of being made proportionate by eventual expansion of the rest of the article. However, see the versions of Combe Martin, King's Nympton and especially Molland before I split out Lt's overwhelming additions. There's no chance of ever making those into well-rounded articles, is there?

And although Lt claims to write about manorial history, in fact the additions consist mainly of long and digressive details about the owners and their relatives which are frequently of little or no relevance to the settlement (see here, for example) and of similar levels of interest to the majority of readers. This explains, of course, why such details are not included in matching articles in other present-day general encyclopedic works, and also why our own articles on English villages don't already contain such information – if it was relevant and of general interest, we can be sure that it would have been added to many articles and therefore included in this guideline long ago.

If Lt wants to continue to write this sort of content, the best solution is clearly to put it in separate articles, where those few who are interested can revel in the minutiae. I'm becoming quite concerned about the apparent level of original research in Lt's contributions, too, but that's a matter to raise elsewhere.  —SMALLJIM  16:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Re the first reply, thanks for a positive response to a real problem. We can take this forward if those with an interest in and understanding of the respective natures of villages and manors make an input. I am simply pointing out that the matter simply hasn't been considered in the guidelines at all. If no constructive responses are forthcoming I will effect a bold in the guidelines themselves with my own suggestions to elicit response. Watch this space. Re the second response:

• Balance of content not possible where a stub article on a "village" consists of two lines stating that the village has a pub called the Old Oak and that a TV actor lives there at weekends. There are thousands like that, why should that prevent someone from expanding in another direction? I may be able to contribute a lot on manorial history from sources familiar to me, yet I've never visited the village, and have little interest in the present form of it - my principal interest may be in historical aspects. That's normal to WP, we each bring text on our own area of interest. If I wish to add a comprehensive section on history & descent of the manor you seem to imply that at the same time I should equally expand the text on the pub, village shops, bus routes etc. Impossible for me to do and frankly, WP is a voluntary activity, why would I spend my precious time writing about things which don't interest me? WP is a collaborative effort, we have to hope that gaps in articles will be filled by those with the interest and free-time to do so. By expanding significantly in one direction it may encourage someone else with the necessary interest and knowledge of other areas to expand it elsewhere. Expanding a stub is often daunting but expanding an article where someone else has invested time and effort is more tempting. WP articles surely grow organically and what's wrong with that, the project's still young. Please tell me what is the maximum page length for articles on "villages", I was not aware there was one. If the content exists, why not expand?
• Your assertion that well-rounded articles are vital is absurd. Some villages have highly rich histories but there is very little to say about much else. Why should the paucity of data in one area affect the article's ability to expand to its maximum elsewhere? This doctrine would seriously stunt WP. When writing about Winston Churchill do I have to match the volume of political text with text about his health? Surely not.
• Not of general interest. WP articles are written for people who are interested in the subject! That's why there are articles on virtually unknown varieties of fruit-flies! Are those articles "of general interest"? Are you unaware of the thousands of articles in WP on the most arcane subjects, which surely gives it its unique value. Manorial histories are very much "of general interest" compared to some articles I have seen, and I must say, greatly appreciated. Just look at the wealth of arcane articles on the minutiae of philosophy and religion. Would you sweep all these away? I contribute text which will be of interest to people interested in the village, perhaps residents, potential residents, tourists who have visited the parish church, or may wish to do so and many others.
• long and digressive details about the owners and their relatives. This is of great interest to those who are interested in the village, to genealogists, family historians, etc., all valid users of WP. Risdon's 1640 work Survey of Devon is packed with such detail, and the Heraldic Visitations consist solely of such information, each entry relating to a specific "village"/manor. These are important works and deserve full treatment on WP, which involves linking families with places. Nikolaus Pevsner's works on English villages are full of details of families, their houses and monuments, in summary form only due to the limitations of pre-computer-age publishing. A detailed description of owners and their relatives is of interest and valid. Such information rarely survives and when it does it is valuable historical data, and worthy of inclusion in a WP article. Relatives usually only included by me when notable & can be linked to WP biogs, or to prominent residents/ lords of manors in other villages, or where of interest for other reasons. The reason such details are not already in WP articles on villages as you refer to above is that the info takes a great deal of sourcing in old books often hard to find. I'm willing and interested enough to put the time in to dig it up, fully referenced. Please don't judge WP articles by the lowest common denominator: such details are not matched in other "encyclopaedic works" as you assert, not because they're not of interest or inappropriate, but because Enc. Brit et al. were paper based, and simply didn't have the space. Don't you think WP is immeasurably superior to Enc. Brit.? How can you possibly even compare the two forms, and what was possible in the older one, from different eras of publishing? You are surely aware that WP has many million-times more text, articles and subjects than other "encyclopaedic works". We can specialise.
• we can be sure that it would have been added to many articles?? Absurd, have you not seen the thousands of stub-articles existing on English villages, some with only two lines of text, some not yet created? Your arguments are defeatist and totally unambitious for the future of the WP project.
• those few who are interested can revel in the minutiae that sums up your attitude to subjects which don't interest you. Sheer disdain and contempt for knowledge per se and for subjects at all "off the beaten track". (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC))

I see the problem. But to take a view different to LT, take a look at Monmouth (I know it's in Wales, but similar issues apply). When the Monmouthpedia initiative started, I rewrote the Monmouth article to what I thought was an appropriate length for a town of that size. I stand by that. Lengthy articles, bloated by massive amounts of detailed research, are in my view poor, rather than good, articles. They are unreadable to 99% of readers. What is needed - and what was done in Monmouth through the Monmouthpedia work - was to have a very large number of spin-off articles on individual buildings, notables, families, etc. etc. within the town. That is the approach that should be adopted in a place like Molland. The main (Molland) article should make clear at the outset that the name "Molland" is used both for a parish (or manor), and for a nucleated settlement within the parish. (Incidentally, of course, many parishes contain more than one notable village, and many notable villages straddle parish boundaries.) The history of the manor should be briefly mentioned in that main article, and the detailed history of the manor should certainly not be deleted - but be contained in a separate and clearly linked article, perhaps History of the manor of Molland. It is far, far, easier for most readers to navigate a set of smaller interlinked articles, than it is for them to navigate a single article that has been bloated by the detailed discussion of one particular aspect that may be of little interest to them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify for Ghmyrtle, with whom I agree completely: for each of these articles I have split the content out into a Manor of... article. See Manor of Combe Martin, Manor of Molland, etc. I haven't deleted any significant information and I'm not advocating that any properly referenced content should be deleted - just that it should be put in the right place, in accordance with WP:Summary style.  —SMALLJIM  19:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little unclear from the first paragraph of this discussion exactly what is being proposed. Assuming that SmallJim's later comments reflect the issue accurately, then I'd argue that:

• WP:DETAIL definitely applies here. An encyclopedia article should address the main aspects of the topic without going into excessive detail. Digressing into minor detail unnecessarily doesn't help readers and should be avoided.
• Manorial history is usually important to the history of a village.
• If in doubt on an article and the relative weight given to different topics, I would argue that we should typically be guided by the weighting given by modern, top-quality secondary sources. That could be another high-quality encyclopedia, or a specialist modern text. In this sense, I don't think that 17th century texts are a good guide for judging weighting in an article.
• To take one of the examples given above, the village of Combe Martin, I think the level of detail was certainly excessive. I don't think that it is helpful to the typical reader to detail the date of university matriculation of owners of the manor, for example; or the 16 other manors, not otherwise related to this village, owned by another in the 11th century; or the subsequent addresses of other owners after they left the village; it is the kind of detail which might helpfully inform an article on those individuals, or perhaps a sub-article, but in my opinion is excessive for an article on the village itself. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion about the scope, breadth and depth of articles on wp relating to villages. I can see merits in both arguments (which I suspect have been running for a while). I see "WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements" as a "a set of project guidelines" which act as a guide rather than specific rules and different interpretations on particular articles is not too much of a problem, however some degree of consistency is useful for readers who may wish for find similar information eg transport or religious sites for several locations. What content is "of interest" is sure to be different between different readers (and possibly the same reader at different times) therefore it is inappropriate to be too prescriptive. I am not personally interested in sport or pop music but have no objection to there being articles about them or sections within village/town articles where it is relevant and supported by reliable sources etc. I have particular interests in archaeology and historic buildings therefore many of the Somerset village articles include information on the history of their churches etc, but my rule of thumb would be that if there is more than a couple of paragraphs worth of text then it is probably worth its own article (particularly if grade I or II*). The content related to manorial history, where this is more of less synonymous with the history of the village definitely has a place within the article but there is a possibility of WP:UNDUE applying if it is otherwise a very short article. To address one of the specifics mentioned above - detail of relatives etc of the lords of the manor should perhaps be left for biographical articles rather then included in too much detail in a village article. I would generally support User:Ghmyrtle's suggestion to use a series of separate articles which a paragraph or two summarising them with suitable prominent links for those who wish to explore further - this also helps with the categorisation of content so that if someone was particularly interested in the history of manors in Devon they could access the content together without having to visit the village articles with their information about topic not of direct interest to them. I would think the only required change to this guideline would be to add "manorial history" or similar to the line "Consider prose (or subheadings) on Industrial history, Social history or Political history where appropriate." — Rod ^talk 19:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I am broadly in agreement with Ghmyrtle, Hchc2009 and Rod: (a) yes, manorial history is an important facet of village and settlement history; but (b) that does not mean it should be allowed to swamp a village article with excessive detail, and if it's threatening to do so it should be spun off into a separate article, with a brief summary left in the main article. This entire debate interestingly echoes a bigger scholarly debate over the nature of English local history which was thrashed out over the course of the 20th century. As Lobsterthermidor says, there is a long tradition, from the late C16 onwards, of county histories which placed great emphasis on manorial descents, sometimes to the exclusion of anything else; and the early C20 volumes of the Victoria County History are firmly in that tradition. By the 1950s, however (thanks not least to the efforts of W. G. Hoskins), there was a growing feeling that local history should also encompass social, economic, industrial, architectural and landscape history etc, and that change of outlook and balance is reflected in more recent VCH volumes. We are writing for a 21st-century audience, and we should adopt a similar broad-based approach.

On a minor point, there seems to be an implicit assumption in some of the remarks above that manor, parish, and village-and-agricultural-hinterland are all more or less co-extensive. Sometimes they are, but frequently they are not: many parishes include four or five manors within their boundaries, some manors cross parish boundaries, some parishes include two or three villages, some villages are divided between two or more parishes and/or two or more manors, and so on. All the more reason for approaching the problem on a case-by-case basis, and not attempting to impose overarching rules or guidelines. GrindtXX (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Good, clearly we are now having some informed comment coming forward. may I add the following to some of the above: Yes, I agree 21st century sources on village/manorial histories should be used. The trouble is that the Victorian histories were so good and comprehensive and thoroughly researched that little more can be added, and 21st century writers often have little more to write about. I'd love to write about the industrial, social and cultural history of villages and manors, but unfortunately generally the only old historic data which survives is based on manorial court rolls, inquisitions post mortem of tenants-in-chief (i.e. usually lords of manors), wills of the gentry, marriage settlements of the gentry, Heraldic visitations which list pedigrees of the gentry, licences to alienate of the gentry, licences to crenallate ditto, ditto etc. That's why village history generally equates to manorial history, cos it's all we've got! The great strength I see in WP is the ability to cross-link small details, for example, someone was granted a licence to crenellate, that can be cross ref'd to the article on the history of the manor and to the list of licences to crenellate. Let's really imagine who our readers are - I suspect mostly residents or potential residents of the villages concerned, or visitors to the parish church, who will be thirsty for detail. The imaginary readers who are skimming over articles of several villages I don't think exist. When someone comes to a WP article they want to be informed fully on that topic, not to be given a dumbed-down superficial article. I ask again: is there a max page length for an article on a village/manor? The contents box performs the job of steering the reader to sections of interest. To split every village into manorial and other history would presumably set a precedent for every article on a village - point taken above re 2 villages/hamlets in one manor. Should every article be started (where appropriate) with the sentence: "Smallville is a village, civil and ecclesiastical parish and former manor (and hundred) situated... On the issue of biog details of seemingly unimportant people: about these people, often lords of manors, literally one thing alone will be known about them other than their date of death. It may be something apparently trivial like date of matriculation at Oxford, but that's all that has survived in the records from 400 years ago. That makes it valuable. Hence its inclusion. It hasn't been selected as pertinent, but simply because it's a rare survival of something at least. Clearly such a person would not warrant a stand-alone biography. That's why manorial descents are so useful for including such "shadows from history", albeit important people in their times. On the point made about listing what other manors a lord of the manor held: that's important for a reader to understand how the history of this manor fits in with the history of the one next-door. It's highly relevant and of great interest. Especially if you're a local reader who is familiar with both places, and as I've said I suspect most readers of these articles are local or in-county people, who will be interested to develop a deeper knowledge of their home area. Also, for example the Domesday book lists several knights who held say 10 manors, but about whom zero is known apart from that. They were obviously very important people, sometimes the king's personal assistants, but possibly a WP biog would be impossible. Manorial descents are a convenient place to mention these important persons. I don't think we should be swayed by modern fashion to dump Victorian and earlier scholarship and research. People are still very interested in the people who lived in their areas in times gone by, and the lords of the manors are often all that records survive for. The interest of a village is not just or even mainly in its buildings but in its people, who built them for their own reasons, frequently to glorify themselves. How can you write sensibly about who added the south aisle to the church unless you can read a bit about that person, even if only when he matriculated. So yes I'd love to write a "social, economic, industrial, architectural and landscape" history of Combe Martin as you suggest, but show me the source to use! it doesn't exist! What does exist is manorial history, so let's use what we've got. I can assure you that the manorial history of Combe Martin contributed by me is at pretty much the maximum sources will provide, and it's only a couple, maybe 3, pages with some illustrative photos. Is that really too long? Surely not. CM has maybe 1,000 residents, some at least of whom would be interested. Would ten pages be a good size for a comprehensive "well-rounded" article on a "village"/manor? Even the most diligent contributor would be pushed to find that much for many. Do we really want to fossilise these stub-type articles of 1/2 a page with details of pubs and bus routes. What a waste of the great resource of WP. The approach I have generally taken with manorial descents is simply to list the name of each successive person in a family to hold the manor with a few surviving details, and to split into separate biogs where he was an MP or Sheriff. Where he had an interesting wife with her own biog, then it is relevant to mention her with a link. Ditto for prominent sons & da's. Also wher he married the daughter of another lord of a manor, a link can be used. But from the biog it is useful for the reader to move back to the manorial history to read about his ancestry, rather than list it at the start of his biog. e.g. Sir Francis Drake's Devon ancestry. For really ancient families, for example the Aclands of Acland Barton in North Devon this is vital. The family still exists today and has been in North Devon for centuries. How is the reader of a biog of one of the 20th.c. Acland baronets to form an idea of the antiquity of the family other than by reading a list of the holders of Acland Barton or Killerton or Holnicote? There is a book written on the Acland family which deserves to be a source for an article on Acland Barton. Similarly for the Courtenays of Powderham Castle, possibly the most prominent family in Devon, yet several holders of the manor do not merit a stand-alone biog. This brings up the important matter of "seats" of the gentry, which "village"/manors were, for example Courtenay of Powderham, Courtenay of Molland. Vital distinctions for the genealogist and student of heraldry, both valid user classes of these articles on "villages"/manors/seats. I repeat that does not mean the person was born "in the village", rather "within the manor"! Here is a further aspect of this type of article. A section listing descent is vital for the various biogs of family members to see how the family fits together. Thus a "village" article has interfaces into biogs. and other wider areas. This topic of discussion needs input from contributors with an interest and some expertise in the fields of manors, genealogy and heraldry as well as the more obvious areas of geography, etc., some of whom have been forthcoming above. Let's hear from some genealogists and heraldry students too. The manor of Berkeley in Gloucestershire has been held by the same family since shortly after the Norman Conquest. Of course the holders in the family should be listed (easy as most were barons, so each worthy of own biog). This is a great opportunity to make the "village" articles on WP useful to high-level users such as academics as factual sources, as well as the local who just wants to know the bus route or emergency number. Another point, should not every "village"/manor article history section ideally start with a transcription of its Domesday Book entry? It's only a few lines, and now images of actual pages can also be used. Please don't say that's "irrelevant detail"! Another point for consideration in the guidelines. If so, what a logical step to record the descent from that time, all properly sources and footnoted. That would be a great and ambitious addition to the guidelines for writing about English villages/manors. Perhaps in (yes, overdue) conclusion to this post I might say to Rod who suggests add "manorial history" or similar to the line "Consider prose (or subheadings) on Industrial history, Social history or Political history where appropriate.", fine but show me where to source the industrial, political and social history of Molland! It hasn't been written and never will be because the relevant records and sources don't exist, and never will do. We do have a fair bit on manorial history, that's why it is written about most. Articles balanced between these topics are not possible. I could fill up a couple of pages with info of bus routes to and from Molland, with opening times of the pub to balance out the text on manorial history, but for what purpose? Thanks all for your inputs above.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC))

Please - read WP:Summary style! Everyone who contributes to Wikipedia does so not on their terms, but on Wikipedia's terms, as set out in its policies and guidelines. The consensus here regarding the applicability of the summary style guideline is, so far, strongly against you and, barring a major change in opinion, you should be prepared to accept that Combe Martin together with Manor of Combe Martin is preferable to your version of Combe Martin.  —SMALLJIM  10:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

If that is the consensus, then I'm happy to accept that, with the important proviso that at the start of the history section in the "village" article there should be a "main article" tag link to the sub-article on the manorial history. But please accept that the manorial history section is likely to be a more academic style of article than the village article, aimed at those with a specific and perhaps specialist interest in the subject, and thus will be fairly detailed where source material exists. If that's OK perhaps we can amend the guidelines appropriately. Shall I do that or do you want to do it yourself? (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC))

I see you added a bullet to the History section of this guideline. I don't think it's really necessary or strictly correct in every case, but let's see if anyone else has an opinion on it. If it's clear in advance that there's enough content for a separate Manor of... article, it would make more sense to start that article from scratch rather than building it up in the village one.

When the village article is stubby, so that even a summary of the manorial descent would overemphasise its importance, a simple link or a {{Seealso}} or maybe an entry under Further reading would probably be preferable to {{Main}}. But when a manorial history sub-section is appropriate, its length should be roughly tailored to fit in with the size of the village article in which it resides. I'd suggest that it should include any events that verifiably affected the settlement in a major way and it should note the families through which the manor descended, or summarise them if they are many. Any particularly notable lord of the Manor – someone most people would have heard of – could be mentioned too. Significant church monuments should be mentioned in the Church section (there usually is one), with a link to the relevant section of the Manor of... article if more details are included there.

It's evident that any Manor of... article (in the form that you envisage them) will be detailed and of specialist interest. It's also most important that these articles are properly referenced, that their extensive primary sources are used appropriately, and that they contain no original research. We must ensure that Wikipedia does not become a primary source for any information: see WP:PRIMARY (especially the relevant Policy paragraph), and bullet 1 of WP:NOT#OR.  —SMALLJIM  10:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Can't disagree with much of last, except to say that it's easier to build up a manorial history piecemeal as a section within the village article, and then, once it gets to critical size, to transfer to stand alone article. I do understand your point. I hope this matter is now closed. Thanks. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC))

Advise please: Annery, Monkleigh

Related to the previous content about Manorial histories, I've worked on Annery, Monkleigh and part of the editing/rewrite involved deletion of geneaological information that seemed tangential to the subject of the article: Annery. Please see Talk:Annery, Monkleigh#Too much detail, where I identified the information removed from the article.

If you have a chance to look at it and let me know if I've been too "heavy handed" in my removal of the uncited genealogical/biographical material, it would be much appreciated! I definitely have been WP:Bold in my revision of similar articles Abbots Bickington, Monkleigh, Mary Palmer, etc. - and if I'm off base it would be helpful to know. Thanks so much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The article was created by me with the intention of being about the manor/estate, as was intimated in the intro: "The estate of Annery was..." to which type of article descents and people are the central topic. A later editor assumed the article to be about the capital mansion and thus removed most of the descent details and expanded detail on the architectural features of the house. Manorial descents/ histories of manors are a valid WP topic, as we have established in the recent discussion here, but they should form separate articles, as concluded above. This presents no misunderstanding for later editors when the titles are clearly different, i.e. King's Nympton (i.e. village & parish) and Manor of King's Nympton, which meets the new guideline above re splitting off. Unfortunately with Annery, it is not a village, possibly not even a manor (no evidence exists of a manorial court which is the deciding factor as to whether a manor existed). It is simply an estate within the parish and manor of Monkleigh, but an important one which was held by several notable people, with their own articles, but by also by others who were not notable enough to merit their own WP articles, but were important to local & parochial Devon history, for example Tardrew who was important to local shipping and in the building of the Rolle Canal, but who seems not to have been active in public life. For an article on an estate I think the architecture of the house (this one is/was only Grade II and was by no means a "great house" of national significance which would merit its own page on architectural grounds alone) and estate history can be dealt with in the same article without a major problem. It was the people here who were important, not the building. I believe the WP general policy is that Grade I buildings automatically merit own articles, but lesser grades don't, prima facie. A combined article also adds valuable context to each part, see WP:PAGEDECIDE. In my opinion two separate articles "Annery House" and "Annery Estate" would create one non-notable page on a building of fairly average architectural merit and would split it away from its context, the notable and rich history of the estate. The text on the estate history however is likely to dominate, as more sources of information exist and info is more notable. Thus Wikipedia:Balance parts of a page would have to be disregarded in this case as a common sense override and exception. As for the "bold" edits to Monkleigh and Abbots Bickington, I intend to WP:SPLIT the pre-existing manorial histories into new articles, in accordance with the above guideline. Finally, if I may address just for the record "the uncited genealogical/biographical material" referred to above, whether sufficiently cited or not is a separate issue, which should properly have been dealt with by challenges or cn tags, not removals to talk page or deletions, which might be appropriate for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC))

Please see Talk:Annery, Monkleigh#Comments on the revert.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Manorial histories

I have proposed a Wikiproject "Manorial histories" to help create a way forward for this type of article, and invite participation of anyone interested in taking it forward. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC))

Location of templates

The guidance overleaf suggests the {{Compass-table}} template should be included in a Geography section. Since that was written the template has been deprecated and replaced with {{Geographic location}}, and this seems to be placed in a variety of locations by editors. Quite commonly it is placed under External links, or under a separate Neighbouring settlements heading, and less commonly under See also as well as under Geography. I think it would be useful if we could get some consensus as to where it is best placed. As an aside, the Canadian equivalent of this project suggest including under WP:EL which is why I think confusion may have grown up around the use of EL in UK settlement articles.

Should we just change the guidance overleaf to say {{Geographic location}}?

Or should we try to agree a 'global' spec for its use?

Does it make sense for the template to be used differently on diff article categories?

Your thoughts appreciated. Atlas-maker (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the template name as a first step, as the previous one was just a redirect. Keith D (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Just spotted this and since I've been writing some stubs on missing parishes in Devon thought I'd give it a go, see here. Regardless of its position, I think it's too large for use in short articles and a textual description is better. Thoughts?  —SMALLJIM  14:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Aesthetically, I'd be fine with it as is, although a compact option might be a useful addition to the armoury too. Atlas-maker (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it would be better if it would resize and didn't have those roses on each side, I think. Anyway according to the guidance we only have to "consider" using it, so I've decided not to :) Regarding your original question, I think perhaps it would be best towards the end of an article, probably under See also (which it has elements of), unless the article was long enough that it didn't stand out unduly in the Geography section.  —SMALLJIM  17:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup, including the Grammar and layout checklist

The list had becomne unwieldy and unstructured so, without changing or removing any of its elements, I've broken it down into reasonable sections. Doing this reveals some degree of repetition which might be attended to. I can't help but think that some parts of the 'words to avoid' section represent the whims of individual editors; if we were to follow all of the strictures regarding too formal or too informal useage then we'd be overly-resticted in what we could say! Some further consensus building here might not go amiss. cheers Geopersona (talk) 08:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Great work! I've thought for some time that this guide has needed a good clean-up. I've further edited the "Managing ambiguity and uncertainty" section to cut out the woffle and get to the core of what I think it's trying to say. Same for "Depopulated settlements", which was very unclear. Comments on these rather bold edits would be welcome. I'll have a look at the checklist in a while: it does seem to include more than it needs to.  —SMALLJIM  13:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Update: Actually, I think the checklist is fine. I've made just a few changes for clarification. (Since I've mentioned some other cleanup work here, I've changed your heading – hope that's OK)  —SMALLJIM  17:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Good by me - if we end up with clearer guidance for editors at the end then it's been worth doing. Geopersona (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)