Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 44

Given the intent of HMG to create a lot more UAs, I suggest we need to think about our current various (and at times illogical) ways of describing them. I am opening this discussion more to get editors to begin to give some thought to the topic (especially of the many special cases) rather than rushing to judgement.

I will begin by stating what I believe to be the problem: there are articles about places which describe them as unitary authorities, which is not correct. It is their governing local authority that is the UA, not the place governed. Sometimes we have recognised this using the phrase "Unitary Authority area", which is more accurate though rather awkward to my eye. Much of the problem arises in the cases where we have one article that is trying to do everything, which inevitable for smaller places. But there are others that have a separate article for the local authority, which I think helps resolve the issue. Take for example North Yorkshire (district), where the current opening sentence reads:

• North Yorkshire is a non-metropolitan county and unitary authority area (legally known as the County of North Yorkshire), in the ceremonial county of North Yorkshire, England.

which used the awkward "UA area" syntax. IMO, it would read better (and be more useful and informative because it introduces the LA) if it said

• North Yorkshire is a non-metropolitan county (legally known as the County of North Yorkshire), in the ceremonial county of North Yorkshire, England. It is administered by North Yorkshire Council, a unitary authority.

Another example, which also uses the "UA area" syntax is the City of Peterborough article, which begins:

• Peterborough, or the City of Peterborough, is a unitary authority area with city status in the ceremonial county of Cambridgeshire, England. The district is named after its largest settlement, Peterborough, but also covers a wider area of outlying villages and hamlets.

I would rewrite that as

• The City of Peterborough is a Borough with city status in the ceremonial county of Cambridgeshire, England. The district is named after its largest settlement, Peterborough, but also covers a wider area of outlying villages and hamlets. The borough is administered by Peterborough City Council, a unitary authority.

Borough of Swindon confuses me because half of it seems to be a wp:CFORK of Swindon Borough Council, so it is only a matter of time before someone proposes that the two articles be merged. It too uses the "UA area" syntax. (I would just remove the cfork material.)

I guess that is enough to 'seed' the discussion: I suggest we start by identifying the awkward cases where the solution is not obvious. The floor is open. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I would just add that the ONS and ISO 3166-2:GB make no distinction between the area and the authority - both are termed 'unitary authority'.

According to the ONS and ISO 3166-2:GB, a second-level subdivision can be a two-tier county, a London borough, a metropolitan district, a district (NI), a council area (Scotland), or a unitary authority (England and Wales).^[1][2] Encyclopaedia Britannica also makes no distinction.^[3][4]

I'm not particularly animated whether it is decided to use a different term from the official terminology or not. But I do think it should be noted that we would indeed be straying from the official terminology and making something up just for Wikipedia. Personally, I think it's bad practice for an encyclopaedia, but there is precedent. Dgp4004 (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, the white paper has only stated that HMG wants to reduce the bureaucry of the so many levels of local government to make it easier to facilitate the decentralisation of power, and in theory reduce cost. However, the paper says that central government won't force UAs onto areas, it will be down to the local authorities to come up with the solution. That means, us trying to put foward a process of how to word them now is pointless as we cannot predict what us going to happen. If you look at Essex alone, the Times predicted that it would be one council based upon the CC, while the BBC put forward mergers of local areas. Basildon Council's leader is stating they would fight any merger into an Essex UA, and want to take Thurrock on (without the debt lol). Rochford Councillors are already trying to fight talk of a merger of Rochford and Castle Point with Southend. Thats just Essex! Let's leave as is until we see what happens. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• "North Yorkshire is a unitary authority area in the ceremonial county of North Yorkshire" should work fork NY, I have questioned the use of "county" as confusing, see the talk page. With Peterborough would something like "Peterborough is a unitary authority area with city and borough status in the ceremonial county of Cambridgeshire" work. As I've suggested before we should probably merge Swindon Borough Council with Borough of Swindon but others have said that top local authorities should have separate articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  The advantage of having XYZ Council articles is that provides a home for the obsessive detail about which party topped the poll in the nnnn local elections, which wards etc. And the Council infobox can have all the wonderful detail about who the (ceremonial) mayor is, who is the leader, who is the Chief Exec etc etc. That leaves the location article to be about the location. And yes, I really think that the term "PQRST Unitary Authority area" is ugly and prolix and we shouldn't use it any more than we have to. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

There's honestly a lot of clutter going on, with over-definition and often subtly incongruous verbiage that I'm hard pushed to think anyone cares about in the first sentence. We seem averse to simple statements. i.e. "Peterborough is a city and unitary authority in the county Cambridgeshire, England". or "The City of Peterborough is a unitary authority in the county of Cambridgeshire, England" - we can explain all the statuses conferred in subsequent paragraphs. Koncorde (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Except that neither Peterborough nor City of Peterborough is a Unitary Authority, so let's not make deliberate errors. We can cut the clutter and incongruous verbiage by saying simply that "Peterborough is a city in Cambridgeshire, England" and "The City of Peterborough is a borough with city status in Cambridgeshire, England". The details of their administration is of marginal interest to most readers but a subsequent sentence could add "It is administered by Peterborough City Council, a unitary authority." 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

When I began this discussion by saying that there are many special cases. In places like City of Carlisle and City of Milton Keynes, there is a large hinterland that merits a separate article. City of Peterborough has a rather small area outside the city and this is one where maybe the "City of ABC" and "ABC City Council" could be combined. Borough of Swindon and Swindon Borough Council might be another (local consensus applies, of course). But in each case, the primary settlement merits its own article with minimum detail on the local authority. IMO of course. Fundamentally, there won't be a "one size fits all" answer. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

But (City of) Peterborough is the Unitary Authority (in the same way it is a District) - the Council isn't separate from the "City" (or Borough in other instances) because they are the same administrative function / tier. They have separate articles on wikipedia because we like to make things fun for ourselves but the idea that the City of Peterborough is just about the "area" of the UA isn't true. What is true is that the UA representative function is the council, in much the same way Metropolitan Borough of St Helens is one and the same with the Council itself, as the same way Liverpool and Manchester are both a "City and Metropolitan Borough" that the council is "for" the administration of. City of Carlisle is in fact a fine demonstration of what happens when the UA is abolished - the "City of" becomes a former administrative entity, while Cumberland and Cumberland Council are the new Unitary Authority administrative entity - they are indivisible, just as if they decide tomorrow to change the UA again.

Milton Keynes is an odd one, but I don't buy the idea that there is a particular difficulty here beyond one we are making for ourselves when it comes to 99% of situations. Koncorde (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• While 'unitary authority area' isn't the most elegant wording, I think it's a reasonable compromise given the fairly complex administrative situation. Unitary authorities are either county councils with the responsibilities of a district council or district councils with the responsibilities of a county council, and the areas they govern almost always consist of a non-metropolitan county and a non-metropolitan district with identical boundaries. I believe this is because local government in England is still structured within the framework of the Local Government Act 1972, which requires an area to have two tiers of local government.

If we were being entirely accurate then we would open North Yorkshire with something like 'North Yorkshire is a non-metropolitan county and coterminous non-metropolitan district in the ceremonial county of North Yorkshire, England. It is governed by North Yorkshire Council, a unitary authority with the powers of a non-metropolitan county council and non-metropolitan district council.'

I'm something of a stickler for describing local government arrangements as accurately as possible, but even I don't think we need to go that far. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

And that is an excellent illustration for why the details of the administrative arrangements belong in the relevant local authority article, not the location article. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The whole reason most of these Frankenstein areas exist is for administrative purposes. It's hardly irrelevant to the area article. What it is is right up there with where it is.

I suppose unitary authority area would work so I'd back that. It's only one word off the official terminology and separates the area from the council for those who place importance on that. Dgp4004 (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The term used by the government for all types of local government subdivision in England is 'local authority district'.^[5] That's another option. Once all authorities are either unitaries or metropolitan districts, their exact status beyond an area for local government will be less important. Something like:

'X is a local authority district in Y, England. It is administered by X Council, a unitary authority.'

Dgp4004 (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

[edit conflict with my 17:45 reply] "local authority district" reads well to me. It would side-step the awkward cases of artificial counties created for HMG's administrative convenience, to avoid having to search and revise 1000 years worth of acts of Parliament. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely it is relevant and should certainly be mentioned in the first few sentences. Geography includes economic, demographic and political as well as physical. What I'm trying to achieve is accuracy, that we don't say that a place is an authority. If there is a convenient hook to hang it on, like a council, we can record that it [the council] is a UA but if not, then I agree that we have to say that the place is in XYZ UA area (but definitely not in XYZ UA). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I would be happy enough with this suggestion though the current use of "unitary authority area" may still be best. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Ceremonial county articles generally don't go into great detail about administrative arrangements, but counties are closely linked to local government and this justifies the customary mention in the lead and short section in the body. The administrative arrangements of Lancashire are largely confined to a sentence in the lead and five paragraphs in the body, for example. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that referring to both North Yorkshire (the UA area) and North Yorkshire (the lieutenancy area) as "counties" is confusing, but that's the confusion in real life. One is legally the "County of North Yorkshire" (and in my experience is almost always referred to as a county and hardly ever as a "district"), and the other is commonly referred to as a "ceremonial county". To my mind it is much less confusing to explain the position in a single article, as we always did before the unitary authority was created (or, to be accurate, given the powers of the predecessor district councils and then renamed). We are dangerously close to saying "North Yorkshire is an area in North Yorkshire".

There was an extensive discussion on this here. I thought there was more or less a consensus there that in cases such as North Yorkshire, Shropshire, Somerset and Dorset, where the unitary authority covers most of the area of the ceremonial county, it was best to treat both in a single article, which would explain the position. Mhockey (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The white paper sets out criteria for the new unitary authorities - in particular, the areas councils serve should have populations of more than 500,000 people. That means many places that are currently governed by unitary authorities, including Peterborough and Swindon to pick on two of the examples provided, will no longer be unitary authority areas in their own right as they are now.

I see little point in investing time working out how the introductions to those articles should be phrased when we're going to have to change them again anyway; equally Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and until we know for certain what the new configurations are going to be, everything else is speculation.

When we know what's happening for certain and have reliable sources to reference, we can make the necessary changes; until then, discussions like this are as pointless as rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic in my opinion. WaggersTALK 11:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Just catching up on this discussion, so jumping on the end rather than inline to specific parts that have gone cold. It looks like the format 'X is a local authority district in Y, England. It is administered by X Council, a unitary authority.' is fairly settled as a good standfirst for the articles about the areas, and that looks good to me. But in other contexts, I think there has possibly been some overzealous policing of the term "unitary authority" being applied to an area.

The original premise is that is wrong to use the term "unitary authority" to describe an area, and only correct to use the term to describe a council   JMF says (my emphasis):

• "there are articles about places which describe them as unitary authorities, which is not correct"
• "Except that neither Peterborough nor City of Peterborough is a Unitary Authority, so let's not make deliberate errors."

A couple of people have already challenged this premise, and Dgp4004 cited a couple of good examples of the fact that the term has broader usage than just being the council. I think this is pretty fundamental and needs analysing further. On Wikipedia, we don't say something is not correct. We might say that an interpretation can't be verified by reliable sources, or that there are insufficient reliable sources to demonstrate its notability, and therefore it should not be included. Or we might say that the weight of reliable sources points to something being a fringe theory and coverage of it should treat it accordingly. Otherwise, we reflect common usage as found in the sources. "Technical" and "legal" definitions might have particular weight, in particular circumstances, but we do not say a common usage is wrong if it differs from such "official" usage – we just describe the relevant complexities and reflect common usage in our language.

The question for us is not "what term can we cobble together to describe these areas", the question is how do reliable sources describe a place? And I think there could be a case that sources describe these places as "unitary authorities" and we should reflect that common usage. There are certainly lots of people out there saying things like "Luton+is+a+unitary+authority" "Luton is a unitary authority".

A vaguely analogous situation might be something like Nut (fruit). The article explains the technicalities of how the term is defined by botanists, and also that in common usage it's used much less strictly; meanwhile, our article about Cashew explains that, technically, in botanical terms, what the plant produces is a "Drupe", but it then merrily uses the colloquial term "nut" throughout, because that's common usage whatever the botanists might say about "correctness". Our equivalent here might be to explain, where relevant, that a place is "a district governed by a unitary authority called X Council", but to then be relaxed about the article subsequently using the term UA to refer to the area, and to be similarly relaxed about usage of the term in contexts where the precision isn't important, like a village's infobox.

Along these lines, I've put together some specific cases for edits/policies/precedents that might serve to move things forward – in separate sections below. Joe D (t) 00:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

But we would never say "Cornwall is a county council" or "Cornwall is a local authority". What makes "unitary authority" special, apart from the age of its delineation?

"There are people out there" saying lots of things, but we depend on reliable sources. Luton is "a town and borough in Bedfordshire" (our own article): it is not a UA, it is administered by a UA. (If the boundary had been drawn logically to include Dunstable (the border between them is imperceptible), the writing of "people out there" might be more obviously sloppy.)

AFAICS, the sources give the form of administration ("an administrative unit" (EB), "subdivision category". The ONS section is headed "administrative geography".)

Where space is constrained (as in tables), shortcuts are appropriate but when we have space to discriminate, we should use it. When we have that space and we don't use it, we are knowingly misleading our readers. Cashews pass the duck test – local authorities don't. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

What makes unitary authorities special is that the usage out in the world appears to be different. We would not call Cornwall a county council because people out in the world don't call Cornwall a county council. People do often call places "a unitary authority". In Wikipedia we reflect natural language and common usage.

Strictly correct English language usage would use ‘has’ rather than ‘is’ - hence Cornwall has a unitary council. But we all know that common usage doesn’t always match up with correct usage. MapReader (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Again, "correct" is a judgement of the kind that Wikipedia doesn't make. The usage might not be what the original users of the term intended. The usage might be different to some other usage. You might even be able to find a source that says "this usage is wrong" (though I don't think anybody in this thread had done so yet) – in which case we would be able to report "X source use the term to mean areas, but Y source has argued that it is wrong to use the term this way". But none of that makes it any less notable that this usage is fairly common, or means that we should try to police and purge what is common enough usage in those contexts where the precision doesn't matter. Joe D (t) 20:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

The 2 sources that Dgp4004 shared are indeed about administrative geography. They are taxonomies of types of area: "two-tier county", "district", "London borough, "unitary authority" – clearly they are happy to view the term "unitary authority" as of a type with those other kinds of area. Joe D (t) 14:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The authoritative RS says Unitary authorities may cover a whole county, part of a county or a large town or city. For example, Cornwall Council, Nottingham City Council and Reading Borough Council are all unitary councils. Wales has unitary councils.^[6] 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

So what you're saying is the terminology is "unitary councils"? We should stop calling the councils "unitary authorities" and start calling them "unitary councils", because the authoritative source that you've just cited uses the terminology "unitary councils"?

I'm being facetious of course, but you have neatly illustrated once again that officialdom is much more relaxed than you are about usage of these terms – they're perfectly happy to slip into casual terms. You keep sharing more sources to demonstrate people using the term "unitary authority" to refer to councils, as if anybody in this discussion were disputing that the term can be used to refer to councils. We know that UA can refer to councils, what you haven't demonstrated is that UA is not and must not be used to refer to areas. All that your LGA source demonstrates is how the LGA use the term. The source doesn't say "this is only way to use the term" or "it is wrong to use the term any other way" (and even if it did, given that Wikipedia reports what the sources say and given that there is an abundance of usage to the contrary out there, we would say something like "X, Y and Z sources use the term to mean the areas administered by the councils, though the LGA have argued that this usage is incorrect and the term should only be used to refer to the councils themselves."

Besides, the LGA are in no way the authoritative source on the issue in question. The LGA is an association of councils which publishes information on the business of councils, of course their focus is going to be on councils. Different sources have different purposes and their usage varies accordingly – it's something we deal with all the time in UK geography, where there's so much ambiguity. Joe D (t) 20:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

The key point is the distinction between a place and its administration. The rest is detail. What they are saying is that the unitary authority for Cornwall is Cornwall Council. It is a logical nonsense to say that Cornwall is an authority. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

What you're saying is that you don't like the usage. I agree that it's not an especially aesthetically pleasing usage. That makes no difference to the fact that's a fairly established and not uncommon usage, and Wikipedia shouldn't ignore that.

It is a logical nonsense to call Cornwall an authority because there is no established usage of the word "authority" on its own to mean a place, but only because of that. It is perfectly acceptable to call Cornwall a unitary authority, because this usage is a fairly established and common one that is readily demonstrated in sources. Indeed, it's such an acceptable usage that nobody has ever noticed any absurdity in our North Somerset article throughout its more than 21 year existence. Language evolves. Words take on new usages all the time. Wikipedia reflects that, it has no remit to police it. Joe D (t) 21:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Here are some more:

• There are currently 309 civil parishes in the Kent County Council area and a further 11 in the Medway Unitary Authority area.^[7]
• The County of Durham is a unitary authority area, with a secondary tier of town and parish councils (known as local councils) which serve their communities.^[8]
• A map showing the Peterborough City Council Unitary Authority area, you can also see the Unitary Authority area on an interactive map.^[9]

and many more. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what these are for? We have no shortage of sources for the term "unitary authority area", and nobody needs persuading that "unitary authority area" is a term in common usage, we're all agreed on that. (And actually I've just added some even better sources for that fact to the unitary authorities article.)

I can equally find thousands of sources that say cashews are drupes, that doesn't mean that it's any less true or notable or demonstrable that cashews commonly get called nuts. (I can even find hundreds of sources that say "cashews are not nuts" – more than can be said for sources that say "unitary authorities are not areas".)

While we're sharing sources through, my favourite of the many that I have just trawled through is this one – from the LGA again: "Northumberland County Council is the largest yet most sparsely populated unitary authority area in England, and is home to approximately 316,000 people." Joe D (t) 00:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Which just proves that local authorities are grossly over-staffed! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of whether it's fine to tolerate "misuse" of the term unitary authority and going back to the question of what our preferred terminology for the areas should be, research for the proposed updates to the "unitary authorities of England" page brought up a couple of candidates which appear to have a good case behind them:

• "unitary district" is used fairly extensively in legislation and a fair bit within
• "unitary area" is also used in legislation, by the LGA, and in the trade press

"Unitary district" feels like a good, concise, unambiguous option – I can picture it replacing the contested UA field in Infobox UK place. "Unitary area" isn't as clear – but it might be a suitable abbreviation when you've already used "unitary authority area" and it would be overkill to write it out in full again. Joe D (t) 01:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, "district" reads better to me too. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

"District" is supported by the existence of articles such as Wiltshire (district), created six months ago. More of them at Category:Unitary authority districts of England. Wire723 (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

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

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birkenhead built-up area
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accrington/Rossendale built-up area
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burnley built-up area
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhyl/Prestatyn Built-up area
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norwich built-up area
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ipswich built-up area
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lancaster/Morecambe Built-up area
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barnsley/Dearne Valley built-up area

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

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

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

I don't see how we can escape from the fact that the names and boundaries of wards are subject to change, especially in places that have population growth or decline. We need to think of them as we do Parliamentary constituencies. (Civil parishes are far more stable but unfortunately these are not ubiquitous and some are even the same as the town as a whole (Northampton, for example) rather than a neighbourhood or a small group of neighbourhoods.) That's not a reason to reject wards outright but it does limit what we can do with them. IMO anyway. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Wards are not geographic places, they are political constituencies. MRSC (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Therefore it then has to meet GNG, which they both fail.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Political constituencies are notable. This is an odd response to an article being expanded and improved. MRSC (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Let's take WP:GNG.

1. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Based upon this, Are Wards notable and us there enough to write an article on - answer no in the case of Chalkwell (Southend-on-Sea ward), [[Milton (Southend-on-Sea ward) and Westborough (ward) which are just a list of election results. Remember we are an Encyclopedia not a Gazetter.

2. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

Is there significant coverage of the wards - no there is not, not even in local press.

3. "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. Yes the references are generally reliable, however fir the results of the elections and this takes us to

4. "Sources"[3] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[4] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. Well the main source used is the official electoral results from Southend-on-Sea City Council, which us therefore not secondary.

5. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. Which as per above is not independent. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

That could equally be applied to Parliamentary constituencies and I'm pretty sure you would come up with the same result. Are we going to start arguing for their deletion as well?

FWIW, I think we can agree that a list of wards is notable and that perhaps that is where the energy should be focussed. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Where do we draw the line at political constituencies? Parliamentary constituencies at government level are clearly notable, and will have plenty of verifiable secondary evidence to meet GNG. As per previous discussion, Wards do not fit into NPLACE, so must meet GNG, which most wards just don't as they rarely get that coverage. A list of election results is a Gazetter not Encyclopedic and the articles nominated have no other info that is not already within the actual settlements - which Chalkwell and Westborough had been moved to originally. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

That's why lists of wards are useful. You might struggle to find notability of individual wards but you won't for the wards as a collection. Boundary changes are widely reported and several news outlets cover the results of local elections. Even the nationals publish results of local elections - look at the pages the BBC produce every year. Wards as a collective definitely are notable if not as individuals. My personal view is that wards are individually notable but I can see where consensus is going. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that wards are individually notable but I agree with the rest of your argument. I think the vast majority of, if not all, wards would come under WP:INDISCRIMINATE but the concept as a whole is notable as an aspect of local politics. Constituencies may have better sourcing as there is often reporting done on their demographics and attitudes and there are examples of (non-political) studies based on them. Orange sticker (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Indeed the local authority article can include a section on each ward, it we must have it.

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

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

Smithfield, London has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Somerset Coal Canal has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I have just reverted the addition sometime last year of a couple of sentences to the lead paragraph of List of Hertfordshire boundary changes - fairly obviously, by a historic counties enthusiast - insisting on the continuing existence of the historic county of Middlesex. The entire purpose of distinguishing historic counties from current local government or ceremonial counties (or indeed the administrative counties of last century) seems to be to insist on the continuing cultural relevance of counties as defined by their pre-19th century boundaries - in an article on subsequent boundary changes, any mention, if made at all, of historic counties should surely be done elsewhere in the article to clarify that they are not regarded as applying to historic counties.

So should such a mention be made (considering that readers may not be aware of the multiple different definitions of British counties)? And, if so, how? (Footnote? Short section?) PWilkinson (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

The general approach is to treat the ceremonial counties which share the same name and rough area as an historic county as a continuation of that county, to treat the post-1974 counties as new, and to treat the historic counties which are no longer used for ceremonial purposes (e.g. Middlesex) as defunct. A recent shift has been to define Yorkshire, Sussex, Cumberland, and Westmorland as 'areas' so that we can refer to them in the present tense where necessary without it sounding awkward. It's a bit of a fudge, but it seems to work.

On that basis, it's fine to say Hertfordshire historically bordered Middlesex but not to state that it still does. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Blackdown Hills has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi all! I'm working on a new draft article for Ealing Village, a 1930s residential estate in Ealing, West London. The article covers the architectural style, historical significance, and cultural context. I'm looking for feedback, sources, or a possible review to help move it forward toward approval.

Here's the draft: Draft:Ealing Village

Any input or assistance would be really appreciated. Thanks! BBISCAGLIA (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

The "Curious Fact" section needs reworking - it's not up to us to decide which facts our readers should find curious or interesting (there's an "interestingly" in the prose that needs to go for the same reason). See MOS:EDITORIAL for more info on this kind of thing. WaggersTALK 12:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, really helpful feedback. BBISCAGLIA (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

It was rejected as not reliable sources. Use google books as there is plenty of sources to use (https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-samsung-ss&sca_esv=2db17c2fd44c4b31&q=%22ealing%20village%22&udm=36&source=lnms&fbs=ABzOT_CpGl4iTifXrR0wiRhoFvN4ucjihRMGt7LDzXo2tAb-UlYdMCSNoSi4jF22RofPbGhvPDtoJRbPmmStofN5a-a06parKg5M8nlnNWXEo1cm3bEVcfl4K_kzRguJfgOzllAjnK2X5RfdJtQ-mtR15L24MalhTD1hoLmFV98oRxdR2m4bAvYR_t0mBPDvBUeLwNaMPHBnWF4lqhlEix8YdktjK6ZrNarMiqsup1u_uvDmvWcrbRc&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiKqZLpmryMAxUwQ0EAHYeyO6gQ0pQJegQIfRAB). Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Since then I did many sources. Hopefully it’s ok now? BBISCAGLIA (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Middlewich has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

You might be interested in the current move request for Birmingham. G-13114 (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Aberdaron has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Orkney has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated Navenby for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Romford has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm _Talk 03:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Avon Gorge has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)