Wikipedia:WikiProject UK subdivisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Subdivisions

Cambridgeshire

Geography
Status:	Ceremonial & (smaller) Non-metropolitan county
Area: - Total - Admin. council - Admin. area	Ranked 15th 3,389 km² Ranked 15th 3,046 km²
Admin HQ:	Cambridge
ISO 3166-2:	GB-CAM
ONS code:	12
NUTS 3:	UKH12
Demographics
Population: - Total (2002 est.) - Density - Admin. council - Admin. pop.	Ranked 29th 716,285 211 / km² Ranked 21st 558,323
Ethnicity:	94.6% White 2.6% S.Asian
Politics
Cambridgeshire County Council http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/
Executive:	Conservative
Members of Parliament
Anne Campbell, Helen Clark, Jonathan Djanogly, Andrew Lansley, Brian Mawhinney, Malcolm Moss, James Paice
Districts
Cambridge South Cambridgeshire Huntingdonshire Fenland East Cambridgeshire Peterborough (Unitary)

Historic divisions to do include

Districts of Wales

Other things

a comprehensive survey of area committees

1 Members
2 Naming conventions
3 Controversial or confusing cases
4 Scottish districts
5 Welsh county boroughs
6 Anomalies
- 6.1 Infobox
- 6.2 Maps
7 Proposed InfoBoxes for Districts and Unitaries
8 London boroughs

[edit] Members

[edit] Naming conventions

(as established by custom, no force)

London boroughs - London Borough of Southwark
Districts with no ambiguity - Mid Sussex
Districts that are smaller than their urban area - Nottingham
Districts that are much larger than their urban area -
- Salisbury (district) for non-metropolitan districts
- Burnley (borough) for non-metropolitan boroughs
- Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale for metropolitan boroughs
- City of Bradford for cities

[edit] Controversial or confusing cases

- redirects should exist so for example Bradford (district) should redirect to City of Bradford
  - Lord, I so object to this. It is nothing less than nonsense on stilts to tell someone from Otley that they live in the City of Leeds, or from Ilkley that they live in the City of Bradford. The Wikipedia naming convention recommends common names: The Ilkley person, imo, will say they live in the Bradford Metropolitan District Council area, or somesuch. Worse, it leads to suggestions that the Leeds and City of Leeds articles should be merged. By that logic, so too should all the town/village articles that fall within the so-called City of Leeds area. My modest suggestion is City of Leeds (area) or City of Leeds (district) or, indeed, City of Leeds Metropolitan Borough, so that users are left in no doubt that we are talking about something larger than the city. Discuss. --Tagishsimon
  - Tagishsimon is correct. We must avoid confusing the Human geography concepts of City and district with the administrative arrangements in force and titular use of the word City. The City of Leeds is not a city in the Human geography sense, it is an administrative authority over a district, which happens to have the word City in it's title. England has a mix of administrative systems at the local level. For example the City of Leicester is both a city and local authority, while the County of Leicestershire administers the surrounding area. In cases like this we need City of Leeds (district) and Leeds (city).
    - I suggest either:
      1. Leeds (city), Content for the geographical city, see also for district.
      2. Leeds (district): Content for the administrative district of Leeds, including Otley.
      3. City of Leeds (district) -> Leeds (district)
      4. City of Leeds -> Leeds (city)
    - Or:
      1. Leeds (city): Content for the geographical city, see also for district.
      2. City of Leeds (district): Content for the administrative district of Leeds, including Otley.
      3. Leeds (district) -> City of Leeds (district)
      4. City of Leeds -> City of Leeds (district)
    - --User:ben@liddicott.com

Isn't all this complication likely to hopelessly confuse the average reader?. Let us try to think what an average reader expect to see when he or she looks up 'Leeds' or 'Bradford'. I'm in favour of articles being in line with common usage of a term.

The current situation of saying Leeds is a place within the City of Leeds, is IMO confusing and counter-intuitive to the average person who probably doesn't understand the finer points of local government administration. The word 'Leeds' is strongly bound up in the public mind with 'city'.

In these two cases cant we just merge the articles, but find some way of explaining that the administrative boundaries encompass surrounding settlements. G-Man 18:41, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The same thing is true to a large extent of counties. What people think of as a county is generally a traditional county not an administrative area that happens to use the title 'county'. Let's be consistent and apply the same common sense there too. Owain 15:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes and no. Where the administrative area occupies substantially the same area as the ceremonial area or human-geographical area, splitting them up serves little purpose. The issue arises with Leeds because the City of Leeds (district) encompasses a lot of notable things which are not part of Leeds (city), and likewise for Bradford. On the other hand consider Leicester, which is both a city and a City. Splitting that up seems to me to serve little purpose. User:ben@liddicott.com

The problem is self made and surely easily solvable. There are two things. Leeds, and the Leeds Metropolitan Borough. Leeds is inside the Borough, exactly as Otley is. It is only because ... someone ... decided to abrogate common sense by calling the borough City of Leeds that we have this issue. Merger is not a solution since Leeds != Leeds District. So back to proposals:

- - - I suggest either:
      1. Leeds, Content for the geographical city, see also for district.
      2. Leeds (district): Content for the administrative district of Leeds, including Otley.
      3. City of Leeds (district) -> Leeds (district)
      4. City of Leeds -> Leeds
Districts that are named after things - New Forest (district), etc

--Tagishsimon

I wouldn't object too much so long as we still call Leeds (the geographic city) a city. what I object to is calling Leeds "a place within the City of Leeds" which is pretty nonsensical to the average reader. Leeds was a city before the present metropolitan borough came into existence. I agree calling a borough a "city" is utterly ridiculous.

Anyway here's what I suggest. We merge the articles but have a section in the article named ==Leeds Metropolitan Borough== which clearly explains that the district bondaries encompasses places that are not Leeds (the geographic city) That to me seems like the most sensible way of doing it. G-Man 12:02, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, I cannot agree that we should merge Leeds and Leeds (district) since the two are not the same thing. One is the city. The other is the district. Why can we not have two articles (as we have now) but rename the district article so that it is not misleading? Thus we would say Leeds is a place within the Leeds (District) --Tagishsimon

Well I think we should call it whatever its official name is. If its official name is the City of Leeds then thats what we should call it. However Leeds (borough) would be better than Leeds (district).

Let me clarify, I do not object too much to the articles being split so long as we call Leeds (the geographic city) a 'city' the same applies to most other city articles. It is the wording I object to. I would support a wording that went something like:

Leeds is a city in West Yorkshire, England, and is the principal part of the Leeds Metropolitan Borough which has a population of XXXXXX.

Instead of: Leeds is a place within the City of Leeds--- as it currently is

IMO this wording would be more familiar and less confusing to readers. G-Man 21:05, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We've discussed, there seems to be something of a consensus that the current situation is slightly misleading and somewhat jarring, so some advanced notice: I intend to change all instances of "City of XYZ" which refer to an Area that is larger than the City (e.g. the Bradford & Leeds instances). Talk to me if you want to stop me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:04, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Coming in a bit late here, but what about Leeds is a City and principal settlement in the City of Leeds local authority district. Slightly longer, but explains everything I would have thought. --Regan123 02:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel the need to discuss county names further, following on from Owain's comments above on 13th October 2004. I cannot agree that people generally think in terms of traditional counties rather than the current administrative ones. For example, where I live (Eaton Ford, Cambridgeshire) there are road signs clearly marking entry into the modern county. Yet in the past this place was in Bedfordshire. People I know do not normally think in terms of Bedfordshire, they believe Eaton Ford (and St Neots of which it forms a part) are in Cambridgeshire. (St Neots itself used to be in Huntingdonshire.)

They are supported in this view by articles in the local papers, the signs on the public library, and many other signs and notices around town. If they check the OS map or the normal form of the postal address for their house or a local business - Cambridgeshire.

I really think it makes sense for encyclopaedia articles about places to state that they are in the county most people expect. To claim, especially in the lead section, that they are elsewhere is to degrade the value of Wikipedia and confuse our readers. By all means the history, confusing name changes, and the boundary changes can be explained in the main part of the article, and this would be much easier if a single county article existed and could be referred to.

There is a raging discussion going on right now in various places. Look at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places) for a start, but also see the talk pages of many British towns, the various contributor's talk pages, and others.

If the UK Geography Project is to succeed, we must takle the issues around this debate and agree a policy that all will adhere to. One of the biggest obstacles is that not everyone involved in the discussion is willing to abide by a majority vote in the event of failure to reach consensus. I am very, very troubled by this, and I fear for the future of UK geography articles if we do not bite this particular bullet. Please read some of the arguments and make your views known. Thanks, Chris Jefferies 21:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

PS - When I say 'make your views known', I don't mean here. I suggest taking the debate to the Naming Conventions page and if you wish, briefly mentioning here that you have done so. Chris Jefferies 21:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Can I just point out briefly that just because some people believe something to be true does not make it so! There are border signs on leaving Blackpool that say "Welcome to Lancashire". There is a border on the M4 heading eastwards that says "Wiltshire", yet in the exact same place in the opposite direction there is nothing. There is a sign on the M77 on entering Ayrshire that says "Ayrshire". Border signs are a mess! Furthermore, the correct postal address doesn't include a county, so people can put whatever they like there. For the avoidance of doubt though, the Royal Mail have traditional county information on file for every UK address: Type in "9, PE19 7AF" into http://www.capscan.co.uk/mcd5demo.htm and see what it says in the "Traditional county" field. If people didn't care then why bother providing it? Owain 13:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The "Traditional County" field is included in current software, because the Royal Mail used to make the postal county required for most places.

Can I add, at this point, that there are also problems within Cheshire. In Cheshire there is a district known in all the council material as City of Chester which extends over a large non-metropolitan area and includes many towns and villages that do not consider themselves part of the actual, central city called Chester. They have separate wikipedia entries, as I think is entirely appropriate. Myself and another editor have made a start on trying to sort this out by using small notes at the top of each wikipedia entry to direct people to the appropriate entry, but in the absence of anything else, it seems we may be lumbered with this potentially confusing situation. I have already had to shift material that would be better placed in one entry into the other, and I do not see this as being the only case where this will have to be done. _DDS talk 01:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish districts

Stirling (district)

[edit] Welsh county boroughs

Wrexham (county borough)

[edit] Anomalies

City and District of St Albans

[edit] Infobox

Mark II infobox for comments. Changes since Mark I:

wider, and no small font, giving generally cleaner appearance.
- No no no no no. It is already at the point that the info-box has eaten most of the page - even on my 1600.1200 display. The exampler infoboxes to the left have images in them which are 336px wide .. meaing the table is getting on for what? 360px wide. How much of a typical user's 800.600 display is left, if we factor in gutters and the left side navigation column? Why do the maps and especially the coats of arms need to be so massive?. --Tagishsimon
'Borders on' removed as untidy clutter. To be placed in body text of article.
additional information (codes and rankings) similar to those in use for other countries.
table relates basically to the Ceremonial county, only areas and populations are given for the Administrative county and more clearly noted. No data is shown relating to traditional counties as none is available.

--Keith Edkins 11:39, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mark II infobox has now been implemented throughout. --Keith Edkins 08:26, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So now we need to start on the districts. ;)

The London boroughs currently have inconsistent infoboxes that I never got around to finishing. Morwen - Talk 08:28, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Can anyone explain satisfactorily why we have two county infoboxes for some counties. OK, I understand that one is for ceremonial counties and the other is for administrative counties, but why can't we have one county infobox with links to all the county articles. After all, we are supposed to have a single article for each county, not two (or more) for the various incarnations of each.

I'm puzzled, but I'm also troubled as this practice makes the county articles look unwieldy and confusing. Chris Jefferies 18:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

To repeat what I said on Talk:Cambridgeshire: You're always going to have different infoboxes for things with different relationships. E.g. the Rutland article has three infoboxes at the bottom, because Rutland exists in three 'namespaces'. All three are consolidated into one article (which is good) and the various relationships with other entities are listed separately and clearly (which is also good). It would be impossible to explain it all in one infobox anyway. Owain 11:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maps

A little hint: If geographical coordinates are included in the articles using these guidelines, then the articles may now have immediate access to maps from the Ordnance Survey, as well as a range of other maps and aerial imaging resources. See London Heathrow Airport for an example. -- Egil 12:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed InfoBoxes for Districts and Unitaries

All now completed. --Keith Edkins 22:34, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Unitary

City of Leicester

Geography
Status:	Unitary and City (1919)
Region:	East Midlands
Ceremonial County:	Leicestershire
Area: - Total	Ranked 276th 73.32 km²
Admin. HQ:	Leicester
ONS code:	00FN
Demographics
Population: - Total (2002 est.) - Density	Ranked 21st 283,578 3,868 / km²
Ethnicity:	63.9% White 29.9% S.Asian 3.1% Afro-Carib.
Politics
Leicester City Council http://www.leicester.gov.uk/
Leadership:	Leader & Cabinet
Executive:	Liberal Democrats + Conservative
MPs:	Keith Vaz, Jim Marshall

[edit] District

North West Leicestershire District
Shown within Leicestershire
Geography
Status:	Non-metropolitan district
Region:	East Midlands
Admin. County:	Leicestershire
Area: - Total	Ranked 163rd 279.33 km²
Admin. HQ:	Coalville
ONS code:	31UH
Demographics
Population: - Total (2002 est.) - Density	Ranked 263rd 86,576 310 / km²
Ethnicity:	98.8% White
Politics
North West Leicestershire District Council http://www.nwleics.gov.uk/
Leadership:	Leader & Cabinet
Executive:	Labour
MP:	David Taylor

[edit] Metropolitans

City of Wolverhampton
Shown within West Midlands
Geography
Status:	Metropolitan borough, City (2000)
Region:	West Midlands
Ceremonial County:	West Midlands
Area: - Total	Ranked 281st 69.44 km²
Admin. HQ:	Wolverhampton
ONS code:	00CW
Demographics
Population: - Total (2002 est.) - Density	Ranked 44th 239,358 3,447 / km²
Ethnicity:	77.8% White 14.3% S.Asian 4.6% Afro-Carib.
Politics
Wolverhampton City Council http://www.wolverhampton.gov.uk/
Leadership:	Leader & Cabinet
Executive:	Labour
MPs:	Ken Purchase, Dennis Turner

[edit] London boroughs

Completed July 15, 2004

City of Westminster
Shown within Greater London
Geography
Status:	London borough, City (1540)
Area: - Total	Ranked 346th 21.48 km²
ONS code:	00BK
Demographics
Population: - Total (2002 est.) - Density	Ranked 72nd 190,631 8,875 / km²
Ethnicity:	73.2% White 8.9% S.Asian 7.4% Afro-Carib. 2.2% Chinese
Politics
Westminster London Borough Council http://www.westminster.gov.uk
Leadership:	Leader & Cabinet
Executive:	Conservative
MPs:	Karen Buck, Mark Field
London Assembly: - Member	West Central London - Angie Bray