This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mills, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
mills on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MillsWikipedia:WikiProject MillsTemplate:WikiProject MillsMills articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all
list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
copied from
User talk:Mjroots and
User talk:MRSC (This is in relation to windmills surviving in the current London Boroughs)
I have re-added the mills back to their historical counties. The reason for this is a historical one - there are no windmills that survive in the area covered by the County of London as it existed before the changes to boundaries in 1888. All those surviving now were, until 1888, in the various counties that surrounded London. This is why I created the dual templates. Even today, the mills are considered as belonging to their historical counties. Brixton mill, the closest to central London, was a Surrey mill for the whole of its wind-powered working life. The London windmills template is for those mills currently in the area covered by the councils that are part of London, but the mills are also covered by the templates for their historical counties (Herts doesn't exist yet). Both templates are provided to make navigation between mill articles easier. I hope this explanation is sufficient and that you now understand why they are set up how they are.
Mjroots (
talk) 07:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Categories tend to use current subdivisions, so articles in
Category:Buildings and structures in London and even
Category:Former buildings and structures of London use the current boundaries, not ancient ones. Mills that are no longer working are often still open as museums in the here and now, so should be unambiguously categorised by current location. Perhaps a category scheme based around operational dates could be included as well as the location categories?
MRSC •
Talk 08:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)reply
I appreciate what you say, which is why I've got no objection to the category of Windmills in London. However, if you look at the sources used, you will see that the various mills are associated with their traditional counties. Hence the compromise of having both - the modern and the traditional. Without the traditional, there could well be comments of "why isnt xxxx mill included in this county?". I hope to vastly increase the coverage of mills on Wikipedia, and am trying to get a Wikiproject up and running on Mills. Once the project has been created, the subject of historical/traditional coverage can be addressed, along with other issues, such as naming conventions.
Mjroots (
talk) 08:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)reply
I am sure we can work out something that will work. This affects a range of historic buildings and structures, which may have been operational in one era and remain, perhaps converted for some other use. The approach should be consistent across all these types. In this context, I'm not seeing windmills as a special case.
MRSC •
Talk 08:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)reply
end of copied section
As you can see, there is a problem here. The historic counties have changed over the centuries owing to the expansion of London. I favour a dual approach, with the modern and the traditional both being covered. This really needs to involve WikiProjects for London and the affected counties - Kent, Surrey, Middx, Herts, Essex - although not all counties have wikiprojects.
Mjroots (
talk) 09:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)reply
In articles and localised lists it is right that the historical locality context is given, that is not in dispute - as in articles such as
Vauxhall Gardens (which is not, and should not be, categorised as "in Surrey"). It is the issue of categories I am most concerned with as these are currently ambiguous/contradictory, as are the templates. I've been looking at
Mill town for guidance as this is also affected by boundary changes. Apparent contradictions need to be explained, that is all.
MRSC •
Talk 09:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)reply
I've added a statement to the categories explaining the reason for the duplication. Am not sure if it's possible to do same with template though.
Mjroots (
talk) 18:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Categories amended to use the current subdivisions and article text to detail any changes/ambiguity
Templates amended to reflect the categories
County-based list articles to detail both current and historic boundaries, with an explanation of any changes/ambiguity
These changes will conform to the norms used in other buildings and structures articles and will comply with policy.
MRSC •
Talk 10:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)reply