Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography

WT:UKGEO

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject UK geography and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45: 30 days

What's new

Articles for deletion

16 Jul 2025 – Rushop (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Dubmill (t · c); see discussion (5 participants; relisted)
20 Jul 2025 – Baddow Park (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Davidstewartharvey (t · c) was closed as delete by Sandstein (t · c) on 27 Jul 2025; see discussion (4 participants)

Did you know? articles

Wellesbourne, Brighton (2024-07-01) • Rosal, Sutherland (2024-05-25) • Newlyn Tidal Observatory (2023-11-20) • Godalming (2023-09-20) • Reigate (2023-09-10)

Reached maximum of 5 out of 308

Featured pictures

A591 road, Lake District - June 2009 Edit 1
Aerial View of Edinburgh, by Alfred Buckham, from about 1920
Canary Wharf from Limehouse London June 2016 HDR
City of London skyline from London City Hall - Oct 2008
Lancashire 1610 Speed Hondius - Restoration

In the News articles

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

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

List of hillforts and ancient settlements in Somerset (2025-06-02) • 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)

Reached maximum of 5 out of 8

This is a list of recognized content, updated weekly by JL-Bot (talk · contribs) (typically on Saturdays). There is no need to edit the list yourself. If an article is missing from the list, make sure it is tagged (e.g. {{WikiProject UK geography}}) or categorized correctly and wait for the next update. See WP:RECOG for configuration options.

Watch

Disagreement on Christchurch article re:settlement definition

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) 10:38, 3 April 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]

Population data for parishes etc

Last year I noted the large proportion of English parishes, Welsh communities, etc, that have out-of-date (pre-2021 census) population figures in their intros and infoboxes. I thought that making the infobox bring the latest data in from Wikidata might be the solution, but that hit both technical limitations and cultural blockages so I put it on the back burner.

Now I have an alternative solution, so I'm sharing it here in case it's useful to you, and to invite any feedback:

I've drafted a new template – currently at User:Steinsky/sandbox/WD population table2
It creates a table of census data using the data from Wikidata, which I think suits a "Demographics" section of a place page – you can then just copy the most recent datapoint to the infobox/intro.
It's intended to be substituted into the article – so it will fetch the Wikidata once, and the editor adding it will be responsible for checking the quality of the data it draws in, rather than drawing live data which could get vandalised or polluted on Wikidata without us noticing (one of the main concerns people have raised with using Wikidata in the past).
If used as described, it won't keep data up-to-date automatically, but it should at least make updates quicker and easier.
Wikidata now contains reliable and referenced census data for at least 2001, 2011 and 2021 for English civil parishes and Welsh communities (except where the numbers are so small ONS suppresses them).

I'll move the template into Template space if and when we're happy with it, and add some pointers to it from e.g. our guidance on writing about settlements. In the meantime:

If you want to test it to destruction and find the issues / share any feedback on how it works, looks etc, please do.
We don't have much detail in Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements § Demographics, so this might also be an opportunity to discuss further what we think is really appropriate to include in the way of population data – and in what format – in smaller place articles, if seeing this table in action sparks any such thoughts?

20:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC) Joe D (t) 20:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just gave it a go with a couple of parishes. It's impressive and would be a great tool. I'd be super-clear in the instructions on the need to subst: the template though, otherwise it could get messy with a lot of cleanup needed. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be wise to occasionally check that {{Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Steinsky/sandbox/WD population table2|namespace=0}} (substituting the ultimate page name, of course) doesn't return anything - i.e. that no articles are directly linking? NebY (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tangentially, how can I verify that the right census number was loaded into Wikidata? I'm using Trowbridge Q265647 as a test. For 2021, the reference URL https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/sources/census_2021_pp then 'PP002 - Sex' takes me to a Geography search where all attempts give "no matches were found". Wire723 (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quick ways to check the data:

2001: Search for the parish here: https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/sources/census_2001_ks/report
2011: Search for the parish here: https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/sources/census_2011_ks/report
2021: There is no quick way for parishes :( Nomis did not included parish in their reports tool this time, and the search box in parish profiles does nothing – you have to download a spreadsheet. I've described how in the first section of the long answer below.

And here's the detail for anybody who wants to check / reproduce my method of getting the data into Wikidata. (Sorry for the big wall of text, I tried to hide the detail in a collapsible box, but failed to make it work!)

The tables are as described in the citations:

Total population & by sex: 2021 / 2011 / 2001
Households: 2021 / 2011 / 2001

Downloading these tables is a fairly similar process for each:

Click 'Query data'
In 'Geography', select 'All' from the drop menu for parishes (2001 and 2011 will have other options in the list, ignore them and leave everything else as 'None')
If you're downloading the total/sex spreadsheet, go to 'Sex' and tick the Female and Male boxes
In 'Format / Layout' tick the box for 'Include area codes' (these are the unique GSS codes we'll use to match to the right Wikidata entries)
Now go to 'Download Data' and it will create your spreadsheet

You now have 2 tables for each census, each with a column of unique codes with which you can match items in the tables. For 2011 and 2011, these codes are GSS codes, which we can also use to match to Wikidata entries. For 2001, these are old codes, which Wikidata doesn't have, but they're easy to convert to GSS codes:

Download the ONS code history database: https://www.ons.gov.uk/methodology/geography/geographicalproducts/namescodesandlookups/codehistorydatabasechd
The file 'Equivalents.csv' maps the 2001 codes (column D) to GSS codes (column A)

Next I got a table of all the GSS codes in Wikidata, matched to the QID and label of the Wikidata entries they're in using Wikidata Query Service – hopefully this link to Wikidata Query Service is pre-populated with the query I used to get this spreadsheet.

Then it was just a case of doing some spreadsheet VLOOKUPs to create a single table containing all the data by matching the 3 tables with the unique GSS codes:

2021 I did last year in Google Docs - here
The others I did in LibreOffice - 2011, 2001
As you can see, I also did a sanity check by comparing ONS's name for the parish with the label on the Wikidata entry

ONS suppress data where the numbers are very low, so I just deleted all the rows for those parishes where they'd done so – if you find a sparsely populated parish that Wikidata has no statements for, that'll be why.

The 2001 spreadsheet also contained a few rows with GSS codes that didn't match to anything in Wikidata – mainly for Welsh communities. My guess is that these are either old communities which have been abolished, or communities which have changed boundaries and been assigned a new GSS code, and the abolition/boundary change happened so long ago that the GSS code never made it into Wikidata. I didn't have time to investigate, so I simply deleted rows – so there may be a small number of places (mainly Welsh) missing 2001 data for that reason.

Those spreadsheets were then ready to import to Wikidata using straightforward matching by QID and no extra cleanup/transformation needed (I used OpenRefine).

Joe D (t) 19:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed answer. Wire723 (talk) 09:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Steinsky: Thanks for this, which looks very useful - I've added it experimentally to Silverdale, Lancashire, for a start, and it looks good. (By the way, the 2021 link goes to a redirect, as the census article is at 2021–2022 United Kingdom censuses: could you perhaps tweak the template so that it goes directly to the target page?) Is there a similar way to access any more of the census data, such as average or median age, and population density? PamD 17:38, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.
1. Year link, it's possible, but it would complicate the template code a bit – currently it just formulaically links every year to "#### United Kingdom census" (I think a few of them then redirect). We'd need to weigh the arguments for and against linking to redirects against the argument for keeping the template code relatively simple and easy to maintain. I actually only put the link to the census article in to demonstrate that it is an option, but I do wonder if the link adds anything useful – some might see it as WP:OVERLINKing? (And technically they fall foul of WP:TRANSPARENCY, though I'd hope from the context of the column header it might be obvious what the link targets?)
2. Accessing more census data, right now no; theoretically maybe, it's complicated:
  - The fields currently in the table are the only ones that I have imported to Wikidata so far, and I chose those because they are the ones that are bundled into Wikidata's population property so kept the imports relatively straightforward.
  - To include any more data than these, these things will need to be true:
    it will need to be data that ONS/nomis report at parish level
    
    it need to either be a property currently implemented in Wikidata, or else we'll need to convince Wikidata to implement it
    
    I (or another volunteer) would need to do the import, and extend the Template functionality.
  - For mean age, it looks like there is a suitable property in Wikidata, but as far as I can see, there isn't a dataset for it for 2021 on nomis (PP012 Age is broad age categories, not mean age). (I see there is one for 2011 though.)
  - It might be worth looking through the data sets that are available on nomis, and if there are any that we do think might be useful, then we can look at what it would take to get them onto Wikidata.
cheers, Joe D (t) 20:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Steinsky Thanks - I quite see now that the census year link is algorithmically created from the census year, and the existing redirect works fine for this rare case (in UK terms anyway) where the article is at a complex title. No problem, explanation makes perfect sense! On other stuff... well, it would be interesting to see which other census info people consider worth including in articles (Silverdale includes age because it is something of an outlier, with median age 56 in 2011, but it's not something you usually see in an article about a village or parish.) PamD 08:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another thought: The reference generated needs perhaps to include the words "UK census 2021" (possibly linked), to make it clearer to the reader. And do we know that the resulting references will be found acceptable to fellow editors? (Are there any FA-reviewing editors reading this? Would you accept it?) PamD 08:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Steinsky: Note this edit where an editor has removed special characters introduced by the template. PamD 07:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yeah, I'll need to work out what to do about that. Because of the logic to switch columns off and on, the template wasn't inserting the correct line breaks until I added these hidden characters to force it. I'll have a fresh go at making it work without them when I get a chance. Joe D (t) 20:50, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester at FAR

I have nominated Manchester for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Helvellyn

Helvellyn has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

County towns

How would people feel about removing mention of county towns from the lead paragraphs of the ceremonial county articles? Our own county town article (which is itself sparsely sourced) states that they're 'ill-defined and unofficial', which I agree with and which makes them unsuitable to be mentioned so prominently. The largest settlement in a county, which is generally also mentioned in the lead paragraph, can at least be assessed more objectively.

I don't have any particular objection to mentioning a county town in the relevant article body, providing some source can be found, but I don't think there's a strong justifiction for mentioning them in the lead. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think it should be a written rule. It should be based upon each article and a discussion based there. Counties like Essex where the county town has been Chelmsford for an eternity are not an issue. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, Chelmsford being the county town of Essex isn't sourced at Chelmsford, Essex, or county town. Even if a recent, reliable source can be found, I'm not sure county towns are important enough for the lead paragraph. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been the county town since 1218.[1] Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something the source doesn't say that. Instead it says that Chelmsford 'gradually attracted the county administration from Colchester' and does not give a date; 1218 refers to assizes being held in Aylesbury. It also mentions Aylesbury, which took on administrative functions from Buckingham but does not appear to have become the unambiguous county town.

The fact there is uncertainty about the county town in some counties, the general lack of sources, and the informal nature of county towns as a concept is a strong case for them not being mentioned in the lead paragraph. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The references used by Palliser - one states County Town, while within Morant, another of his references, it states Chelmsford is the shire-town, the name originally used for county town. However, we have [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] [15]. And that is just scratching the surface! Davidstewartharvey (talk) 05:22, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the aim is to show that Chelmsford is currently considered the county town of Essex, which I think it is, then only some of those sources are suitable.

References 8 – 11 and 13 – 17 are too old to use as sources for Chelmsford being the current county town of Essex. 12 and 19 are newer but about the seventeenth and early twentieth century respectively. However, references 18, 20, and 21 do demonstrate that Chelmsford is currently considered to be the county town of Essex.

I'd have no objection whatsoever to those last three sources being added to the Chelmsford, Essex, and county town articles to prove that Chelmsford is the county town of Essex. It would be a big improvement and I hope the same could be done for the other county towns. I still don't think that county towns are important enough to mention in the lead paragraph, though. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The list of refs was to match my original point, that it has been for a very long time. I have started to work on Chelmsford last night as it is very badily referenced, but i have still got to finish Sible Hedingham first.

To your point do they need to be in the lead - as i previously said I believe it should a case by case situation. Shire towns as they were originally known are historical seats of power and are an important part of the history of a county/shire. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you putting in the work to find those sources, first off.

The county towns are often important places within a county independent of their designation as the county town (although a handful aren't), which justifies a mention in the lead. Chelmsford, for example, is mentioned in the second paragraph of the Essex article because it is one of the largest settlements in the county.

At the same time, county towns as a concept aren't important enough to justify a mention in the lead paragraph. They're an informal designation and don't necessarily indicate a county's administrative centre; Lancaster, for example, is the county town of Lancashire but the county is governed from Preston, Blackpool, and Blackburn. They might be better incorporated into the 'history' section. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point regarding Lancashire. However with the future of counties becoming less an administrative "thing" under the current plans for devolution, they will just be ceremonial entities from the past that we cling onto because of regional identity. At that point administrative centre would be moot, and county/shire town would be part of a lead about its history? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Logically, then, it should be mentioned under history.

If you really want fun with county towns then try Surrey. For over a century the administrative centre has been outside the county with the expansion of greater London. However a mid 19th century writer claimed Guildford was the county town on rather dubious grounds. A claim that has been repeated since by partisan writers, including on Wikipedia. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was reportedly Guildford in this publication in 1707 [16], and it was [17] here in Copy of the 1st-[6th] Report Made to His Majesty by the Commissioners Appointed to Inquire Into the Practice and Proceedings of the Superior Courts of Common Law from 1829 and the parliamentary gazetteer of 1841 [18]. So was it then made up? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lundy discussion

There is a discussion about the flag of Lundy at Talk:Lundy that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Coleisforeditor (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unilateral changes to the image collages for many settlements

Colleagues may wish to be advised that MatthewDavid41 is changing the infobox collages on a wide variety of settlements. And not for the better (see talk: Milton Keynes#Images, for two instant reactions, for example). Doing this during the holiday season ~~is questionable.~~ potentially makes it difficult for other editors to respond appropriately --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC) Revised per my response at 23:15, 27 July 2025 (UTC) below. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JMF, I am concerned that you have sent a message to your colleagues effectively reporting me to other volunteers. Without having an informal chat with me. Separately from this page. MatthewDavid41 (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fear you are insinuating that I have made the wrong changes on other wiki pages. This appears to me as being subjective without any prior discussion with me. This has upset me MatthewDavid41 (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. I have drawn the attention of colleagues to the fact that you have made a large number of changes to many articles. Not all of those have active watchers. If you look back at the previous discussions on this wikiproject talk page, you will see that similar instances of a series of changes to many articles gets flagged up like this. It is for other editors to decide what, if anything, they want to do about it.

As I said in my reply to you at my talk page, I don't question your good faith in making those changes but the counterpart of WP: BEBOLD is WP:BRD: we all make changes unilaterally but on the understanding that they may not be accepted. Wikipedia is a collaboration and WP: consensus applies. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't upset you at all. Dealing with people who do things differently to you is part of being a Wikipedia volunteer. Wikipedia:Grow a thick skin (which I'm pointing out with the best of intentions) is a perfect way to sum it up. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's fair to question @MatthewDavid41's approach to these edits – it seems to be perfectly in line with WP:BOLD (and it's therefore perfectly fair if you, in return, want to turn it into WP:BRD). There is nothing about the time of year that means anyone should be required to change their approach to editing. Having opened the discussion on the matter, MatthewDavid41 should now engage in the discussion and pause making further edits of this nature until the issues have been resolved, but that doesn't mean that they were wrong to be bold in making the initial edits.

In terms of feedback on the edits themselves, anyone updating infobox collages should keep in mind:

MOS:IMAGES: "images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative" – make sure you are picking images because they are the ones that best convey information to the reader, not the ones that look most attractive.
MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: "The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance" – I think many of our infoboxes already tend towards being too long and cluttered, and they look even more so when there are too many images, too large images, and those images have separate captions rather than a single shared caption (as in several of the recent edits).
WP:COLLAGETIPS: "the drawback of taking up additional space and reducing image size. This makes them a poor fit for leads of articles that already have an excessively long infobox or for topics whose images require a lot of detail." and "Placing captions beneath each image can work well if readers are particularly likely to seek them out (e.g. it's not clear from their appearance what they are) and if vertical space is not at a premium; otherwise, placing one at the bottom is generally better." – so, again, I think we should be keeping captions simple in infoboxes.
I can't find any MOS or guidance explicitly stating that the same (or very similar) image should not be used multiple times in the same article, but certainly in articles where there are many inline images (and there is therefore a risk of MOS:SANDWICH) I would think it would make sense to try not to have duplicates on the page – which would then be a case of asking "is this image of more value to the reader in the infobox collage, or inline adjacent to the related text?"

cheers, Joe D (t) 21:29, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would question the need for completely changing collages, especially on pages which already have perfectly good ones. It'll inevitably tee off the editors who made the previous ones, suggesting that their choices were poor enough to require complete replacement. G-13114 (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should one also consider Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Lead image? It mentions the duplication. That also states only larger settlements should have collages, so villages like Wales, South Yorkshire are probably not large enough to have multiple infobox images? Although is this advice still upheld or up-to-date?

My general advice is if there is an existing (and still upheld) consensus on an article's talk page (or one has been maintained and restored on an article for years) for a certain collage, then it probably is best to discuss any changes first, in case of opposition. If there isn't an existing (stable) consensus, then be free to be bold. Some concerns on the speed and volume though, is each collage amended independently? rather than all following a similar format? What is the main issue with so many of the current ones? (fully understand if it is for brighter images though) Nonetheless, Welcome to Wikipedia! Dank Jae 23:13, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat that at no stage have I questioned @MatthewDavid41's good faith in making these changes or that I considered their editing disruptive or destructive. I did not and do not. My challenge is to means, not to ends. Major changes like this are far more likely to move forward if proposed first at the talk page and other views taken into account (as was done at the Milton Keynes article just over two years ago).

I recognise now that my reference to the holiday season could be interpreted as an accusation of "taking advantage" rather than, as I intended, presenting difficulties to other editors. For avoidance of doubt, I withdraw that remark and will strike it out. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the editor is putting too many images into the infobox and including a full width image at the bottom of the montage which places undo emphasis on whatever that image depicts. The first image, if full width, should be a panoramic view to give a feeling for the town, see Buxton or Worcester. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But surely that’s subjective having a panoramic view of the town. MatthewDavid41 (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From the above cited guidelines: The first and largest image with the montage should be a representative cityscape such as a skyline, panorama or significant streetscape. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So a significant streetscape could be a cathedral of the main feature in the town. If that’s how I’m reading it? MatthewDavid41 (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't read it like that as a cathedral is notable in its own right but not necessarily a good representation of the city. It's a case of seeing what is appropriate for each article. Also, of course, a decent panorama may not be available on commons. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I’ve found that often. I’m thinking with the villages I’ve added 3 images on to whether I remove two as per wiki guidance for a small settlement MatthewDavid41 (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MatthewDavid41's contribution history shows a fair number of changes to places' infobox images but AFAICS there are hardly any reversions (Milton Keynes and Buxton excepted). The one expression of dissatisfaction on their talk page (Bingham) looks to have been resolved amicably. Suggests to me page watchers generally have no problem and hence there is no need for MatthewDavid41 to change their approach and engage in Talk page discussions prior to making such changes. Nonetheless, there's some good advice above. Rupples (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even when the infobox collage has been previously arrived at by discussion onthe talk page first? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Depends. If a recent consensus has agreed on a set of images then it could be construed as unsporting (my term) to change any without first discussing. Good practice to scan the article talk page before making changes. However, images can become outdated and less relevant, so if the consensus was some time ago then there shouldn't be a problem with making a change, so long as a brief explanation is included in the edit summary and/or Talk page. Also depends on the breadth of the discussion, the more participants who have agreed, the more wariness in making the change & vv. Just use common sense really! Rupples (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess for me I’m not doing this to cause trouble or annoy anyone. I guess I’m learning and the hard way. I take everything in board MatthewDavid41 (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take stuff personally. Just from a feedback POV, the changes made at Liverpool are somewhat of a microcosm of the discussions. Before and After. Shot by shot commentary:

Cityscape being switched to a night shot can draw criticism as it can obscure visual information. In this case a dense cityscape is reduced down to solely artsy water-frontage focused on the Three Graces (which are included subsequently) of which 75% of the picture is water or night sky.
Albert Dock, clear image of historical site of significance.
Three Graces. Now somewhat duplicated from the first shot. The original image captured each building as the most prominent objects in the foreground. The new image the water and boats and new ferry terminal are given priority.
St Georges Hall, clear image of historical site of significance.
Liverpool Town Hall, while the building remains the main focus with the change - and the the new image captures how it looks today since the clean-up - the composition of the image is not as good and could probably do with trimming both the left, right and foreground.
Metropolitan Cathedral, the actual composition in terms of scale is probably improved. However the photo is from the rear of the building (the outdoor worship area), therefore excluding the significant frontage. The original therefore remains superior.
Anglican is a 50/50 matter of choice. I'm sure there is better.
Speke Hall (removed by myself since) - composition is primarily of grass - and as the final image became the one of focus which is less than ideal.

Within the article body there are probably better images that could have been used (or are of arguable equal significance). For example the Town Hall, Chinese Arch, Anglican 1 Anglican 2, Metropolitan, Cityscape in day time, Speke Hall Koncorde (talk) 10:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I agree with you about the Anglican Cathedral, the garden looks overgrown in the image and a bit dated which im sure it’s different now. MatthewDavid41 (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve replaced the Anglican Cathedral image and the waterfront image, let me know what you think of them. Thanks MatthewDavid41 (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JMF, I personally don’t prefer the images that are on Milton Keynes wiki page, as they are not in conjunction with other cities, where there is a main image at the top. For instance if you compare to Sheffield, Leeds, or Nottingham although cities which are most notably older than central Milton Keynes. All images have shown colour, and a welcoming vibe which I don’t appear to get from Milton Keynes images. I realise that is a subjective view though. Thanks MatthewDavid41 (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, as a neutral party, if I was to look at your proposed pictures from this edit

The skyline view isn't conveying anything meaningful, and the picture caption of the image selected is that it's the shopping mall roof that is taking up the majority of the focus of the shot.
Christ the Cornerstone, you have replaced a very clear picture of the building with one that is basically two trees and the building is an afterthought.
Stadium MK, awkward perspective of the unrecognisible interior view of a stadium, the majority of the picture is the grass and sky.
Grand Union Canal, is that section of the canal actually in MK? Don't get me wrong, think the Wolverton picture is pretty ghastly.
MK Gallery, both pictures are functionally terrible but at the least in the prior one the building was somewhat of a focal point.
Bletchey is an improvement if only for not having as many individuals standing in foreground etc.

This isn't a defence of other articles (per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) which could just as easily be critiqued. But when changes are being made the rationale for the change needs to be clear - and the choices made need to be selected in such a way that keeps whatever is the subject as the primary focus. Koncorde (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The details don't really matter (and this is not the place to debate them). The most significant fact is that the present collage is the result of an extensive collaborative discussion a little over two years ago. Nothing significant has changed since then apart from one person's WP:I don't like it. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The details somewhat matter as it's a subjective evaluation of the images. Many of them on many articles are bad because they have been selected for beautification reasons rather than being meaningful, or the rationale for their inclusion is unclear, so if someone comes along and decides to improve one, two, or 50 articles in their opinion it's a completely legitimate action. Simply claiming something was sort of agreed on at some point in the past and the changes countermand that is evidence of WP:I don't like it a lot more than the new user making changes.

Meanwhile discussing here is as equally legitimate as any other venue. When you are claiming precedence of an infobox you must be capable of defending the prior decisions as much as critiquing the changes - otherwise you are just reverting as a form of WP:OWN which would be even more problematic. Koncorde (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JMF, I understand what you are saying here but through bringing up the debate into images brings up other debates about images on individual wiki pages. Which inevitably it can do that. Many thanks ☺️. MatthewDavid41 (talk) 07:26, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think fundamentally for me I’m not saying the images I added were right, but I was confused to why Fenny Stratford a town within Milton Keynes was part of the images, when it’s a town in its own right but it’s within the boundary of Milton Keynes City. Cities like Leeds and Sheffield both have towns within their boundary such as Stocksbridge and Wetherby, but the main wiki page for the City of Leeds or Sheffield focus on the central areas of the city and not the individual towns. Central Milton Keyes such as the shopping district, the hub etc, main church is what draws people in. Including Bletchley Park which is in the boundary. MatthewDavid41 (talk) 07:21, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In all discussions of collages, it's worth remembering that on mobile devices,which so many of our readers use, the reader will be shown the first landscape-format image as the banner for the article (I think there's some complexity in the rule, about image proportions), so there needs to be particular care taken to ensure that that one image is suitable as representative of the topic of the article. PamD 08:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the guideline requirement that the first and largest image with the montage should be a representative cityscape such as a skyline, panorama or significant streetscape. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At present Milton Keynes shows a striking domed church, and Liverpool a night-time shot: not sure that either gives a good general impression of the city. PamD 09:04, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is night-time shots are seductive when you are going through sometimes 100s of images trying to select on for an infobox. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And London is a night-time river view, with a strange optical illusion of showing a bulging balloon in the centre, caused by the illuminated curve of the tower cables and a patch of light on the water! PamD 09:09, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And Leeds is a shown as group of standard skyscrapers which could be anywhere in the world. There's a basic question of whether the banner image should be something recognisable / symbolic of the place (eg Leeds Town Hall, used as pretty much an icon of the city), or an attempt to show a "typical" view. The Three Graces of Liverpool are iconic of the city, used by TV news items as a shortcut to say "this is Liverpool" (OK, I have a particular fondness for them because my pension is administered from one of them!) PamD 09:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool could have a photo taken from about 360 different angles and still have recognisable architecture - I'm not sure I could pick Leeds out of a lineup of other northern landlocked cities - so any images used need to be meaningfully conveying the thing the article is about - and then additional images are used for colour, flavour and setting meaningful context the same way anything in a lead would. Koncorde (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to find a new image for Liverpool. One which you feel works for the city. MatthewDavid41 (talk) 07:23, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found a daylight shot of the 3 Graces for the main image. Added a view of the Mersey ferries to replace the earlier image of the graces. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s good. The only thing I would say is that it doesn’t show the new building at the front of the three graces. I’ve just found an over view image. Take a look at it, if it’s not right revert it back. Thanks MatthewDavid41 (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not good at all and I reverted it back. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:04, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why? Thank you MatthewDavid41 (talk) 04:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The version by Murgatroyd49 clearly showed all three buildings, including the side aspect of the Liver Building, which allows both towers to be seen. The drone/overhead version you uploaded was a more general view and didn't show off the three buildings as well. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The new building has nothing directly to do with the three Graces. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:05, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But it’s missing key elements of the site today and showing the Anglican cathedral twice on the set of images. Thank you MatthewDavid41 (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The image is dated, the building at the front of the three graces isn’t shown, and at the side, and the Anglican Cathedral is shown twice. I’m struggling to see how this image would represent how Liverpool is today. That’s not to say the image wasn’t a good image at the time but many years have passed and new buildings have arisen. Thanks MatthewDavid41 (talk) 09:20, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the article talk page for Liverpool to reach consensus on what should be in the Liverpool article. This talk page is for general principles that affect all articles. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:27, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But we aren't interested in the new buildings, they are irrelevant. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:28, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]