Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:54, 5 November 2006

Move

• Capitals are used in titles
• Redirected to the more correct Wigan Metropolitan Borough - I knows it, cos I lives in the place, man!
• Wigan "B"... orough is covered by the article "Wigan", just on Wigan the town.

I have moved most of the Metropolitan Borough articles to "Metropolitan Borough of XXX" as this is their official title. G-Man 21:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Article merge

Usually when these merges or splits take place with a town that shares its name with a district the end result is a real mess. I'm pleased to say that isn't the case with this one. However, this has implications for other articles and there are bound to be some editors who feel this solution isn't the best. I have two main concerns:

1. The article should be at Wigan. There is undisputedly a place in the UK called Wigan and I can't see any reason not to have an article there.
2. The article (if it is to stay merged) should begin with something that explains clearly that this article is about the settlement and the borough.

We probably need to formally agree some proper criteria for which articles should be split and which merged. I don't want to see Croydon merged with London Borough of Croydon. I also can't see agreement for Bradford merging with City of Bradford. We need to be asking why this case is special. MRSC • Talk 20:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd hesitate at calling it an absolute mess, but the article has some incoherence now. It's bizarre we have people pulling in different directions in Reading, Berkshire and here - possibly because it gets the population figures up! I'd like to see an explanation as to why this was merged, beyond a vague claim that the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan article wasn't terribly long: does that mean it wasn't merged as a matter of principle, and that a further expansion might mean it would be split out again.

But right now this we have no article about the town of Wigan. The intro doesn't mention Wigan is a town, for example. If we were to decide merging was a good idea, a merged page should be at Wigan, and say in the intro that it is a town and a larger metropolitan borough.

However, I would have though Wigan is actually a pretty poor case for a merge, the borough doesn't even make up a single urban area or part of one, but includes several distinct towns within countryside between them. Would anyone say "Leigh is an area in Wigan"? Of course, if someone can provide evidence that people in the Wigan area do not make the distinction between the town and the borough, then the obvious geographical guidelines should be discarded. Morwen - Talk 20:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Seem as the borough of Wigan covers a much larger area then the namesake town. I can't see much justification for this merge. The big problem here is the inconsistancy this creates with countless other town/district articles. By the same token we would heve to merge most of the other Greater Manchester metropolitan borough articles with their namesake town articles, Oldham, Stockport, Bury to name a few. I dont see any obvious reason why this should be an exception to the format adopted elsewhere. G-Man * 20:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The incoming links to this article are also split with some for the town and some for the borough. It would be sensible if they targeted different articles with split content. MRSC • Talk 20:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Wigan has no distinct legal or cartographic existance, outside of its historical context of the Metro Borough. Generic Character 21:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ordnance Survey would tend to disagree with you, noting a settlement called Wigan in the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan. MRSC • Talk 21:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Be specific, because as I look into the sky - I see no large letters up there. Anyway which map, and how out-of-date is it? I repeat that "Wigan" in itself is not a legal term. The former "Wigan Masonic Properties" (a Limited Company) could not sustain its terms of incorporation, since "Wigan" was used, when the intended, but undefined "County Borough of Wigan" was referred to. (Sorry, but I do not currently have a case reference).

Also, the ONS gives figures for a "Wigan urban area", containining subdivisions called Abram, Ince, Orrell, Skelmersdale, and Wigan, the latter with a population fo 81,203. Whilst it is true that the "legal existence" of the county borough of Wigan is terminated, so is that of the municipal borough of Leigh. That doesn't mean it has ceased to exist as a placename. Morwen - Talk 21:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The case was in fact settled out-of-court, and the Company was disolved anyway. All the little articles for the tin-pot little areas remain, so what is the issue? The upshot is that the merged article is now better than either of its parents. Generic Character 21:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

By that argument, no settlement has any existence outside of its local government area. Clearly then Ashton-under-Lyne doesnt exist because it's part of the borough of Tameside, and Nuneaton doesn't exist as a distinct entity because it's part of the borough of Nuneaton and Bedworth. This is getting onto rather silly territory. G-Man * 21:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain how the article is "better" if it is trying to be two articles at the same time. The map argument is flawed as OS data proves (the current, most up to date map has "Wigan in Wigan" ). The "legal" argument is also problematic as other editors have said. If we follow that there will only be 354 places in England with articles. MRSC • Talk 21:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not entirely true, we could still have articles about parishes, and areas with Charter Trustees. But it would rather be a shame to delete Brighton, I feel. Morwen - Talk 21:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain the supposed relevance of your uncited legal case to customary geography? It seems a total red herring to me. Please consult any recent (2006 issue even) Ordnance Survey map at the appropiate scale, and you should note "WIGAN" as a place name in one font over the town, and also "WIGAN" in another font, denoting the entire borough. "tin-pot little areas"? Also, does anything make Wigan a special case : most borough articles are split (note this is not an invitation to go around mucking up other articles as well). And no, it's a mess. Morwen - Talk 21:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"Can you explain the supposed relevance of your uncited legal case to customary geography?" I have,above - and the reference has been wiped - so disregard it, now. Note that I have bent over backwards not to get into personal attacks. Re: “G-Man * 21:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)” Well exactly, “no settlement has any existence outside of its local government area” (unless it can be distinctly legally or cartographically defined). without the context of the said local government area. So now there is a definition to act on – or can we except a plurality of ways, anyway, if the product is better? Generic Character 21:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

As I noted above, the Office of National Statistics define an area they identify as the Wigan subdivision of the Wigan urban area. They even have a map of it: here You seem to have an odd top-down view of settlement naming which is wholly at odds with the philosophy of Wikipedians working in this area. Can you please explain what the implications of your view on Brighton is? Also, I am unclear as to what you mean by saying someone has "wiped" your reference. You made no edits to the page between making these odd legal claims and then claiming they have been wiped. Morwen - Talk 21:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Too many indents? I have no view on Brighton, and can live without any overarching theory. The single article is still beter here than was its parents. Edit to inprove it here, by all means, and in good faith. Generic Character 21:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC) I was a witness to the case. I refered to a web link, now gone from another site. Generic Character 21:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

As we note, three Wikipedians deeply experienced in writing articles about places did not like the merge. I'm sure you did this in good faith. Speaking for myself, and I think for the others, we do not accept the article is better for merging, and I notice it has been since split again. I have written some notes explaining why we did these splits in the first place for you, at Misplaced Pages:List of English districts to disambiguate. If you think these principles are wrong, or that they have been misapplied for Wigan - I suggest Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_English_Subdivisons as a place to discuss this. We recently had a case the opposite way round, where people were splitting articles that were merged in accordance with these principles - again with the effect of inflating population figures, which led to a productive discussion. I feel strongly we need to have consistent principles on this issue that then we apply using local data, rather than just randomly doing things. Morwen - Talk 21:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Town and Township

I don't think these need to have initial caps. MRSC • Talk 20:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well why not change them? Generic Character 21:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)