Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/10/Category:Newcastle upon Tyne

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Newcastle upon Tyne

[edit]

Commons has Category:Newcastle upon Tyne for the settlement in North East England. The metropolitan borough covers a slightly broader area, for instance including Dinnington. That means having a separate category for the Category:City of Newcastle upon Tyne could add value, in the same manner as making the distinction between Bradford and the City of Bradford adds value. With this in mind, what should Category:Newcastle upon Tyne contain?

Some options:

  1. The City of Newcastle upon Tyne
  2. The former County Borough of Newcastle upon Tyne
  3. The Newcastle upon Tyne subdivision of the Tyneside Built-up Area
  4. The unparished area within the City of Newcastle upon Tyne
  5. Something else?

IMO one thing we must do is use a concept currently used by reliable sources. That excludes anything we just construct ourselves. With this in mind:

  •  Support using the City. Clearly in use by sources, and if we can't sensibly identify a sub-unit we should not attempt to do so.
  •  Oppose using the former Borough. Its been defunct for over 40 years. The settlement has expanded in that time and there is no reason to believe its boundary actually means anything today.
  •  Support using the Built-Up Area subdivision. Is used by at least one source (ONS) and reflects the urban area naturally. It excludes Newburn, Throckley, Woolsington, Hazlerigg.
  •  Oppose using the unparished area. As far as I can tell its unused, its not actually a single unit (its an area without units) and its unnatural, not reflecting the urban area. It includes Throckley, but excludes the Newbiggin Hall Estate, Blakelaw and North Fenham

I may be able to support other options, but need them to be spelled out before I can evaluate. Note: If it is helpful to discussion I can produce maps showing the above areas explicitly.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No I meant to tag this one. The purpose of this discussion should be to establish what Category:Newcastle upon Tyne should contain. What belongs in Newcastle and also the City of Newcastle? What belongs in the City of Newcastle but not Newcastle itself? What is your preference here, and why?
Only one of the options I have identfied affects Category:City of Newcastle upon Tyne (by merging it). But the choice between the others affects what goes in this category.
Bear in mind that a category can be valid with any number of subcategories - including zero - the category is valid so long as it contains a non-zero number of related media files in it (and any subcats).--Nilfanion (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I just thought that the category for merging is the one which the tag is put on. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale: @Skinsmoke: Could you indicate what content you would like this category to contain? The ideal would a definition which says "reliable source X says Newcastle is <area on map>", and only two areas I am aware of meet that (the whole district and the built-up area).--Nilfanion (talk) 11:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a map of the unparished area its self but its population is listed at w:Civil parishes in Tyne and Wear (as 174,235). Google Maps and the Ordnance Survey maps on Geograph (which is shown on the location of the images) shows parish boundaries. The boundary of Blakelaw and North Fenham can be seen here on Google Maps. To answer your question, I would suggest the unparished area, I agree its not ideal as Blakelaw and North Fenham is clearly part of the settlement while Throckley clearly isn't. See the setup for Category:City of Winchester which lists the parishes and then the unparished area at Category:Winchester. Correct me if I am wrong but the primary reason that you have listed the category for discussion is because of the Blakelaw and North Fenham/Throckley problem rather than the category's scope, otherwise you would probably have suggested Category:City of Carlisle be merged into Category:Carlisle, Cumbria. I would support the categorizing way that Winchester uses for everywhere, categorize by district, then civil parish or unparished area, then settlement in parish and ward in unparished area, then finally (for unparshed) settlement in ward, see Category:Ipswich for example. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, actually this is precisely why I started this CFD - and why I started here and not Carlisle or anywhere else. The unparished area within the City of Newcastle upon Tyne is not anything, its not a unit, nor is it the remainder of an abolished unit, it is merely the absence of units. It is certainly incorrect to direct people looking for "Newcastle upon Tyne" to an artificial construct - or do you have any sources that call the unparished area "Newcastle"?
Blakelaw and North Fenham are an integral part of the settlement, the fact they are parished allows a more precise category for them - but they are part of the whole. All of this mitigates against the category called "Newcastle upon Tyne" being equated to the unparished area.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: With regards to other areas (this is not an exhaustive list). Winchester is nothing like Newcastle - its more like Carlisle again. Chester should both the unparished area and the parish of Chester Castle. The City of Carlisle is very different to the settlement of Carlisle, so separate cats are clearly needed there. But even there - the Civil Parishes are not necessarily the correct subdivisions.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand (correct me if I am wrong) you have nominated this only because of the Blakelaw and North Fenham/Throckley problem and not because of the scope (as you said 0 might even be enough) or because of the unparished area (as you would also have done the same with Winchester and Carlisle). In response to the unparished area problem, Newcastle upon Tyne did used to be a parish but there is no information on when it was abolished. If you look here, there were many more units that Newcastle upon Tyne did used to have but most of them probably don't exist any more. This is however not relevant to the discussion anyway as we are only looking what to do with the current unit, that is also taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/01/Category:Unparished areas in England. Per the reasons I suggested there I would suggest that we could still use it. In response I would now say this;
 Oppose The category can be set out in the same was as Carlisle and Winchester with a note on Category:Newcastle upon Tyne stating that it is about the unparished area only. This would keep things consistent with the other cities and districts although I do agree with the Blakelaw and North Fenham/Throckley problem. However Gateshead and South Shields are almost part of the settlement of Newcastle upon Tyne (only the river is separating them) and people might also think that they should be part of the cat, which is another argument for having just the unparished area as Newcastle upon Tyne as we then could start adding countless areas to the Newcastle upon Tyne category.
 Support The whole (district) unit has the same name and unlike Carlisle parts of the settlement are in the parished area while parts that aren't part of the settlement are in the unparished area. It adds confusion and complication with having 2 separate categories, "City of" is just a form of disambiguation as the district is simply called Newcastle upon Tyne as well. A note could be added that the category is only about the district and not about Gateshead, South Shields etc.
 Comment Change the layout and have Category:Civil parishes in Newcastle upon Tyne and Category:Unparished area of Newcastle upon Tyne. This would then mean that the "City of" category would be redirected to the main Newcastle upon Tyne category. If this way was to be used then we could do this with the rest of the country. Maybe we need to create an essay/guideline on how to categorize.
I would (a bit reluctantly) be most in favour of option 1 (primarily) to keep things consistent with the other categories. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My primary concern here is simply making sure Category:Newcastle upon Tyne contains something recognisable as "Newcastle upon Tyne". Whatever the unparished area is, it is not Newcastle (as evidenced by Throckley, North Fenham etc) so it should not be placed at that location. I don't think Gateshead or Wallsend are a problem to determining what the Newcastle cat should be, but the cat needs policing to ensure it stays clear of content for those areas.
I am preparing a full review of all c 250 unparished areas, and will upload locator maps of each of those areas. This should form useful guidance for the broader situation. My opinion on that is while all Civil Parishes should have categories - the same is not necessarily true for unparished areas. Sometimes an unparished area definitely should have a category (eg Lundy), and sometimes I see zero point (eg the unparished part of the City of Westminster - which clearly is not Westminster!).--Nilfanion (talk) 10:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now a little lost on what to recommend, I would recommend suggestions from others. It might also be worth pointing out Lungnuts's comment at w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British towns with no railway station about categorizing things by what they don't have, however because we need to categorize by place etc. I still think that unparished is a useful breakdown. Lundy surely gets a category mainly because its an island but it appears to now be part of Clovelly parish. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, an unparished area category may be useful. In this case, I do not have an objection to Category:Newcastle-upon-Tyne (unparished area) existing - so long as its not at Category:Newcastle upon Tyne. Other units are potentially useful - I have repeatedly mentioned the Newcastle BUA in this thread as best match to the settlement of Newcastle.
The Westminster unparished area is an extreme case, and a category for that area has near zero value. But again, so long as its Category:City of Westminster (unparished area) (and not Category:Westminster) its not actually harmful. That said - Category:Districts of the City of Westminster is clearly the best way to subdivide that borough.
Unparished areas have other difficulties too - how many unparished areas are there in Brighton and Hove? How can one be justified when there are two distinct unparished areas? But what could the minor one be legitimately called?
As for Lundy its not in Clovelly parish, and is included there due to limitations of census data.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be happy with the option that I put as "comment" above? Also what do you think of Category:City of Gloucester? Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its not necessary to create the Civil Parishes in Newcastle category, its fine to have the unparished area cat sitting in the same place as the CP cats. As for Gloucester, the situation there is complicated and I'm not sure if its helpful to split or not. I'd defer to sources - do they say Quedgeley is "in Gloucester" or "near Gloucester"?--Nilfanion (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, the article on Wikipedia states that it is a suburb but it is only just connected to Gloucester, the definition of suburb appears to include an area on the edge of a large town or city which probably means that Quedgeley might just be considered to be part of Gloucester. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a source! :) No really, we need a source that Wikipedia would use itself. WP calls Innsworth a suburb of Gloucester, and Hucclecote a village - but its the "suburb" that is a CP in a different district and the "village" has been part of Gloucester for longer than Quedgeley. More seriously, Quedgeley is much more commonly said to be in "Gloucester" as opposed to in "Gloucestershire" in sources, such as news reports - indicating it is seen as part of the city not something independent.
In the absence of any evidence that makes a distinction between the district of Gloucester and the unparished area of Gloucester - the City cat should be redirected to Gloucester, and Quedgeley placed as a sub-cat alongside Category:Hempsted and Category:Tuffley.
Note also, like with Newcastle (but unlike Carlisle) the settlement matches the district much more closely than it does the unparished area. The area of the settlement clearly includes Quedgeley.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't using Wikipedia as the sole source, I was merely stating that that's what it is referred to as, as well as using the dictionary definition. The parish council website also doesn't define it either. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. In this case, I would say absence of evidence is evidence of absence. We cannot find any evidence that "Gloucester" somehow means something other than the area covered by the City Council. If Gloucester meant the unparished area it would be easy to find that. Therefore - we should merge the two categories.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Based on a discussion at User talk:Nilfanion#Districts I would now recommend keep. We appear to have agreed that the place would contain the places that are within the settlement and the district should contain places outside. City of Newcastle-upon-Tyne now contains only places outside the settlement. Skinsmoke (talk · contribs) do you also agree or do you think it should still be based on parishes. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nilfanion and Crouch, Swale: Any chance this has been resolved over the last 5 and a bit years? It would be great to close the discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still favour having "Newcastle upon Tyne" for the unparished area to be consistent with others such as Category:Cheltenham since although part of the parished area is urban most is rural. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nilfanion@Crouch, Swale@Themightyquill: it seems that there is no opposing for the last User:Crouch, Swale's comment. Could you execute your proposal? If opposing will arise, it is probably better to start a new CFD, with stating conrete proposal(s) Estopedist1 (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: I've already done so so perhaps this can be closed, while the unparishes v parished was objected to 6 years ago it this is now done for every other category like Cheltenham. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closed per Crouch, Swale. --A1Cafel (talk) 06:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2015/10/Category:Newcastle_upon_Tyne&oldid=647468265"