Talk:City of Winchester

Reasons for page move[edit]

This page was formerly at City of Winchester. While the district is technically called the City of Winchester, this is a misleading title for the article as it would naturally refer to the city rather than the district. For example, road signs saying "welcome to the City of Winchester" are on the city boundaries, rather than the district boundaries, and almost noone refers to the district as the "City of Winchester" - for example, the city council always refers to the district as "Winchester District" [1]. Enchanter 23:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

This move left a great deal of redirects and double redirects. See similar situation of Leeds / City of Leeds, Wakefield / City of Wakefield etc. MRSC 12:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - the double redirects are now fixed. Enchanter 23:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up further links from the templates on this page. Although I have to say this is not an endorsement of the current naming. All other district articles follow the form City of Foo, Royal Borough of Foo, Foo (borough) or Foo (district) depending on their status or for cases where the district and the settlement they cover are coterminous, Foo. This naming is outside this scheme. MRSC 13:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support either the current Winchester district, or, given the current naming of the other articles, moving to City of Winchester (district), City of Winchester district, or similar, as suitable names. City of Winchester on its own is too ambiguous to be a suitable name in this particular situation. "City of Winchester" can mean either the city itself or the whole district. Its meaning as the district is virtually never used in common usage (even by the city council itself), and is only ever found in a small number of official documents. Enchanter 17:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The exact same situation exists for these places (i.e. district has city status) so the change needs to be uniform:

MRSC 18:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving this back (again). If you want to move one, they all have to be moved, no special pleading. And the naming convention would indicate Winchester (district) anyway Morwen - Talk 13:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See ongoing discussion on the naming convention at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK subdivisions Enchanter 00:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Arms-winchester.jpg[edit]

Image:Arms-winchester.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page move[edit]

I believe that, in line with consensus achieved at Leeds, the article currently here at City of Winchester should be renamed Local government in Winchester or (Winchester City Council), as that is what it is essentially about; leaving City of Winchester free to re-direct to Winchester, which begins: "Winchester is ... A city and local government district..." This is how the majority of English cities are treated on Wikipedia and is congruent with WP:NCCN. There is no compelling evidence that there remains a distinct settlement called Winchester, with borders identical to those of the city and municipal borough abolished 35 years ago and the status quo is, in any case, confusing to readers. I also note that this matter has been raised here previously.

The lead, incidentally, currently states: "Winchester is a local government district in Hampshire, England, with city status. It covers an area of central Hampshire including the city of Winchester itself, and neighbouring towns and villages including New Alresford, Colden Common and Bishops Waltham. The current city boundaries were set on 1 April 1974 when the City of Winchester merged with Droxford Rural District and part of Winchester Rural District." The only section is a list of "settlements and parishes."

I have effected the change outlined above per WP:BRD and it has been reverted; can you please now provide a reliable source to support the position that the City of Winchester means something other than Winchester? Chrisieboy (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are asking the wrong question. There is incontrovertible evidence that City of Winchester means the local government district, as that is the body on which the Royal Charter was conferred. Your argument earlier was that there is no distinct settlement of Winchester separate from the City of Winchester, and I can see some merit to that argument. Others will argue differently, but it is difficult to find any boundaries that would define Winchester as a settlement other than the former Municipal Borough of Winchester, which was abolished in 1974.

I certainly don't think the correct way to deal with this is to move City of Winchester to either Winchester City Council or Local government in Winchester. There may well be an argument for merging the two articles into one, as has been done at Leeds, but that is a highly controversial move and would need discussion first. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At Leeds, this was achieved by moving City of Leeds to Government of Leeds. Chrisieboy (talk) 10:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have been bold, Nev1 reverted, but there has been no discussion. If you are not prepared to engage, it is a misuse of policy. Reliable sources are necessary to substantiate material; can you actually provide any? There does not appear to be any "local" opposition to the change. Chrisieboy (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion, as you well know, is going on at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Infobox_uniformity, and some sources have been offered there. There is no consensus for your proposed change at this stage, either here, or there or at most other locations where you are trying the same idea. This may, of course, change when the above discussion is complete. Fingerpuppet (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know, there has been no discussion here or there since this move was reverted. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, so, for the last time of asking, can you please provide a source, per WP:V? Chrisieboy (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it's expedient to ignore the discussion when it doesn't go your way? The discussion is not yet over, until then there should be no change. Nev1 (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "ignoring" the discussion—there hasn't been any since you reverted my edits, citing WP:BRD. In fact, your only contribution there to date has been to "report" me for being bold. Do you actually have anything to add to the discussion yourself? I should remind you, WP:V is one of Wikipedia's core content policies along with WP:NOR.

In reply to Fingerpuppet, the "other locations where [I] am trying the same idea" are Carlisle, where only Jza84 (funnily enough) has objected and Bradford, where two "local" editors support the proposal. Chrisieboy (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:COMMONNAME, the most common name for the administrative district is "City of Winchester"; the most common name for the settlement is simply "Winchester". There's no need for a move. waggers (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at WT:UKGEO. Chrisieboy (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To further comment on this long running discussion, I don't think the argument that the common name for the administrative district is "City of Winchester" holds water. For example, a Google search of Winchester City Council's website gives around about fifty times as many hits for "Winchester district" than for "City of Winchester". The common name for the district, as referred to by the council and most other sources, is "Winchester district"; very few sources refer to it as the official, and confusing, name of "City of Winchester".

I therefore continue to support a rename of this article to "Winchester district", "City of Winchester (district)", or some other alternative. The current title is confusing and inappropriate. Enchanter (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on City of Winchester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100218114028/http://www.winchester.gov.uk/CouncilAndDemocracy/ElectedRepresentatives/CityCouncillors/ to http://www.winchester.gov.uk/CouncilAndDemocracy/ElectedRepresentatives/CityCouncillors/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]