Talk:Greater Bristol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	The article on Greater Bristol is supported by the Bristol WikiProject, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Bristol-related articles on Wikipedia.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

[edit] Merger

Do we need this article? The difference between Bristol as a Unitary Authority and Bristol as an urban area is covered in the main Bristol article; and I'm not sure this article adds anything of value. If the population figures are considered relevant, perhaps they could go in the main Bristol article. Not sure if I'm suggesting a deletion or a merge, but what does everyone think? Cheers, Duncshine 10:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Greater Bristol is not a much used concept, I suggest. More relevant was the old Avon area which was essentially the same as the 'Travel to Work Area' - this was about 1 million strong. Putting this entry into Bristol will cause a lot of feathers to get ruffled (expanding Bristol's boundaries is a very sensitive subject, however 'sensible' it may appear from afar). And in a wikified system, merger does not bring large benefits. So, a) oppose merge, suggest b) clarify planning role if any of GB concept. Bob aka Linuxlad 11:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Bob. Can you clarify why merger doesn't bring large benefits in a wikified system? I'm not sure what you mean. (+++) Also, just for interest, Greater Bristol has no planning role, nor any legal or governmental standing. Cheers, Duncshine 12:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC).

As another local(ish) contributor I understand that feathers will get ruffled. However for me merging this article into the Bristol article as a section would do no harm. If it expands much it can always be split again, but as you say "Greater Bristol" is not a much used term, so there is not huge amounts more than can be said about it. Support merge'. Thryduulf 11:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

(+++) An html-linked set of fragments is NOT, I suggest, much harder to read than a single unified article. So breaking down the Bristol topics doesn't have many disadvantges; whilst producing a Grand Unified Bristol and all things fr 50 miles around, can just produce an ill-managed wodge! I rarely find very large articles on WP worth the effort. Focussed topics usually have more coherence. Bob aka Linuxlad

Ah, OK thanks Bob, I understand your point now. OK, my view is that an article on a Greater Bristol that doesn't really exist is unhelpful and unnecessary; while acknowledging on the main Bristol article that Bristol has many different meanings to many people makes some sense. I guess my question is 'what does the Greater Bristol article add'? For me, very little indeed. Duncshine 14:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You may also like to note that there is a Greater Nottingham article. (I wasn't so keen on that one (being from 'Lesser Derby'), but consistency was always a mark of fossilisation of thought in my book). Let's see what some others say :-) Linuxlad 15:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again Bob. Yes, there's a Greater Birmingham too. It does complicate the argument somewhat, but perhaps if the consensus view is not to merge, then Suchandsuch Urban Area is a better title, as defined by the ONS in both Bristol and Nottingham's case. As you say, let's see what everyone else thinks. Cheers for taking the trouble to help out. Duncshine 15:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yet another local comment: to be perfectly honest, while I've never heard the term in 15-odd years living in this region, I also can't see any obvious way to merge it into Bristol, since it isn't really. Renaming sounds initially tempting until one does some searches and finds "Greater Bristol" overwhelmingly more common that "Bristol Urban Area". I have to say, the simplest solution might be to leave it as it is. — Haeleth Talk 12:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Haeleth. I think Greater Bristol could quite easily be merged into Bristol. A couple of short paragraphs explaining the difference between the City and County of Bristol, and the broader view of Bristol would suffice. Duncshine 10:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The article as it currently stands is about the ONS-defined place Bristol Urban Area. Rename, I say. 212.219.56.214

Since nobody went ahead and merged in two months I removed the notice. I have also added info and references to prove that the term is officially used. Joe D (t) 13:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable

A Google for "Bristol" returns 175,000,000 hits. A Google for "Greater Bristol" returns a mere 55,600; while "Bristol Urban Area" returns a pathetic 551. Even "SilkTork" with return hits of 29,000 (well, I am a busy internet person!) makes me more notable than the Bristol Urban Area, and nearly as notable as Greater Bristol. A one or two paragraph section within the main Bristol article would be more useful to people than this orphan stub. Clicking on a link to find a mere stub with information that could have beeen read at a glance or skimmed over by choice is not likely to generate happy campers. I would say go for the merge. SilkTork 22:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well said Silktork (though claiming to be more notable than the Bristol Urban Area might get you in trouble... What was it John Lennon said about being bigger than Jesus? Duncshine 12:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Greater Bristol is meaningless. This is simply a copy of the abolished County of Avon. Radstock for example is not locally considered part of "Greater Bristol". Nor are many of the villages in the outer parts of this map for example near the Somerset or Gloucestershire borders. Here people consider themselves more a part of their traditional counties than Bristol and quite understandably since I live in the area. This should not be merged with the Bristol article. This article almost justifies the County of Avon when no local knowledge accompanies it. If anything it should be merged with the County of Avon page as it is an identical map based on the same flawed reasoning. I urge anyone who thinks this really is the shape of Greater Bristol to come out here to northern Somerset and the unitary authorities and see for yourselves how meaningless this representation is. Jsommer 15:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC) (not logged in though)