This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I see that you are an experienced map maker, hence why I am turning to you. Just like the previous user, above (co-incidence!) I would like some help "defining boundaries", but of a different sort :-)
How do you define the geographic coordinates of a map on Wikipedia/Wikimedia so that you can put geolocation pogs on it? I’ll just give you a concrete example – at the top of this article is a map with pogs, which are placed by geo-coordinates. However, for these pogs to know where they should go, someone must have already programmed the original map to know where its cardinal points are – yet, even looking at the source code for the map I can’t see those coordinates. Yes, it’s written in plaintext what the coordinates are, but where is the programming language version of those coordinates?
Sorry if I’ve described it too complexly out of ignorance! To save you unnecessary explanations, you could just point me to an explanation page for this, if there is one, but I’ve been unable to find one. Thanks in advance! BigSteve (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd noticed that, but still could not figure out how to use it. I'd read through it (and w:Template:Location map+, and w:Template:Location map~...) but couldn't make head or tail of how to enter their coordinates in the original file pages so that the pogs will fit when used in an article.
Wait! to save you too much explanation...does that mean I have to create a new template page with my new map and somehow link it to the file page of the same map? BigSteve (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Cheers again! I'll give it a few sandbox go's before I try it for real. Take care for now and I'll knock again if I need to :-) BigSteve (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
That looks fine to me... all you need to do now is save it and maybe refresh the page. The error is normal - the functionality does not work right until its saved.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Wow, that's...crazy. I've never seen that happen before!
Just want to point out that my request for the deletion of THIS REDIRECT is because the image is of both sides of a single medal and not two medals. I am the original uploader and the main proofreader of the project on Wikisource. — Ineuw18:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I was aware of that - the file should only be used on wiki, clearly stating its a single medal, and the redirect should be unused on wikimedia. Rationale for retention of the redirect is it may be in use outside Wikimedia projects, and any backlinks from that shouldn't be broken. Medals->Medal isn't particularly misleading IMO, especially as file description makes the situation clear. So, as is normal for a renamed file, there is no real harm from having the redirect and potential for minor benefits.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
Love the work on all the maps generated from OS Open Data. Planning to use some to annotate communities and electoral divisions in Torfaen, then the rest of Gwent (all unitary authorities in the preserved county), then the world... Robevans123 (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2013! Please help with this survey.
Dear Nilfanion,
Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2013, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again a few minutes of your time.
Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 365,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 50 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place.
You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet).
If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help.
To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2013.
Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey!
Dear Nilfanion,
Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey. Your answers will help us improve the organization of future photo contests!
In case you haven't filled in the questionnaire yet, you can still do so during the next 7 days.
And by the way: the winning pictures of this year's international contest have been announced. Enjoy!
Thanks for saying that. As you can tell from my recent contribs, I haven't had have much time to spend on Commons lately - and FP/QI/VI nominations have been a low priority for me (think last time was back in 2011). Cat work and getting uploads done uses up most of my time.
If you want to nominate that image for VI, or any of my other images for similar, feel free to go ahead - I'll appreciate notification as courtesy.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nilfanion, I've nominated three of your images at QI: 1, 2, and 3. I'll probably end up nominating 2 and 3 at VI at some point as they really are excellent pictures of Carisbrooke Castle's buildings. Nev1 (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Caerhayes Castle SE view. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Carisbrooke Castle chapel SE view. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Comment I think that image needs perspective correction, look to the right side of the church, it's not straight. Halavar (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Re this, no issue at all - I am of course fully aware that temporary sculptures are not FoP. However these specific uploads were not likely to have been made out of ignorance of that (and even if I didn't know that in 2011, I obviously know it now). But I can't actually even remember uploading these images at all. The best I can think of is that they were mistakenly uploaded when I was just figuring out the Flickr too - which is borne out by the fact I never touched them subsequently. Ultra7 (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
HIGxxx
As you probably saw, someone closed that DR. FWIW, I don't think the closure is right - as I see it, the ad is either DM and thus Commons shouldn't have to blur it, or it isn't and it should. Not sure where to go with this - issues of confusing/illogical/random DR closures seem wholly systemic with this place. Ultra7 (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd say closure is clear enough: "Its a bus picture. Blur the ad, its still a bus picture. Therefore its DM". I would point out if the ad was blurred the picture would be junk quality (like File:Stagecoach bus 19419 (MX58 FUA), Gorton, 4 April 2011.jpg is). See no reason to take that one further.
Your general comments, yes I agree somewhat there's a few major issues on Commons IMO:
Insufficient involvement by editors, and early closures by admins. The bus DR is an example: The closure is more "I think the ad is DM" than "on basis of discussion above, consensus is the ad is DM".
Language barrier - causes overly terse comments, or cause non-personal comments to be taken personally. Flip-side is that is used as an excuse to cover up personal attacks, as "innocence" can be claimed and not disproved easily.
Low admin count. One issue with this is when there are personality clashes. If an editor pisses off some of the highly active admins, its likely to impact on that editors interaction with admin corps as a whole - there aren't enough left who have no opinion. And on many things the admin corps gets divided into two camps, making any resolution impossible.
One thing I'd suggest to you is dial-back the tone a little. eg The last sentence of your initial comment on the DR was unnecessary. If it had been closed as delete and you weren't happy then, first stop is ask admin for clarification. You should get a more detailed answer - which may avoid need for UNDEL, or clarify the need for it. If you don't get a better answer, then there's an issue with the admin to take to the AN. Don't presume badness until badness happens; it looks needlessly antagonistic. That could well alienate others who have no gripes with you.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, I guess it could be read that way. Obviously I'm happy with that then, and obviously I disagree it would be junk, but we've covered that to death. As for the general points - 1. admins supervoting at DR appears to be accepted Commons policy, the issue I have is the lack of logic or accountability you often see; 2. Definitely; 3. Colin says it best - it's an inescapable truth that on a well run project, admins hold the office not only because they have the knowledge but also because they have the temperament and the people skills. And that last line was based on experience - badness does happen here, and in reality in my experience, it's practically impossible to get it rectified after the event, which is why I feel I have no option but to approach DR with 'all guns blazing', as it were. Ultra7 (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I meant the quality of the pic as of a bus with a blurred out ad would be junk (unless done with much greater care than on that Stagecoach bus which looks utterly unrealistic as a result), its much more usable as a pic of the bus without any "censorship".
I'd strongly suggest you avoid "all guns blazing" when possible. Yes, you are probably right in many cases that bad stuff will happen (unfortunately). But try not to present yourself as overly hostile in advance of anything untoward actually happening. It won't stop the badness, the other side can say "you started it", and it makes you look antagonistic to outsiders. None of those actually benefit you ultimately.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
ArchiveBot
Hi, I noticed you have set up User:MiszaBot to archive your talk page. Unfortunately, the bot has stopped working, and given how its operator is inactive, it is unclear when/if this will fixed. For the time being, I have volunteered to operate a MiszaBot clone (running the exact same code). With that said, your input would be appreciated at Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1. Regards, FASTILY07:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm working on an educational videogame with which I'm trying to build a bridge between animal awareness and Pokemon fans among others. It started out as something small and I contacted you before, but it's getting bigger and more professional and I wanted to make sure you were still ok with it.
Also, because I want to make sure there's no misunderstanding, you are the original photographer correct?
It sometimes happens that another person simply takes a picture from somebody else and uploads it to wikipedia with a license to distribute. That is why I'm asking.
Please let me know if I have your permission, if the picture is yours and if you want a different attribution.
With kind regards,
Sjors Jansen
all.animalalbum@gmail.com
I'm fine with you using the image in the manner you describe - the attribution is fine like that. The license gives you permission to use it without needing to seek permission from me.
As for if the image is mine - yes it is - as I assert on the file's description page. If you have real concerns about the authorship of the image - asking me isn't going to help ;)--Nilfanion (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I appreciate it. I just want to do whatever I can to make sure I'm talking to the right people and letting them know and such. It happens that photographers are sort of ok with CC in general, but would prefer I didn't use a particular image for instance. Thanks again! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Garfunkel_Jansen
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:TD 5 (1997).JPG, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:TD 5 (1997).JPG]]).
If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.
If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!
There are several artefacts on the image: three straight lines and a small patch of transparency for example.
When I look at the "Original file (SVG)" the dark lines have gone but there is a colour anomaly where the long NW-SE line was.
Sussexonian (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm noticing a message in File:Fatimah Calligraphy.png saying that the permission has not been received by the Commons OTRS team. But I'm sure about it and I've sent the mentioned mail Aug 28, 2014 at 8:53 AM, as my mail sent items box says. I've got some questions:
Should I send it once again?
As the creator of this file, I've presented a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license for the file. I can't understand why should I send such an email to say I am the copyright holder and I let every one use this file according to the license conditions! I've said it already by the license! Thanks Mhhossein (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear Nilfanion/Archive 3, I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.
If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2015 within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.
Hi, I've created the templates in [1] , wasn't aware you'd previously made maps. Is it possible that you could check them, I tried the Mendip map in Babington House and the pin was outside the area to the northwest for some reason. Is it possible you could make similar district maps for Cheshire and Merseyside as an editor I know does a lot of work on buildings there.Blofeld Dr. (talk) 09:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I have made electoral ward maps for every district of the UK in that style, cf Category:Maps of Cheshire. Fixed the Mendip template - the W and E were back to front :)
However, I do not think these maps are suitable for this use. Two reasons:
Stable admin, not very variable electoral, divisions should be used. The equivalent maps using CPs.
Location-in-county is primary purpose of the infobox maps, with location-in-country, being the secondary factor. The district-level maps show the less significant location-in-district, make location-in-county harder to visualise, and are useless for location-in-country.
Hi. I am a football fan from South Yorkshire and have had the idea to write a book on clubs from the county. On each chapter I would like to add a map of the county with a marker indicating where the club is located - and this one (actually, the first edition, without the inset) fits the bill perfectly.
As it is the first time I have done anything like this, I have no idea where to begin when it comes to copyright/attributon etc...
Could you please let me know whether I am free to use the map in my book, and if so, what you would like me to do with regards attributing you at the end of the book.
That's the result of limitations in my workflow. The river data is from OS Meridian 2, which for the most part, labels the rivers. To maintain clarity, I remove the unlabelled sections as these are usually the minor, possibly unnamed, streams. In this case, the Ouzel from its confluence with an unnamed stream (just north of the M4 and Willen Lake) to the Ouse is not labelled so got removed. I can correct that easily enough.
Also noticed a more serious error - the headwaters of the w:River Lea in Luton are shown as an isolated river in the Great Ouse catchment, and not as part of the Thames...
Since I created that map OS has released a new Open Rivers product, which has a connected network. With any luck, that will avoid issues like these.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Help uploading a derivative
Hi, I want to upload a map using your work, much like I've done here, however your guide includes a link that no longer seems live. Any idea how to upload a derivative, without that?
OK DerivativeFX is down, which is unfortunate as it made the formatting easy.
That means the standardt upload form at Special:Upload is only real option. As long as license is cc-by-sa only and the "Source" and "Author" fields to have the same layout as on the Solihull map you will be fine.
Love your maps of England. Can you (very briefly) explain what software and data you use to create them, or are there any good tutorials you know of? I'm not asking for chapter and verse, just enough to point me in the right direction as am total noob.
PS is this really how Wikipedia users send messages to each other? There's no private message function at all here?
Thanks,
danlucraft
OK I'll try to give you a brief version here. Note some maps are substantially harder than others - and relief maps like File:England relief location map.jpg are much more difficult than political ones.
Software - You need some sort of GIS software such as QGIS. In addition, Inkscape is useful to turn the output files into a more polished product.
Data - Almost all of the data in my maps is from Ordnance Survey OpenData. Boundary-Line and OS Terrain 50 are the two most important products (for boundaries and contours).
There are tutorials on Wikipedia at w:Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Resources/Tutorials, but I cannot comment on their quality. When I started I just found experimenting with the software for myself easiest.
And yes, this is standard communication method :) Private messaging exists in the form of email via "Email this user" feature. In general, private communication is discouraged as on-topic discussion of content should be done in public - so others can participate and see how decisions were reached. Off-subject communication (eg social reasons) is not Wikipedia's purpose.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to explain, that's very helpful! -- danlucraft11:18, 9 September 2015 (CST)
Heads-up
Hi, as an active colleague on upload projects, I thought I'd drop you a personal heads-up for my request for adminship, today being the last day for views. RFA's tend to only have a small proportion of the community taking part, so it can be difficult to judge if this is representative. --Fæ (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Read my reply on the CFD - the best way of thinking of these areas is as part of both parishes. As an analogy see the diagram to the right. The highlighted area is in both A and B, but when drawing a "map" of A and B, it has to be shown as a distinct unit.
Likewise if a "census" was taken of people living in A and B, the people living in the highlighted area would need to be included separately - else they would be double counted.
The (very good) example (image) that you have put I think is the answer but as I said I think from the maps that people are counted separately from the main parishes, I doubt that they would double count them. It probably means that the small area covered by both is a (small) separate parish as it would have included land formerly part of both parishes. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Nope - they have to be treated as separate units for certain purposes. Those purposes require them to be treated as equivalent to a civil parish, but that does not mean they are treated as a civil parish for all purposes. And that treatment certainly does not mean that they are civil parishes.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
It would be helpful if we could find ways in which they are not referred to as separate parishes. Google isn't that helpful because of common land but I did find another historic one. It would indeed be useful to know a bit more about why they are called that because the name indicates that they would be part of both parishes. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
(This is without research and this may not apply in all cases). Historically, these areas have never been a single parish, or part of a single parish. Instead they have always been shared between the parishes. This sharing was done as it made management easier - no need to demarcate and police a boundary. If circumstances changed, a precise boundary would then be drawn removing the "common" area. Note that the confusion with the commons is to be expected - the main incentive for NOT marking a boundary is that the land is only used as common land, if it was used for something else it would certainly be within a single parish.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
After being reverted & to butt in here with regard to this reversion. Reading the above and to my knowledge there is no civil parish of Fylingdales and Hawsker-cum-Stainsacre, it covers 2 different civil parishes – the civil parish of Fylingdales and the civil parish of Hawsker-cum-Stainsacre. Keith D (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
But the text you have reverted to indicates it is a single parish of Fylingdales and Hawsker-cum-Stainsacre which is incorrect. Is should have separate links one to Fylingdales and one to Hawsker-cum-Stainsacre. Keith D (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Keith D, and have reverted. The links are to the relevant articles (ie the two villages) - which are only suitable targets in absence of an article specifically about the area.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
That sounds sensible - splits should only be done (at this stage), if Wikipedia draws a distinction between settlement and district, like with Fareham.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The ones that I did were Basildon, Brentwood, Castle Point, Dartford, Eastleigh, Fareham and Havant. I wasn't using Wikipedia as a judge (but just as a guide) but it just happened that that was the ones that needed splitting, Tamworth for example wasn't split even though it has an article on Wikipedia because the boundaries of the town aren't significantly different to that of the district. We have less combined pages than those listed at w:WP:UKDISTRICTS. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Of course, that means Milton Keynes has now been split. That is fine, and something I think should be done. However, defining Milton Keynes isn't easy - as has previously been discussed.
I also note that I have already flagged some of our discrepancies from WP as inappropriate splits here (Birmingham for instance).--Nilfanion (talk) 11:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I was using the same guide from Fareham to determine what should be in what category for Milton Keynes. From UKDISTRICTS we have Birmingham, Coventry, Newcastle upon Tyne, Sheffield, Bournemouth, Middlesbrough, Peterborough, Reading, Southend-on-Sea, Slough, Warrington, York, Cheltenham, Chesterfield, Christchurch, Corby, Gloucester, Northampton, Oxford, Redditch and Worcester while we don't have Tamworth. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Is the setup like what has been done with Colchester the best to do with Newcastle-upon-Tyne not the way that we could do with all of them. In this case basing it on what is part of the settlement and what is not. Would that not be a reasonable way to deal with the CFD? (like you said about Fareham). Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Newcastle should be discussed on the CFD. Wikipedia does not draw a distinction between the settlement and district of Newcastle. It is possible to do so, and my comments on the CFD discuss how that could be done (start by ignoring the parishes, but look at the ONS built-up area. Once that is done, fit the parishes into that area).
In the general case, yes, the category should match the settlement (plus adjacent rural areas that would otherwise be uncategorised). However, each case needs to be reviewed on its merits. The unparished area is a good starting point for defining that for some but not all areas. It would be best to describe on the category talk page how exactly its being defined, if anyone has an issue the discussion can start from there.
I agree, the parishes often works but not always, Carlisle clearly works this way and so does Corby (which doesn't exist yet on Wikipedia but should). As I pointed out Wikipedia should only be used as a guideline, Tamworth probably shouldn't have a cat here but Wikipedia can still have an article. There doesn't appear to be ONS built up areas for Colchester or Newcastle-upon-Tyne but both Category:City of Newcastle upon Tyne and Category:Borough of Colchester now contain separate settlements (I will add this to the CFD, I was just using it as an example).
I agree each should be assessed on its own merits, Northampton is interesting as it contains 7 parishes but all appear to be part of the settlement so probably it should be merged. I would also ask if Skinsmoke (talk·contribs) also agrees.
The way with CPs I agree works very well in the case of Epsom and Ewell. Because of districts being larger we can probably split those that contain a larger area than the settlement. High Ongar is more complicated because of the parish containing the 2nd village Norton Manderville (because it was merged but the parish wasn't called High Ongar with Norton Manderville). As you pointed out it is probably not worth spending lots of time splitting them but does add complication with the town and villages cats. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I saw your question about them on Wikipedia, I'm not sure if they should have separate cats or not, they don't appear to be official but as you say they certainly aren't fictious (there is some discussion at w:A14 road (England)#A14 spur designation, including 'A1(M)', 'A14(M)', 'A604(M)') A14(M) was deleted at w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A14(M) motorway) and there was also w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walton Summit motorway. There are more listed at http://www.pathetic.org.uk/secretive/ and also A120(M) (Junction 8 M11), A11(M) (Junction 9 M11), A1081(M) (Junction 10 M1), A1139(M) (Junction 17 A1), A5103(M) (Junction 3 M56), A551(M) (Junction 2 M53), A6(M) (Junction 33 M6), A685(M) (Junction 38 M6), A4(M) (Junction 7 M4), A1(M) (Junction 2 M1), A21(M) (Junction 5 M25), A21(M) (Junction 4 M25), A20(M) (Junction 8 M20), A23(M) (Junction 9 M23), A33(M) (Junction 4 M27), A303(M) (Junction 8 M3), A40(M) (Junction 8 M40), A49(M) (Junction 25 M6), A64(M) (Junction 44 A1), A46(M) (Junction 21a M1), A56(M) (Junction 7 M56), A339(M) (Junction 6 M3) but none of them appear on any signage which is why Pathetic Motorways doesn't have pages on them. Maybe take it to CFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
It should be obvious, that unfortunately CFD on Commons is stale and unlikely to get outside comments - which is why I tried to solicit opinion on WP. These stretches of road certainly exist, but its their designations that are the concern. We should not name a stretch of road unless we have reliable sourcing (ie not Pathetic motorways or SABRE) stating what designation is.
That said, the majority of these (if not all) are not a problem for Commons. So regardless of whether the link road at M6 J25 is the "A49(M)", or something else, it can be handled correctly by treating it as part of the junction.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
As there is Tamerton Foliot which is technically still a village (although it feels like a suburb of Plymouth) as it is still separate from Plymouth by a small amount of countryside as well as Plymstock which was apparently in South Hams and other dubious ones, wouldn't it be better to rename the cat something like "Places in Plymouth". Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Tamerton Foliot is not technically separate when you consider reliable source (ie ONS) which merge it into the main urban area. Any definition which is based on interpreting maps yourself, like you appear to be doing here, is very close to original research. I don't see a problem with Plymstock vs the South Hams - Plymstock was part of Plymouth before the South Hams district existed.
I don't see an issue here in any case. A district of a city can retain a distinct village identity regardless of whether it is physically separate or not - a place can be a city district or a village, or both, or neither.
Renaming "districts" to "places" does not solve the issue either, as the two concepts are basically equivalent. The only real difference is with uninhabited places - the Eddystone Rocks are not a district of Plymouth, but they are a place in Plymouth. Other words such as "Area" and "Neighbourhoods" will also have similar issues. In the case of Plymouth, the council actually defines a number of "neighbourhoods".--Nilfanion (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
There are many sources that say Tamerton Foliot is a village for example www.devon.gov.uk/walk57.pdf reads "Tamerton Foliot is an historic village on the northern edge of Plymouth. Although now within the City area, it..." and the murder news articles also refer to it as a village although the neighbourhood profile does refer to it as "one of the city's historic neighbourhoods and has developed around the historic village centre...". According to BBC there is no clear definition of a suburb but as far as I was aware it generally had to at least be part of the settlement rather than nearby.
As far as I was aware when you say "district of ..." you are referring to a part of that place only not a place outside it.
There is Category:Eddystone Light which is under simply Plymouth, Eddystone Rocks could be put in Places in Plymouth or just left in Plymouth, this might point towards naming it "Settlements in Plymouth". "Neighbourhoods" as far as I was aware generally refers to a place within but not always, some people refer to any small settlement as a neighbourhood, areas is indeed more general but would probably generally mean a part of a larger settlement rather than a separate one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
My point here is Tamerton Foliot is a thing within Plymouth, not a thing adjacent to Plymouth. It has a village identity, but it is also part of the whole. Tamerton Foliot is both a district of Plymouth and a village in Plymouth.
"Settlements in Plymouth" would be completely useless as a name - Plymouth is a single settlement - its how to sub-divide it in a useful manner that matters.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
That's like saying that Wivenhoe is also a district of Colchester as well as being a separate town. Old Trafford is much more of a place in Manchester but it is in the Trafford district, Salford is also really a suburb of Manchester but has a separate metropolitan district. The only difference is that Tamerton Foliot is no longer a parish but it was. Tamerton Foliot was also in South Hams as vision of Britain titiles the page "History of Tamerton Foliot, in South Hams and Devon".
I agree "Settlements in Plymouth" sounds odd because of Plymouth being a settlement (which contains most of the district's settlements) but the district also contains Tamerton Foliot just like Colchester includes Wivenhoe or Leeds contains Wetherby. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
The two concepts are not mutually exclusive - a place CAN be a village and part of a larger settlement. Consider another example - "Stoke Village". Stoke was historically an independent village but has long since been absorbed within the conurbation that became Plymouth. It is a village within Plymouth but, clearly, its more usefully described as a district of Plymouth.
Tamerton Foliot was never in the South Hams. Part of the former parish was transferred to the South Hams CP of Bickleigh, yes. But Tamerton Foliot (the village) has never been in the South Hams - it was added to the city before the South Hams District was created. Tamerton Foliot (the parish) was never part of the South Hams either - it was abolished before the South Hams District was created. Places that were historically within Tamerton Foliot CP are now within the South Hams district.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Stoke is not still a village, it is a district of Plymouth, it would not be correct today to call it a village, it is a district in Plymouth (part of the settlement) rather than a separate one. While Tamerton Foliot is a settlement adjacent to Plymouth (settlement) in Plymouth unitary authority, just like Wivenhoe is a town adjacent to Colchester (settlement) in Colchester borough.
Isn't that the case with many districts, A vision of Britain is probably just using current boundaries which is why it says "in South Hams". Possibly the cat could be split and have the places historically in other areas in City of Plymouth and the pre 1967 (which is one of the things that w:WP:UKDISTRICTS lists pointing towards splits) in Plymouth but I'm not sure if there is sufficient difference in boundaries to warrant a split, it might just be easier to just change the Districts of Plymouth cat. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
There is no need to change this category. Plymouth is almost a classic example of a single settlement district, and there is no need to separate the "settlement" and "district" meanings in this case; making a Settlements in Plymouth category absurd. Anything else is effectively synonym of the existing "district", making a rename to anything else a waste of time. I would only support a change there as part of a standardisation of all similar categories in the UK.
Tamerton Foliot is clearly on the edge of the modern settlement of Plymouth, added to the district after WW2 (before the reforms of the 70s), and not an physically separate settlement. It may be identified as part of the larger unit, or described as having its own identity, but either way it is physically connected to the larger mass of the settlement (with zero separation). This is why the ONS-defined built-up area of Plymouth (which has nothing to do with the district boundary) includes the whole of Tamerton Foliot within Plymouth.
By contrast, Wivenhoe is NOT included in the ONS-defined Colchester area, not because it is a separate CP, but because it is a physically distinct settlement ( that gap is big enough for a separate Built-up area to fit between Colchester and Wivenhoe, and still have enough separation from both to be distinct).--Nilfanion (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree that there is insufficient places outside the settlement to have a "City of Plymouth" category even though I don't thank it is a "classic example" maybe Wolverhampton is a better example. However I was suggesting renaming the district cat to Places in Plymouth to catch all. There is Places in Leeds here which only appears to cover the settlement but w:Category:Places in Leeds includes Wetherby. Others in Category:Districts of cities in England follow this like Places in Sunderland doesn't include Washington. Also why did you remove Towns and villages in Devon from Plymouth? The idea of that cat I thought also included cities as there is no "Cities in Devon" cat nor should there be.
Tamerton Foliot nearly part of the settlement but not yet. However Old Trafford is clearly part of Manchester and is not separated by anything, not even a large river like Plymstock. Salford is much more like a suburb of Manchester isn't it? it is separated by a river bu is surrounded by Manchester unlike Plymstock.
Tamerton Foliot is still a physically distinct settlement unlike Old Trafford and Salford even though the gap is smaller, there is no gap at all with Manchester. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Plymouth should not be in the town and village category. That is because it is not a town nor is it a village. There is no harm in having a cities in Devon category - even if it only has two members. But it is factually incorrect to label a city as a town.
There is NO gap between Tamerton Foliot and the rest of Plymouth according to reliable sources (ONS) - you are creating a gap based on your interpretation of the map (original research). There is no need to rename the district cat to be a catch-all - it does that already.
As for Old Trafford - it is part of the settlement that includes Manchester, yes. However that settlement is not "Manchester". The built-up area is called the w:Greater Manchester Built-up Area. Ditto Salford or Droylesden.
As far as I was aware "Towns and villages in ..." takes cities (and hamlets is there isn't a cat) because unlike where it has been split like Carlisle, the settlement (Category:Towns and villages in Devon) and the district with city status (Cities in England) is all in 1 cat. If you look at other cases where we have 1 combined cat like Derby, the same has been done there. I would probably suggest that it wouldn't be helpful to have a cat with 2 members as they aren't very useful to particularly readers. Maybe Category:Cities in South West England would be better as that still contains only 8.
There's more than just my interpretation, see above about sources that say it is a village. I agree that the ONS is a good guideline for determining what pages should go where (and if a split is needed).
But Droylesden, Old Trafford and Salford are still much more like Manchester than Tamerton Foliot or even Plympton. Westminster is clearly part of London even though it is a separate London borough to (City of) London and the other London boroughs. Dovercourt is part of Harwich but is still a town. Because of this wouldn't it be easier to have Places in Plymouth like Wikipedia has places in Leeds to avoid ambiguity. Just because its in Plymouth district doesn't automatically mean its part of the settlement, Pinewood is clearly part of Ipswich town but not the borough, Woodbridge is part of the Ipswich (not greater Ipswich) built up area. However I thought we are supposed to use the settlement area not built up area, is Tamerton Foliot in the ONS settlement area?
I would have no problem with Category:Cities in Cornwall existing, even though it would only have one member. There is nothing wrong with small categories, when they are appropriate. Do not think a category is bad because it is small - its only when it is empty it is bad. Note also that a hamlet is a small village, but a city is not a large town.
ONS defines the built-up area, which is what is meant by ONS defining the settlement - it does not define the two in different ways. I bring you back to the point that a place can be a "village" AND a part of a larger place. A fully separate village could be physically adjacent to a larger town, and is "near" that larger one. None of your sources indicate there is a genuine gap (only your OR does that), merely that it is a "village".
Old Trafford is part of Greater Manchester, not Manchester. "Manchester" is effectively the area covered by Manchester City Council, not the interior of the M60.
There is zero point in renaming Category:Districts of Plymouth on the basis of the points you have raised here, as there isn't any ambiguity. A rename as part of a broader standardisation is possible - that issue is not Plymouth-specific, and should be done centrally. That discussion might result in one name for all these cats, or different variants for different situations. What seems best for Plymouth might not be best for London, or Manchester (or vice versa). Focusing on Plymouth only could lead to wrong result.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think small cats are always bad but as a general rule we should probably aim to have a reasonable number of pages in a cat (ideally about 40/50) so that they are useful and meaningful to people finding things. Where the cat forms part of a series of categorization like Category:Civil parishes in London (which now has 1 parish and you might want to consider closing the CFD) because we have a cat for every county with parishes and anyway there could well be more parishes in the future. Bristol has no parishes so we don't need a cat. Indeed its merits might depend on the topic its self as well as the number of pages it contains (or might contain). Indeed if we have many cats with just 1 or 2 pages other than the main topic that could probably mean that we could split most of the settlement/district cats that aren't already split (for example Plymouth). Note that on Wikipedia there is w:Category:People from Plymouth (district) as well as w:Category:People from Plymouth. Or where there is only a few pages currently but it is plausible that there could be more pages created in the future that could go in it. On Wikipedia cities are divided up by region which as far as I can see is plenty. If split the cats too much it becomes difficult to find things, it would surely make sense to have the cities simply in their towns and villages cat and in the cities in England (or in region) cat.
ONS also gives the settlement population as well like Nottingham for example see 2001-key-statistics%2Furban-areas-in-england-and-wales%2Furban-areas-in-england-and-wales-ks01-usual-resident-population.
Isn't that the same as Mayfair being in Westminster and Westminster being part of the settlement of London but not the London borough of London.
There are more "Places" cats than other terms used in Category:Districts of cities in England. Districts of Bristol probably works because there aren't places outside the county that are in the settlement while Places in Leeds has been used because there are settlements outside Leeds settlement. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
ONS does not give "settlement" figures. Larger built-up areas, like Nottingham, are split into sub-divisions. These subdivisions roughly correspond to the pre-1974 areas and may, or may not, correspond to distinct settlements within the conurbation. Where no sub-divisions are provided (like Plymouth), the implication is it is a single area.
In the context of cities, places has a different meaning to districts. Districts are places, but places are not districts. Districts of cities are large areas (sometimes formal sub-divisions). Places can be much smaller. eg In Plymouth, Devil's Point is a place within the district of Stonehouse. The relevant global category is Category:City districts which suggests "Districts of X" is the natural term we should look to use. We should not deviate from that unless there is a good reason to - like Category:Arrondissements of Paris where that is the correct formal name to use. Changing the name, changes the purpose from something useful to something less so.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
The populations listed for the places don't usually (exactly) match the district populations (for the same time) so they must have chosen boundaries somehow.
The problems is that the terms "districts of..." implies being within like Districts of Devon, as you pointed out, districts is a subcat of places. Because Tamerton Foliot is separated from Plymouth by countryside "districts of" doesn't sound right. Look at the old boundaries an the boundaries of Plymouth district, as you can see, it has just been included into the district as the boundaries suddenly go North to include it, probably because of how populated it is.
Going back to the city thing, Plymouth is a settlement (Category:Towns and villages in Devon) in (City of) Plymouth district. Carlisle is in Towns and villages in Cumbria while City of Carlisle is in Cities in England, therefore because we only have 1 cat, Plymouth does also beling in Category:Towns and villages in Devon.
On a related note do you think we maybe we need to consider the names of our district categories with city status, this was discussed at User talk:Skinsmoke#District of... and #District/Borough cats and numerous places on Wikipedia. Indeed having the cats at City of... does remind us that they are cities but do confuse numerous people who aren't familiar with how city status works and probably many more readers. Maybe "City of..." was though of as good natural disambiguation but it is certainly confusing. I would maybe suggest all the cats should be ....District, like there is now w:Category:Bradford District. Indeed most of the City of... just redirect to the settlement, of which appears to be the holder of the city status, like City of Houston, and City of Chicago, City of Wellington redirects to the council and City of Paris is a dab page. Australia is interesting as City of Perth is smaller than Perth (probably like London and City of London) (so maybe England isn't the only place to use this form of city status. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
As I said, the ONS sub-division boundaries are usually the pre-1974 district boundaries, which are typically obsolete and differ from the modern ones.
I'm going to say this again: Tamerton Foliot is connected to the rest of Plymouth (and ONS explicitly acknowledges that). There is NO countryside separating the core of the historic village from the modern urban area. Towns ans villages are a subset of settlements, not their entirety. Plymouth is a city is a settlement, does not mean Plymouth is a town or a village. Note none of the WP articles for English cities are categorised as a "town".
The City of district categories are confusing, but unfortunately that's what consensus appears to want on en.wp. We should follow them (they will get actual discussions for a start).--Nilfanion (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Support QI --Rjcastillo 15:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
--Fæ (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
,_Gorton,_4_April_2011.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
