Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of civil parishes in Somerset/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:31, 16 January 2010 [1].

List of civil parishes in Somerset edit

Nominator(s): — Rod talk 20:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive list of all the parishes, supported by suitable references (using WebCite where the county council has removed the relevant documents) & with pictures in all cases where appropriately licensed images are available. It has received a peer review & the issues identified have been addressed. — Rod talk 20:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "This is a list of civil parishes in the ceremonial county of Somerset, England." Needs to be changed since FLs no longer start like this. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done.— Rod talk 23:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "the ceremonial county" then followed by just "the county" do these refer to the same thing?
  • The ceremonial county is no longer used for administrative purposes since unitary authorities were introduced (1996) but is still commonly used in conversation, descriptive and "ceremonial" purposes. The ceremonial counties are generally used on wikipedia as discussed by WP:UKGEO. The wording of this section is the same as Grade I listed buildings in Somerset & I'm struggling to find a better/clearer way of describing it.— Rod talk 14:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose is rather turgid to start with "The x of Somerset this, the Y of Somerset that..."
  • break-up is hyphenated.
  • What does yellow/pink indicate in the lead image?
  • Infobox says Taunton Deane is a Borough but lead says it's just a district. What does (Borough) mean?
  • Done Historical royal charter - but I've removed it as not relevant here— Rod talk 14:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd para of lead is unreferenced.
  • Needs a note for when these populations were counted.
  • Why talk about settlements which aren't in this list?
  • Not quite sure what you mean? If it is Bath & Taunton which are unparished it would not be unreasonable for someone to come to this list for info about them - therefore an explanation that they are unparished seems reasonable.— Rod talk 14:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead says Greinton has a population of 54 while list says 71. Check all others.
  • Why is "Civil Parish" in the list completely capitalised?
  • History and Current position headings are wrong level.
  • Personally, I would centrally align the population col as right now it looks pretty odd.
  • Is there an easy way to do this?— Rod talk 15:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This works fine for a single row - I was looking for a way to do this for a column in one go.— Rod talk 15:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I'm no expert but I've never managed to find a way of doing that I'm afraid... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is a requirement for support I'm going to need some more time.— Rod talk 16:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. It would be nice if a wikitable syntax expert found a way of doing this but in the meantime I've done it manually using the template you suggested.— Rod talk 23:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason to split these tables? Couldn't you just have the headings in another column?
  • My idea in doing this is to enable readers to sort and compare within a particular district.
  • Selwood has no image - add an en-dash for blank cells rather than just leave them with the reader thinking "I wonder if something's supposed to be there?" Same for Seavington St Mary, etc.
  • Any reason why North Somerset columns different widths from the other tables? Wouldn't be a problem if you merged the tables...
  • Ditto for Sedgemoor.
  • Done - I've set them all to width=90% — Rod talk 19:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't mix date formats within the references.
  • Check year and page ranges use an en-dash in the references, not a hyphen.
  • I have attempted to do this - but I have never understood this one so I've probably got it wrong
  • Refs 81 to 100 have no work/publisher and no accessdate and/or publishing dates.

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Am I a bad person if I want a map? :) --Golbez (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure you are not a bad person.. but if you want a map you can click on the "Map of all coordinates from Google" or "Map of all coordinates from Bing" (top right below the infobox) you can see them all plotted. I don't have the skills or software to create a map with all the parishes plotted myself.— Rod talk 21:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But no borders? ;) As I said, I'm a bad person. That works fine. --Golbez (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support looks really good to me, an excellent achievement! Harrias (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Quick comments –
  • The box of coordinate links is cutting off "square" in "in an area of 740 square kilometers" on my computer. Maybe it's just me, but I'd be interested to see if anyone else is experiencing this.
  • I can't see this on my screen - it may relate to browsers/screen resolution - interested in the comments of others.— Rod talk 09:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not terribly concerned about this, so I'll cap it. For some reason I get some of these formatting issues that nobody else can find. Not a big deal. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • History: "and were generally identical to ecclesiastical parishes,,". The double comma should be fixed.
  • More double punctuation: "with the abolition of the Poor Law system in 1930 the parishes had only a nominal existence.."
  • Don't understand the table lead-in: "The part of the city of Bath which were parts of Bath County Borough are unparishes."? Should some of the plural bits here be changed to singular? Maybe that's why I'm having trouble reading it.
  • Reworded - hope this is better?— Rod talk 09:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 3 should have regular hyphens for the access date, not dashes of any sort. A couple of the other cites need similar fixes.
  • I've found & fixed some of these but have never understood this rule so may have missed some.— Rod talk 09:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In ref 21, move the publisher out of the title.
  • Done— Rod talk 09:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - thanks for your comments, with the exception of the "box cutting off sqaure" problem above, hopefully these have now been addressed.— Rod talk 09:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still see a few references with dashes in their dates (I noticed them in refs 8 and 13), but everything else is taken care of. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the rest of the dashes in the references. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per Harrias above; I'm really impressed. Chrisieboy (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very good. Not much to complain:

  • Could you wikilink "Bath and North East Somerset" in "The city of Bath is the largest centre of population in Bath and North East Somerset."? Initially I read: "Bath is the largest centre in Bath."
  • Is there a comma missing in "All of North Somerset, the other unitary authority is covered by..."?
  • More out of curiosity: Why do you make the tables 90% of the textwidth?

bamse (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response Thanks - I've added the wikilink & comma suggested. The width of tables was originally left unspecified but this meant they were different widths, because of different text string length. In response to comments I standarised them. I could put them up to 100% but unless you are using a very low screen resolution none of the text goes over one line (except where intended to) so I'm not sure if there is any advantage?— Rod talk 14:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Congratulations to the very good list. support.bamse (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_civil_parishes_in_Somerset/archive1&oldid=1089077673"