Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography

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

Shortcut
What's new

Redirects for discussion

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Did you know? articles[edit]

Newlyn Tidal Observatory (2023-11-20) • Godalming (2023-09-20) • Reigate (2023-09-10) • Woking (2023-03-18) • Jarn Mound (2022-12-09)

Reached maximum of 5 out of 299

Featured pictures[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) • 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)

Wards[edit]

There has been some discussion on the inclusion criteria for wards, see User talk:Davidstewartharvey#Westborough Ward as well as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 29#Wards v settlements, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 10#Proposed deletion of all articles on local government subdivisions wards, divisions etc. and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chalkwell Ward. @Davidstewartharvey, Onel5969, Keith D, Eopsid, Sparkle1, Editing with Eric, Rjensen, RexxS, DuncanHill, Sionk, Mutt Lunker, Elmidae, Crowsus, Doktorbuk, Pigsonthewing, Ralbegen, Peter James, MapReader, Barkeep49, Mccapra, DELETEDUSER4562910, and Number 57: from these discussions.

The question is if wards are notable or not and if they should have separate articles from settlements or parishes of the same name. As we know counties have articles and are always notable like Essex, districts are always notable and generally have separate articles from the settlement of the same name like Maldon/Maldon District and parishes are always notable (except perhaps pre 1974 urban parishes) but are combined with a settlement of the same name like Waltham Abbey. However wards may not be considered notable like these per WP:GEOLAND as they don't have their own local government but to preform electoral roles. GEOLAND excludes things like census tracts but as was pointed out in the proposal to delete all wards that wards are not census tracts. I'll propose the list of options below about inclusion. Sometimes it may be best to decide on a case by case basis due to article size etc.

  • A, wards are treated as notable under WP:GEOLAND and considered legally recognized and should have separate articles from settlements of the same name namely Speke and Speke (Liverpool ward) are separate articles. This is similar to Parliament constituencies which always have separate articles even if the have the same name as a settlement or boundaries as a district.
    Arguments in favour, wards like constituencies have electoral roles and thus are likely to be considered legally recognized, the wards have census data and will often have an order to create or reform them. Because they tend to have contrived boundaries and change frequently unlike parishes which tend to remain stable for long periods and correspond to natural boundaries it may make them unsuitable to combine with settlements.
    Arguments against, many sources for them are primary sources and it doesn't appear they have the same importance as constituencies. Sources discussing the area etc that is more than trivial mentions may be hard come by. For urban ones in unparished areas often there is no census data or other formal boundaries for suburbs that were newly built as part of the larger town as opposed to villages that were absorbed into the town.
  • B, wards are treated as notable but should be combined with settlements of the same name namely Chalkwell deals with the ward of the same name with the exception of those that have a parish of the same name with different boundaries for example Boxford parish[1] and Boxford ward[2] have different areas so should be split. This may also cover cases like Wampool where a ward is named after a hamlet which thus only has a tiny population compared to the ward.
    In favour, the more rural areas with parishes are more distinct and already have data for the parish which suggests splitting may be a good idea. As noted for recently built suburbs there may be no other formal boundaries etc so using the ward boundaries even if unstable or they exclude part of the suburb may be more effective.
    Against, it may still be more effective to cover wards in governance or "ward" sections of parish articles.
  • C, wards are treated as notable but should be combined with settlements of the same name namely Chalkwell deals with the ward of the same name. Unlike B this also includes those with parishes with the same name but different boundaries. Like with Scotforth/Scotforth (parish) we would create separate articles if the ward excludes all of the suburb of which Brockley may fall into.
    In favour, as mentioned it may be more effective to cover wards in settlement/parish articles especially if there isn't much content in the articles.
    Against, as mentioned in the Castle Hill discussion ward facts may be unsuitable due to the instability and arbitrary nature of boundaries.
  • D, wards are not presumed notable and must pass WP:GNG in order to be notable and otherwise should be merged into related articles or deleted.
    In favour, as mentioned many independent sources that would show notability are often difficult to find.
    Against, as noted wards like constituencies have electoral roles and thus are likely to be considered notable.

Discussion[edit]

Please case you're !votes and other discission here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think wards come under WP:GEOLAND 2. Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it. The smallest British legally recognised division is a parish. Wards are just sub divisions, unless they meet GNG and meet Wikipedia:V, should be either deleted or merged into the main article (i.e. parish). In the case of Westborough Ward and Milton Ward both are primary sourced, and without any secondary refs, in fact all the election data is unreferenced. In the case of Westborough this can easily fit into the Westcliff-on-Sea article as it is within its legally recognised borders defined in the local plan, however Milton falls within both Southend on Sea and Westcliff-on-Sea. Therefore I would vote d based on the above.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • D. First of all thank you User:Crouch, Swale for setting out a number of options. Obviously wards are populated but I wouldn't describe them "settlements" as such. A ward might cover a single settlement; some might cover more than one settlement; others might cover part of a settlement. Ward names and boundaries can frequently change. In most cases they are names given to areas containing roughly an equal number of voters within a local government district or parish and used for local government elections. They are not areas used for local governance, so my interpretation is they do not have the legal recognition required for presumed notability under GEOLAND. There are articles that have election results going back over many years, which some readers likely find of interest. The problem is they largely consist of data i.e. the election result and boundary changes, though there could be commentary but it hasn't been included in the article. The problem with these is they would not make a suitable merge to the same-named article on the settlement because of UNDUE weight e.g. Allerton (Liverpool ward) and Allerton, Liverpool. I think it's preferable wards are treated on a case-by-case basis under the GNG. Although we're discussing the UK here, I think we also need to consider that wards exist in other countries and ask ourselves why UK wards should have presumed notability, when those in other countries appear not to have. Rupples (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • D, but the whole topic of wards seems to be distinctly inconsistent at present. If wards are of interest to readers, I would think a list of wards for any given council would be an asset. Looking at the two cities cited above, there is no list of the wards of Southend, as far as I can see, while there is a list at Liverpool_City_Council#Council_wards. Do we expect readers to look for wards? There is an article Dingle (Liverpool ward), but it is not mentioned in Dingle (disambiguation). There is City Centre North (Liverpool ward), but no redirect from City Centre North. There is no entry for Lancaster Rural North, in which I vote. It would be helpful if it was a redirect to Lancashire County Council, and if there was a list of wards there. Ah, I now find List of electoral wards in Lancashire (by following a link at the bottom of the "Council elections in Lancashire" navbox): why isn't it mentioned in the article on the council, which just tells me there are 82 divisions? Why aren't there redirects from the ward names? PamD 22:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Pam. Definitely agree if we were to have wards, Lists are probably the way forward. Someone started to think about it, as there are Categories set up Category:Electoral wards of Southend-on-Sea but as some wards have not been set up, they don't appear.
    Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now linked List of electoral wards in Lancashire#County council as a "See also" from Lancashire County Council#Elections, which seems a useful connection. PamD 16:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
D. Not independently notable, much too subject to change, often retaining the same name but with different CPs, even neighbourhoods. Belong as subsections in the relevant LA page. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
D. I've noticed a few wards pages as I've been working on the pages for districts and elections, and I've always thought they're an odd thing to have pages for. Whilst not census tracts in terms of WP:GEOLAND, they are analogous to them. The boundaries are reviewed every few years because the overarching objective is electoral equality, not community identity. Even where they share a name with a geographic community (village / suburb etc.), the ward will only rarely and co-incidentally be a good fit for the community. A page about a ward is therefore inherently contrived - there's not much you can say about it other than the election results, which can be quite adequately covered on the local authority elections pages. Stortford (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A As the policy states, populated, legally recognised places are notable. Wards are established by acts of Parliament/Statutory Instruments so they are legally recognised. If consensus is against independent notability, then GEOLAND would need to be changed to reflect that. I agree a lot with what Pam says re lists of wards. That would probably be the most useful focus before seeking to develop individual articles which may well become redundant depending on list quality. This isn't just an issue for the UK though. There are wards articles for Brisbane City Council, Ottawa City Council and Toronto City Council (these are ones that I know of, there may well be others). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • D Wards are subject to change at Boundary Commission reviews. As the Boundary Commission's boilerplate text says in their consultations and recommendations, When carrying out an electoral review the Commission has three main considerations: • Improving electoral equality by equalising the number of electors that each councillor represents. • Ensuring that the recommendations reflect community identity. • Providing arrangements that support effective and convenient local government. Our task is to strike the best balance between these three considerations when making our recommendations. To do this the BC will adjust boundaries and the numbers of councillors for wards, and even listen to local opinions about ward names, but it's impossible to find an appropriate number of communities of suitable sizes to satisfy all three considerations. As a result, communities and wards are not coterminous and though residents may engage with their councillors, it's questionable whether they feel any identity with their ward, see it as defining their community, or regard the boundaries as anything but arbitrary and changeable. The significance of the wards is that they return councillors, of which there are about 20,000 in England alone[3] - those councillors are not inherently notable and neither are the wards that elect them. NebY (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • D Wards are arbitrary and keep changing. So articles would not be particularly useful and would require a lot of maintenance. JonH (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • D - GNG trumps everything and I'm generally against notability criteria for different types of subjects in general on the basis of WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP. WaggersTALK 15:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A - having read GEOLAND again properly, and checked Geographical feature to make sure wards conform to the definition, I find Stevie fae Scotland's rationale above compelling. Wards should be assumed notable. On that basis I'm happy with option B but I think the encyclopaedic information about a ward (e.g. past elections, councillors, etc.) would interfere with the flow of an article about a settlement or parish, so A it is. WaggersTALK 07:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak C they don't appear to be census tracts and can be useful for merging other NN articles to like what seems to have been done for the wards in Bristol which is a county, district and single unparished area. In larger unparished areas especially if they are the same as a district wards may be a useful breakdown however I agree they change a lot and aren't like parishes etc so I'm not strongly saying they are inherently notable and it looks like consensus is against it anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of wards[edit]

The wife of the MP elected today is a councillor for Tyldesley ward. Not Tyldesley town, nor Tyldesley (ward) which is a Wigan ward, but Tyldesley ward of the Borough of Blackpool. In each election article such as 2023 Blackpool Council election there is a list of the results, ward by ward, such as 2023 Blackpool Council election#Tyldesley. But there is no list of wards in the Borough of Blackpool article, though I have just now added a section "Wards" in order to make a useful link to List of electoral wards in Lancashire#Blackpool, and also made a link from Blackpool Council#Elections, and added this ward to the Tyldesley dab page even though it only gets that list entry (with sources). It would be useful to have a list of wards, and, ideally a map of them, in each article on an admin unit which has wards (should it be the borough/district/county, or the council?). But we don't seem to do this very systematically (of course). PamD 16:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

County flags: discussion 1[edit]

This discussion is primarily about which flags we include in the county articles. 'County articles' can be interpreted broadly to include the various county-level administrative subdivisions and the ceremonial/lieutenancy divisions across the United Kingdom. The overarching purpose is to decide whether we can create a consistent inclusion criteria for county flags, and if so whether this should be formalised as a guideline.

There are two issues which we could do with clarifying. The first is what to do about flags which have some recognition, but which are not in widespread use. This is closely related to the Flag Institute and its UK Flag Registry, which is our source for many county flags; although it has registered flags for many counties, they're not all widely used. Does a county flag belong in a given county article if it isn't actually flown in that county?

The second issue is how to handle flags which represent a different area to that which the article is about, for example where an English ceremonial county article also covers the historic county. Flag Institute flags, in particular, explicitly represent the historic counties rather than the current ones. The solution seems obvious – just specify the type of county a flag represents in the body text and image caption – but it would be good to gain consensus on this.

Let the discussion begin! A.D.Hope (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion A: flag inclusion[edit]

  • Comment, I think there should be two criteria on whether to include a flag. A verifiable source of a flag's design, in which a source like the Flag Institute can verify the flag's design (most flag images here are USERGEN, so needs verification) very clearly as they provide a detailed image of it, and another source showing what the flag is used for and if it is in public use. The Flag Institute alone is not enough, nor are some flag databases. Considering many flags have articles of their own, we could use those as a basis to see if these flags meet GNG. So if it has an article, use the flag (similar in how people are "notable"). Although many flag articles are barebones, and may not actually meet GNG. DankJae 09:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A 'double test' such as that could work well, yes. Giving the current flag articles an audit to see which meet GNC using the above criteria may be a good place to start. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion B: flag areas[edit]

General discussion[edit]

I see flags as relatively harmless, and I'd give them attention appropriate to the level of local adoption they have. In areas where you often see the flag when out and about (e.g. Cornwall, Devon, Northumberland) they probably warrant a bit more discussion. In other areas (I'm regularly in Berkshire but don't think I've ever seen its flag flying in the wild), less attention is probably due, although I'd still mention it briefly and include an image if there was some involvement from locals in producing it. I haven't looked into the background to all the county flags, but if there are any modern creations which have only been adopted by an unofficial enthusiasts' body like the Flag Institute, perhaps not worth mentioning.

I'd also bear in mind that most of the county pages are in fact multi-purpose - the Essex page covers the various definitions of the county, including its historic, non-metropolitan and ceremonial definitions, despite there being territorial differences between those definitions. (I don't like how prominently the article insists on it being a "ceremonial county" in the lead when the article also covers the other definitions - sounds like we're having to use the qualifier because it isn't any other kind of county, which isn't true - but that's a wider discussion.) For such multi-purpose articles, I'd be happy to see the flag included even if it strictly speaking was only adopted for one of the definitions, with appropriate caption or footnote to clarify. If it's only the Flag Institute who says it doesn't apply to a particular definition, I'd treat that restriction as being their view but not binding - in my own home county of Hertfordshire the county flag is routinely flown outside County Hall, and I suspect the county council would be non-plussed at a suggestion that it needs a footnote under it saying ignore this if you're from Potter Bar or the northern bits of Royston. Stortford (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd generally agree with Stortford above. The constant addition and removal of the flags from the few county articles I follow a bit tiresome, to be honest, and I'm not really convinced by the argument that "the article is about this particular definition of the county, whereas the flag applies to this definition" – the articles generally cover all definitions of the county in question. For the record, the Derbyshire flag (where I live) is fairly well known and well used. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On your first paragraph, it's worth mentioning that a lot of the county flags are modern creations; some only really exist in the Flag Institute's registry, others have been adopted more widely. The dates they were created can usually be found through the Flag Institute itself or British County Flags. I am a bit sceptical of some of the Institute's dates, but their veracity can be considered on an article-by-article basis; we're more concerned with the overall principle.
I broadly agree with your second paragraph, which echoes what I wrote above. When a flag is included we should clarify the area it's supposed to represent. For Hertfordshire, I believe this would mean explaining that the flag is the county council's banner of arms, which it has released for general use. This presumably means that it represents the area of the non-metropolitan county governed by Hertfordshire County Council. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Modern history of defining metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom"[edit]

Can I propose an article called something along the lines of "Modern history of defining metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom". I only know 2001 and 2011 statistic info for the other nations and bits about London’s story so anybody knowing more can you please point me to some information that could fit.

This proposed article could have a section about and linking to England’s metropolitan counties, maybe starting that with a bit on the Redcliffe-Maud Report then about the abolition of county councils. Then the article moves on to 2001 with ONS urban areas and ESPON metropolitan areas. It then moves on to 2011 ONS built-up areas, it is then pointed out that 2021 ONS didn’t/haven’t yet released an equivalent to 2011 urban areas and 2011 built-up areas, only opting for only the equivalent to the smaller defined areas used in 2011. The article could then go on about the start of combined authorities with metro mayors. Then a section about progression of combined authority devolution with new legislation introduced for combined county authorities which haven’t started to be created yet.

Please put agree, disagree and or comment in bold as to what you think if you would like to share your thoughts. Chocolateediter (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of ONS built-up areas in England by population for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of ONS built-up areas in England by population is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ONS built-up areas in England by population until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New GSS template[edit]

Would there be much support for a combined GSS template to replace the separate English, Scottish, Welsh and NI district and county templates listed here?

Having just updated them all, it's driven home what a pain in the bum they are to maintain. They draw their information from the same source.[1] But process it in needlessly different ways.

And a combined template also has the flexibility to include any area with a GSS code which the ONS includes in its population stats, including the UK, the nations, regions, and perhaps the city regions if/when the ONS eventually includes them.

My suggested fields would be:

  • GSS population
  • GSS area
  • GSS density
  • GSS year
  • GSS reference

For the rank fields, we can either keep them separate or else have combined fields but separate the data within the template. The latter is straight forward enough if you're familiar with the templates. The GSS codes are helpfully separated first by letter (E for England, S for Scotland etc.) And then use different codes depending on the type of area e.g. E12 is a region, E08 is a metropolitan borough etc.

It wouldn't be necessary to go through and remove all the old template references. The old templates can be updated to point at the new GSS templates. E.g. | E09000016 = {GSS population|E09000016}

The ceremonial county templates would need to stay as they're not included the ONS publication. Dgp4004 (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ "Mid-Year Population Estimates, UK, June 2022". Office for National Statistics. 26 March 2024. Retrieved 3 May 2024.

District template[edit]

Can a template be created that is similar to Template:RWS that links to a district by typing the short name, for example {{lgd|Stafford}} would go to the Borough of Stafford artcle. Maybe this could have a parameter:

  • none = would link to the borough, Stafford
  • 1 = linking to the council article, Stafford Borough Council
  • 2 = Stafford borough
  • 3 = Borough of Stafford
  • 4 = Stafford (Staffordshire)

The template could automatically retrieve if it is a district, borough, city, etc.

I might try myself to do it, no clue how to but I can learn if somebody is able to help. Chocolateediter (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consistency with article naming, like there is for "X railway station". We can link straight to the intended article. I'm not sure there is a problem to be solved here. Rcsprinter123 (collogue) 23:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a problem to solve but a suggested tool for editors so that if you want to link to a specific district but don’t want to find for example if five of them are metropolitan boroughs, five use district and one has (unitary authority) in their article name.
They is a consistent use of piping these often 4 or 5 titles to a single word to merit the template’s creation. The railway station links also tend to do simular piping, that is the whole point of the stnlnk/ rws template. Unless the stnlnk template needs, in some users’ eyes, be removed and everybody forced to link to the exact title, removing the whole redirect concept.
The fact that they is less consistent naming of articles makes it worse to find the right link and an even more useful a template to create. The parameter can come along later for varying the display name.
I created redirects so that all the Local government districts (LGD) can be easier to find for building the template and maybe for the template to use, until then these are shorter and consistent link format for piping. Local government district redirects to the Districts of England article so I thought LGD would fit as a short template name as district goes to the international article. If England only uses the term local government district then LGD seems an appropriate and consistent acronym for a template.
I was a bit pushy with changing established links though sorry about that. Chocolateediter (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Too risky! As Rcsprinter says, there's no consistency in naming, or at least not enough (and trying to enforce naming consistency to make the template work would not be universally welcomed). Also, we don't have articles on every variant and some articles may be about another place of that name. So to use the template safely, you have to confirm the target, in which case you can aim straight at it anyway. NebY (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what problem thus is trying to solve, really. PamD 03:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you have long-ish lists you have to think which is which borough, city or (district) when linking and a lot of the time you just want the short name. Could go through and create a consistent redirect for all districts but the parameter would be quite good to set for example to show the county.
As I said I have no clue how to make a template so I’d need talking through it. No worries if no body can be bothered, it’s just a suggestion. If anybody wants to do it and not teach me that would be great as I can be lazy, but then again I think I might create redirects anyways. Chocolateediter (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've already created nearly 150 redirects,[4] such as London LGD, redirecting to City of London. You might do well to discuss your approach to creating such redirects here, in case there are concerns that their naming and/or targeting might direct readers inappropriately when searching. Broadly speaking, the convenience of an editor creating list articles must be secondary to the experience of readers. NebY (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That illustrates the point very well, because the local authority for London could just as validly (and with a lot more power) be the Greater London Authority. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So the editor making the list needs to check the dab page or primary topic to make sure they choose the right link to make (UK, current, if that is what they need) PamD 06:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13 concerning three of the "foo LGD" redirects that have been created, and I have asked there how the other 282 may be best considered, procedurally. NebY (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that all 282 redirects have now been bundled into that discussion. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 14:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography&oldid=1224798142"