Talk:Greater Bristol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.
United Kingdom Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments)
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance within the UK geography WikiProject.
WikiProject Bristol
Bristol Portal
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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Photo This article needs at least one photograph to be added
Map This article has a map
Infobox This article needs to have an infobox added
Stats This article needs statistical information to be added

Contents

[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)

All seems to have gone quiet on this merge matter now. Greater Bristol doesn't seem to be a thing many people use or have even heard of. I propose we delete this page and create a new article for Bristol Urban Area. Any information from this article about the Bristol travel-to-work area or the Avon county should go in the Avon article. Unlike Greater Bristol, Bristol Urban Area is an officially defined area by the ONS, and it should have its own page like all the other major British urban areas. Marky-Son 17:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't here for the original discussion. Has anybody actually read the article? Jsommer: this isn't about what any of us think Greater Bristol is. The use of it as a synonym for Avon was by the Joint Local Transport Plan -- the local councils -- not by any of us. You and I may not consider Weston, Bath or Radstock to be in Greater Bristol, but it's fact that that's how the councils used it. I think this article should be kept: it has a well referenced series of facts which I think are encyclopaedic. As the article shows, we can't simply redirect this to Bristol Urban Area or County of Avon because "Greater Bristol" has been used to mean both, and others beside. Joe D (t) 22:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal - March 2007

  • Strong Oppose - I see editor Rodw has placed the merge tag back on this article and that for Avon (county). Can I just say, for historic reasons, this is still a rather dumb idea. Unfortunatly (from both a cost and administration view point), Avon did exist - and it is now a point of history. Merging both articles will miss some of the reasons why Avon was created, and why (thankfully) it was disposed of. I also notice that since the last merge tag was applied/discussion, someone has thoughtfully and thankfully moved what was called "Greater Bristol" to the better title of "Bristol urban area" - lets be honest, its expanding and eating the various villages in the area, but each (at present) still havs its own distinct culture. For historic reasons keep the Avon (county) article, and seperate it from the new and expanding Bristol. Rgds, - Trident13 14:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
"Bristol urban area" is not a better title IMO, and looking at the page history it appears to have been moved by somebody who misunderstood what this page is about. This page is about the various formal and informal terms and boundary definitions used for Bristol and the surrounding area. "Bristol urban area" is one of those, and it is a formal and government defined one -- not one, like "Greater Bristol", that can applied to describe a collection of terms. Joe D (t) 14:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I prefer Bristol Urban Area, this is an area with formal boundaries so it should have its own article. Most other ONS urban areas have their own pages, so I think all the remaining ones should as well. Whether it's a stub or not is irrelavent, see Portsmouth Urban Area, etc. I don't see the need for compliacting Wikipedia with a needless article, as in Greater Bristol. Any city can have an informal "Greater area", Cardiff, for example, doesn't have a Greater Cardiff page. Marky-Son 17:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Well perhaps those others urban areas are for cities that don't have any other formal or informal areas associated with it. Can you please actually read the article we're talking about? There are several formal "greater" areas associated with Bristol, and makes sense to have an article describing them, and their relation to each other. Whether it's a stub is relevant: this page adequately describes the various areas and does not the information split out and duplicated. If Cardiff has an informal "greater" area of note, it should have a Wikipedia article. Formality is not an inclusion criterion: see West Country, or home counties, for example. Joe D (t) 17:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop telling people to "read the article" because they disagree with you. Do you have a source showing that Greater Bristol is coterminous with the Bristol Urban Area? Marky-Son 17:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this when it first appeared. I'm telling people to "read the article" because their comments, like the claim that there is no such thing as "Greater Bristol" bear no resemblance to the facts defined in the article. I don't really have time for any more Wikipedia this weekend, but will look for references at the end of next week, when I should have more time. Even in the absence though, combining short articles about related objects/areas is not unprecidented. Indeed, IMO, the argument that they should be combined because they're short articles about related areas is far more powerful than the argument that they should be combined because they share a name. Joe D (t) 10:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greater Bristol vs Bristol Urban Area

I have moved this page to Bristol Urban Area as most of the stats quoted are for the ONS-defined region named as such. please see [1], line 2107. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 03:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Lewis, I'm sorry for being short tempered last time, but I'm having trouble again now. We know those stats refer to an ONS area by that name, we don't need a link showing it. That's not what the issue is about. The issue is that the BUA is not the principal topic of this article. Joe D (t) 10:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)