Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut
What's new

Articles for deletion

  • 23 Nov 2024 – Convent Wood (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Jinnllee90 (t · c); see discussion (4 participants)
  • 19 Nov 2024 – Higher Menadew (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by KrystalInfernus (t · c) was closed as delete by Just Step Sideways (t · c) on 26 Nov 2024; see discussion (6 participants)

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

Requests for comments

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Did you know? articles
[edit]

Wellesbourne, Brighton (2024-07-01) • Rosal, Sutherland (2024-05-25) • Newlyn Tidal Observatory (2023-11-20) • Godalming (2023-09-20) • Reigate (2023-09-10)

Reached maximum of 5 out of 308

[edit]
  • A591 road, Lake District - June 2009 Edit 1
    A591 road, Lake District - June 2009 Edit 1
  • Aerial View of Edinburgh, by Alfred Buckham, from about 1920
    Aerial View of Edinburgh, by Alfred Buckham, from about 1920
  • Canary Wharf from Limehouse London June 2016 HDR
    Canary Wharf from Limehouse London June 2016 HDR
  • City of London skyline from London City Hall - Oct 2008
    City of London skyline from London City Hall - Oct 2008
  • Lancashire 1610 Speed Hondius - Restoration
    Lancashire 1610 Speed Hondius - Restoration
In the News articles
[edit]

Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City (2021-07-22) • 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods (2009-11-21) • February 2009 British Isles snowfall (2009-02-06)

Main page featured articles
[edit]

Coventry ring road (2023-07-23) • Combe Hill, East Sussex (2023-01-11) • Brownhills (2022-03-03) • Abberton Reservoir (2021-09-05) • Shaw and Crompton (2021-08-15)

Reached maximum of 5 out of 71

Main page featured lists
[edit]

List of scheduled monuments in South Somerset (2023-12-22) • List of castles in Greater Manchester (2023-04-07) • List of Shetland islands (2022-05-20) • List of freshwater islands in Scotland (2020-04-24) • List of scheduled monuments in Taunton Deane (2018-10-26)

Reached maximum of 5 out of 7

Watch

Archives

[edit]

Disagreement on Christchurch article re:settlement definition

[edit]

There is a dispute at the article for Christchurch, Dorset over whether, how, and in how much detail, the article should cover Bournemouth Airport – a major employer which was in the now defunct borough of Christchurch, but some distance outside the built-up area in a neighbouring parish. This is essentially a difference of opinion on how to handle the ambiguity around defining settlements. If you think you can help resolve this, join the discussion at Talk:Christchurch,_Dorset#Bournemouth_airport. Thanks, Joe D (t) 10:38, 3 April 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]

FAR for Trafford Park

[edit]

I have nominated Trafford Park 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. Z1720 (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Ben Nevis

[edit]

Ben Nevis 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) 14:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

Unreliable source? "Town and Village Guide"

[edit]

The website https://www.townandvillageguide.com/ asserts that it is a "meticulously curated collection of destinations" but I have my doubts. The page on "Coldharbour, Lincolnshire" describes a small village near Louth (so not the Cold Harbour, Lincolnshire, a hamlet near Grantham, about which we have an article). It has "its beautiful church, St. Mary's Church. The church dates back to the 12th century and is a fine example of Norman architecture", and a pub called the Red Lion. But I can't find any trace of either the church or the pub, in any "Cold Harbour" or "Coldharbour" either near Grantham or near Louth. Or, indeed, of any village or hamlet of the name near Louth apart from one reference to an archaeological site which was previously known as Cold Harbour. I may be missing something, but it makes me wonder whether this website, which invites people to offer a contribution about their village, may be completely unreliable. Has anyone any experience of this website? (I couldn't find it at WP:RSN).

I've just found its page on Coldharbour in Kent, which has a surprisingly similar St Mary's church "which dates back to the 12th century. The church is a beautiful example of Norman architecture and is known for its stunning stained glass windows", and various other bits of identical text. (But no Red Lion). We don't seem to have an article on that Coldharbour at all. Odd? Any thoughts?

Or, perhaps, consider this as a warning and avoid that particular quite smart-looking website. PamD 14:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With no contact information, no about-us, no publisher information it looks like a self published source WP:SPS and as such I would immediate discount it as unreliable. I checked on a couple of settlements that I know and the information given was terrible - the prose at the beginning was inaccurate and many of the listings were for businesses in other settlements.
It is currently used as a reference on 20 articles (link), so it should be easy to remove those within a few minutes - which I'm happy to do. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) I haven't come across it before, but I have given it a once-over just now. My view is that it is wholly inappropriate to be used as a source to support any Wikipedia content. It seems to be an attempt to aggregate up-to-date microlocal data (such as train times at the nearest station, postal collection times from each postbox etc, opening times of local "Vetinary [sic] surgeries (!) etc.) with some suspiciously AI-looking verbiage, some of which may well be based on text from Wikipedia. There are no details of authorship, editorial oversight (if any) or fact-checking, and it appears that user submissions are accepted. The West Sussex page lists such "towns" as Ardingly Reservoir (a reservoir...), Adur (the district) and Crockenhill, which is apparently on the outskirts of Horsham even though it in fact consists of a pub and a couple of houses on the edge of Chichester. A little further on in that section, this location is a new one on me, even though I've apparently lived close to it all my life: suffice to say it doesn't exist. Conclusion: it's AI-generated nonsense based on a scrape of very broadly defined location data, and should be removed on sight. Good spot PamD. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 15:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the entry for a town I know a lot about, and it was filled with nonsense. It wouldn't surprise me if it was AI generated content. It's utter garbage as a source. G-13114 (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have flagged it here with the aim of getting it added to Headbomb's very useful blacklisting tool. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 15:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm late to this party, but I looked at the entry for Cheddar, aside from consistently calling it a town (it's a village) it was mostly OK until it described Cheddar Palace as a 19th century mansion house that is now a hotel, it's actually a 9th century Saxon palace that exists only as a buried archaeological site in the grounds of the school. While an error of a thousand years might be OK between friends, it's certainly not OK for sourcing Wikipedia articles. Thryduulf (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It's history - for now. Worth keeping an eye on. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comes across as AI generated and sounds like something an estate agent would write. It seems to muddle up locations with similar names. Contains inaccuracies claiming there's a parish church of St Mary's in a village when there isn't and inaccurate distances and directions from nearby places. So definitely not a reliable source. Rupples (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at those in my local area. Several of them are entirely fictional, and definitely give off AI vibes. Toll Bar is a junction in a dense urban area (hardly surrounded by countryside) for hiking or anything (it's close to a few public parks), West Park meanwhile isn't even a thing beyond the rugby club of the same name, Parr is in the South East of the town and nothing else I can see is true either. Thatto Heath is opposite side of town. There were no mills or factories in the vicinity beyond a foundry, Sherdley Park is in Sutton and so on (not to mention all the recommended GP's and schools etc are in Liverpool). A similar issue exists on St Helens proper which mistakes it for the town of the same name on the Isle of Wight. Koncorde (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"No religion" or "Irreligious"

[edit]

Is "Irreligious" an appropriate term to use where the UK census has a statistic for "No religion"? I suggest that it is not, as it has an undertone of POV: the Oxford English Dictionary defines it primarily as "Not religious; hostile to or without regard for religion; ungodly; godless.", which goes beyond ticking a box saying "No religion". I think we should just use the census's own term: "No religion".

A group of recent articles have used the term "Irreligious": before changing them WP:BOLDly I thought I'd ask the opinion of other editors. See Station, Boston as an example. PamD 16:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The census terminology should definitely be used, so I would support your changes/reversions. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 16:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @DragonofBatley: in case they want to explain their choice of wording and argue for it. PamD 16:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
b.t.w When you see any tables in settlement articles that have coloured cell backgrounds for each religion, would you please give a thought to removing the colours a a) they serve no good purpsse whatsoever and more importantly b) some of the colour combinations chosen together with blue link text fail MOS:CONTRAST, which can be a serious issue for people with visual acuity problems. Thanks in advance. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge we do not have an article for No religion - which is a disambiguation page.— Rod talk 16:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think atheist would be closer than irreligious given that the (typically census) surveys that seek out this information ask if you have a religion, not "are you indifferent or hostile" to a religion. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, irreligious has negative undertones of being anti-religion, whereas no religion is "exactly what is ays on the tin" 10mmsocket (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, irreligious has connotations. Best stick to the census term. Rupples (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above. While irreligious is actually relatively neutral, it's easier to read it as being against religion rather than an absence of religion. If someone professed Atheism or similar, I would be happier to describe such as irreligious. Koncorde (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles vs. Great Britain & Ireland?

[edit]

IP editor seems a bit WP:POINTY in his/her edits, e.g. here and associated talk page edit, plus other contributions. Is there consensus on the naming? 10mmsocket (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@10mmsocket, hmn technically under MOS:GEO we should use the title as used in its article British Isles but many significant articles like Castles in Great Britain and Ireland do ignore it. So appears due to the controversial nature, there is apparently a case-by-case approach? Unless they should be made consistent as British Isles or at least until local consensus decides otherwise at each?
May be there’s an old discussion somewhere. DankJae 16:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thanks. In that case I'll leave this IP to his one man/woman crusade. There's bigger problems to solve! 10mmsocket (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many discussions (such as Talk:British Isles/Archive 41 that go nowhere because two traditions hold diametric opposing views. See also MOS:ERA, MOS:ENGVAR and there must be one about SI units v US Customary. And lots of WP:SOAPBOX edit wars such as that one. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really good of you to look that up. It reinforces my thought to stay well away. If anyone else wants to start black pudding wars then fill your boots! 10mmsocket (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography&oldid=1259889339"