User:Crouch, Swale/England

This mainly deals with settlements and administrative divisions in England. This also mainly deals with notability and where NN topics should be redirected to, for more general information on content and MOS see Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements. This is mainly for discussing parishes, settlements and wards since district and county discussions can take place at the districts and counties projects.

Units

England, the country

Greater London is also about the region called "London" it might be possible to split this to London (region) since the county doesn't include the City of London. However since the difference is small it might be better to retain only 1 article.

Bristol is about the county/UA as well as the city. The county appears to generally be smaller than the settlement however only 1 article exists because the boundaries are long standing. Isle of Wight is also about the county and the difference is only of The Needles than the island. Shropshire is also about the district that was created in 2009, not just the entire county, that is to say also Telford and Wrekin. It might be possible to create an article at Shropshire (district) (or Shropshire (unitary authority)) like Dorset (unitary authority). Note that in cases where there are two-tier administrative counties such as Devon (where Plymouth and Torbay are separate UAs) splits probably shouldn't be done per WP:UKCOUNTIES.

Harlow, Cheltenham, Exeter and Corby are about the districts as well as the counties. With Harlow the boundaries are similar to the settlement and long standing, with Cheltenham although the boundaries are recent the settlements that were incorporated are part of the settlement (though some of their parishes aren't really though are part of the ONS BUA) so probably also shouldn't be split. Although Topsham is a separate BUASD it was added to Exeter in 1966 before the 1974 reform so a split might not be desirable. Corby's boundaries date from 1974 and the BUASD is the same as the unparished area and therefore probably should be split. These can be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about districts.

Are wards notable? If so should they be split when they are named after a settlement?

Civil parishes

Civil parishes normally don't have separate articles from their settlements their named after when they have the same name (such as Polstead) or even when they are an alternative name (such as Aston upon Trent/Aston-on-Trent) but in cases where the name is not an alternative name but a distinct name (such as Burcombe Without) then separate articles should exist. There are some case like Hinton Parva/Stanbridge and Theydon Garnon/Coopersale where they might have been alternative names in the past but it can be seen from current maps that their 2 different places. In cases like Scotforth where the CP doesn't include the settlement separate articles should exist. Note that for the purpose of "civil parish" this also includes unparished areas, see User:Crouch, Swale/List of unparished areas. Generally abolished parishes should not be merged with their current parish per WP:NTEMP and WP:DEFUNCTS.

District, county and touching parishes (from OS for current parishes), former parishes should state what parish/unparished area they now lie in
Settlements in the parish (and any other features) this is especially important if the parish was formed from other "settlement" parishes such as Rushbrooke with Rougham
Population (from Nomis or City Population) for some small parishes population data isn't published on those websites in which case use Vision of Britain as well as for former parishes (use the latest population figure there) see Scrainwood for example, St Peter, Hertfordshire lists all the figures which maybe we could also
Number of listed buildings, in some cases a separate lists already exists and should be linked (example Stapleton, Cumbria/Listed buildings in Stapleton, Cumbria)
Name origin from Key to English Place-names note that this will usually only contain historic settlement parishes rather than new parishes but if a parish called "Foo" is named after "Great Foo" and "Little Foo" then sometimes the origin of the name "Foo" can be found
Boundary changes, this is especially important if the parish was formed from a merger of "settlement" parishes or former parishes, Vision of Britain shows older ones, LGBCE shows more recent ones

Creation and maintenance

Q1

Should the articles be created manually, semi automatically or with a bot?
Should we create templates (like {{English district population}}) for parishes?
Should the data be transcended?
Should the data be added/updated by a bot?
Create in draftspace
Produce lists of missing articles for a said county when someone wants them

A1

Some kind of automated way of maintaining/adding to existing articles would be far easier than adding manually and would probably result in less errors. Bots creating the articles could easily add the population, location/touching parishes and listed buildings but could probably not add boundary changes and Domesday Book. A list of missing articles in a said county could be useful if someone is interested in a particular county so that they can create the missing articles.

Splits

When a parish has the same name as a settlement (or a place falling below a settlement) when should we create a separate article for the parish? Note that this doesn't include cases like Corfe Castle/Corfe Castle (village) (where village and parish are in 1 article but another feature has a different article namely the castle) and Exmoor and Exmoor (civil parish) (where there is no settlement or place falling below one).

Q2

A, always have only 1 article and don't cover the settlement in the parish its actually in (if different like Whitchurch) but rather in the parish named after it's article
B, when the parish doesn't include the settlement at all such as Scotforth [1] where the suburb is in Lancaster unparished area and Whitchurch [2] where the village is in Tavistock[3]
C, when most or a large amount of the settlement isn't in the parish such as Goosnargh [4][5] where the newer part is in Whittingham and Catterall [6][7] where the newer part is in Claughton [8] in both of these cases the settlements are ONS BUAs (C) but this question mainly relates to those that aren't BUAs (if there are any)
D, when the ONS BUA is different to the parish (in most cases the BUA is smaller than the parish) such as Boxford [9][10] (in the case of Boxford it includes 3 hamlets but this includes cases where the parish's settlement is the only one) but sometimes larger such as Sudbury where the town includes the settlement of Great Cornard [11] but excludes Brundon [12]
E, when the parish absorbed other parishes such as Halvergate that absorbed Tunstall [13], less weight should be given to those that weren't settlements, those that are now suburbs of the current CP's settlement and those that were originally part of the CP but were split and later merged such as Scrainwood that was a township in Alnham parish[14] then became a separate parish and was later merged back into Alnham[15]
F, when the parish council has a specific name such as Publow [16] where the parish council is called "Publow with Pensford Parish Council"
G, when the parish includes other villages such as Dacre [17] (note that Stainton is a separate BUA[18] even though Dacre isn't but this also includes cases where none of the settlements are BUAs), similarly for Bere Ferrers [19] both Bere Ferrers [20] (or at least was) and Bere Alston [21] are BUAs
H, when the parish includes other hamlets such as Groton [22] includes 5 hamlets and Little Cornard [23] that also includes Workhouse Green
I, when the parish includes doesn't include other settlements but does include land (usually rural) clearly outside of the settlement such as Bolton [24] and Milden [25]
J, when the BUA is the same as the parish, in the case of Witham [26][27]
K, when the settlement has the same area as the parish^{[example needed]}

A2

Generally use B, some further down might be OK subject to editor discretion and A might be OK when there's so little to say about the settlement but in general not A. See Sankt Marienkirchen am Hausruck as a similar example where there is population data for both the settlement and administrative division yet there is only 1 article, the German Wikipedia (which is usually regarded as good quality and having strict inclusion guidelines) also does this as does most other projects.

B should generally be mandatory (providing the settlement is notable, Angerton and Campbell Park aren't actually OS settlements).
C might be acceptable providing C is also the case but maybe for the same reasons at at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK subdivisions/English districts#Principals with towns/cities larger than districts we maybe shouldn't split the links of Sudbury.
D might be acceptable but considering BUASDs change maintaining splits might be a headache.
E would probably be awkward since the names are the same so it would be difficult to disambiguate and it would create confusion. Presumably we might need to disambiguate as Halvergate (parish created in 1935) however such parishes are often later renamed to a specific name and in that case we could move all the post 1935 content when such a rename takes place.
F would similarly be awkward if a merge had taken place however sometimes in such cases they are naturally disambiguated to the council's name (minus "Parish Council") such as Publow with Pensford.
G would probably not be a good idea if there's no population data for the settlement and its logical to have only 1 article when the names of the settlement and parish are the same given the long standing boundaries.
H would be even more problematic since hamlets are rarely spoken of and many don't have separate articles anyway.
I would be worse still if there is only rural land other than the settlement.
J would be redundant.
K would be duplication.

When the parish is named after a place that isn't a settlement (such as Egglestone Abbey) there should usually be separate articles but its probably OK to have just 1 article if there isn't much to say about the feature (see WP:NOPAGE) unless (like Scotforth) the parish excludes the feature and if the feature still isn't notable it could be merged with the parish its actually in or alternatively covered in the parish of the same name. When a settlement is named after another notable feature such as Corfe Castle/Corfe Castle (village) the settlement article should also be for the parish providing it isn't split in accordance with the settlement criteria.

Merges

Q3

Asside from cases of alternative names (like the Aston example) when should a parish be merged with a settlement (such as Burcombe Without and Holmwood) when it has a different name?

A3

No unless perhaps the settlement and parish have the same boundaries. If the settlement and parish have different names then we should have 2 articles for these different topics. If there are some that people feel shouldn't have separate articles then we can create those then people are fine with then debate those that aren't. Per Wikipedia:Every snowflake is unique its reasonable to have separate articles if the settlement and parish have different names, this seems a reasonable compromise from having separate articles for settlement and parish (like in Q2) even when they have the same name and having only 1 article even when the names of village and parish are different.

Include in

Q4 When a settlement or other type of place is deemed non-notable where should it be merged to when parished are merged? For example Nedging Tye is now located in Nedging-with-Naughton but when Nedging was a separate parish is was in that parish even though its not part of the village. If the "Nedging Tye" article was merged would it be merged with the Nedging article or the Nedging-with-Naughton article? When a place is part of the settlement it should probably be included there such as a church or other building would be included in the settlement (or possibly a listed buildings list). Corby Hill is part of Warwick Bridge [28] settlement even though its in Hayton[29] parish (the rest of Warwick Bridge is in Wetheral [30] parish) so if Corby Hill was merged it should be to the Warwick Bridge article rather than the Hayton article.

A4 Unsure but as long as the boundaries can be verified (usually from Vision of Britain) then its usually preferable to have info in the lowest possible article. However it might be awkward to merge things into settlement/former CP articles when the thing being merged isn't part of the settlement.

Settlements

Q5

A Is a settlement notable as long as its an OS settlement? Check by searching on Geograph or checking List of United Kingdom locations such as Calais Street [31].
B Is a settlement notable if it was a township such as Brunstock? Is it required to have a stated population from Vision of Britain? [32] What happens if its isn't an OS settlement?
C Is a settlement notable if its in the Domesday Book such as Undley [33], again what if its not an OS settlement like Gulpher [34]?
D Is a settlement notable if its an ONS BUA like Dudley [35], again what if its not an OS settlement like Higham Park [36]?

A5

If a place isn't an administrative unit or OS settlement then it is probably not notable unless significant coverage can be found see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White City, Colchester for example. OS settlements that aren't otherwise legally recognized should be considered on a case by case basis and merged/redirected as with #Include in if appropriate.