Talk:Selby (district)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Any special reason why there is a Selby (district) page, separate from the main Selby page? I don't really see the logic in it: most local authorities comprise more than one settlement and it's a simple matter to incorporate these things into the main article. It already appears to be causing confusion to the extent that one contributor has added material about the Abbey on the district page, something which is already amply covered in the main page. I propose a merger. --Archstanton 01:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- The two should be separate, as they are for all other such cases. The town, the local government district, and the parliamentary constituency are all three different things. Uncle G 03:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree that they should be kept separate, it is perfectly possible for a single article to draw the distinctions between the town, local government district and parliamentary constituency. I think it confuses the average reader, who I very much doubt cares about such distinctions. However, it does seem that separate pages have been drawn up for many UK locales, so I'll (grudgingly) concede that the structure will have to stay as it is, unless it is challenged at a higher level.
However, if we must have a separate page to cover the administrative aspects, it shouldn;t really duplicate material that is found in the town page. --Archstanton 14:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- We have a whole WikiProject on this, and a uniform approach. The local government districts, the towns, and the constituencies are all distinct. Uncle G 01:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree that they should be kept separate, it is perfectly possible for a single article to draw the distinctions between the town, local government district and parliamentary constituency. I think it confuses the average reader, who I very much doubt cares about such distinctions. However, it does seem that separate pages have been drawn up for many UK locales, so I'll (grudgingly) concede that the structure will have to stay as it is, unless it is challenged at a higher level.
-
-
- Fair enough.--Archstanton 14:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
-
While we're at it, it does seem that the referendum reference is well out of date. The ballot was held about a year ago(?) and the proposal was decisively rejected. Shall we work on an update? --Archstanton 14:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Done.--Archstanton 14:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
