There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mary II of England#Requested move 25 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I backtracked on taking 28 pages to AfD, but they would benefit from some oversight.

Every London borough has a "List of districts in X" article. Most of these pages were created by editor Maurice45 on 29 July 2008, though some were created by the same editor earlier, and a handful were created by other editors (MRSC, Kbthompson, SuzanneKn). Most of the pages are unreferenced lists. On 31 August 2019, editor Reywas92 redirected four pages (Merton, Southwark, Sutton, Waltham Forest, Wandsworth) to their respective borough entries.

"Districts" is an ambiguous and imprecise term that will inevitably inspire WP:OR, as has happened on a few of these pages (see, for example, Barking and Dagenham, Hillingdon, Lewisham), where editors have taken it upon themselves to subdivide these localities by combinations of streets, some of which are unlikely to pass WP:NGEOGRAPHY. There are evidently very many settlements within individual boroughs that merit standalone articles separate to the electoral wards of these boroughs, but these settlements are either already listed in their parent borough articles, or can feasibly be merged there in Geography or Districts headings, where there is more likely to be oversight against original research. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I see a couple of them have leads that say "list of places" or "list of areas". Whether they are districts, towns, suburbs, areas, or neighborhoods, it looks like most if not all of these should be merged or redirected to the main borough articles without need for separate context- and source-free bullet point lists. Reywas92^Talk 16:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

These lists duplicate List of areas of London and could all redirect there. MRSC (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

That seems like an ideal redirect target. The list is sortable by borough so the reader can find information by borough easily. I have gone ahead with a WP:BLAR on List of districts in the London Borough of Croydon. I'll leave IgnatiusofLondon to decide whether to do the rest or else revert and discuss more. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, all done! If the articles were already redirects to the borough, I left them alone, but otherwise did a WP:BLAR to List of areas of London per Sirfurboy. I also removed the links in Template:Areas of London. The edit summary pointed to a summary of our conversation at User:IgnatiusofLondon/Occasional tasks#February 2024: List of districts in London boroughs edits, inviting any disagreeing editors to join the discussion here. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why electoral wards are not geographically significant. They are the subjects of just one of the section of the page called 'Lists of districts in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham' which I added substantially to. As far as I can see information on these wards is not available on Wikipedia now that "my" page has been hidden away.

As to the other sections of the article that I wrote, added to or clarified, I am dismayed that all that work should have been lost.

There was *one* section in the article which contained an unsourced list of districts. I added to this as it had several districts missing. This section would seem to be unnecessary given the article 'List of areas of London'. 82.45.172.71 (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

There's definitely scope to redistribute some of this information (link to revision), and you shouldn't consider it as "lost". Looking at the sections of the article, and this is only my opinion, here are some places where the content could be merged into:

1. Pre-1965 boroughs (do not merge without adding sources) → London Borough of Barking and Dagenham#History
2. Postcodes (do not merge without adding sources) → London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
3. Neighbourhoods (do not merge without adding sources) → London Borough of Barking and Dagenham#Geography
4. Local plan areas (summarising) → London Borough of Barking and Dagenham#Geography
5. Electoral wards and polling districts → Politics of Barking and Dagenham
6. Parliamentary constituencies → London Borough of Barking and Dagenham#UK Parliament
7. Citizen's Alliance Network Nieghbourhoods, BT telephone exchange areas, Nextdoor neighbourhoods, Controlled car parking zones, Becontree estate numbered sections, BD collective/primary care network localities → this probably is unencyclopaedic content not suitable for Wikipedia; unless you can show significant coverage by secondary sources demonstrating their significance.

We have to remember why readers are here on Wikipedia, and in my view, we're doing a disservice if we're trying to keep up-to-date with all the various different "official" or "commercial" subcategorisations of districts. All too often, editors work on these articles then, for one reason or another, abandon them, leaving them to contain outdated and false information. Readers are better off looking at Nextdoor, Ringgo, or BT's directories for this kind of information (see also WP:NOTDIRECTORY). You can read Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for other places that could host this information and the hard work you've put into making this article. On another note, the article also contained some editorialisation, e.g. the comment the omission of Upney - an old place name and the name of a London Underground station - from this list is noteworthy (unsourced), and much of the article was not reliably sourced. This content is liable to be challenged and removed, and sources should be found to support the article's claims before it is merged into other articles. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Upney, Low Upney and High Upney are shown on the 1875 OS map and the name Upney is still in use locally and is not limited to the station, despite what W/P upholds. Citing one source which alleges that Upney "lost its identity" is in my view unencyclopedic. Yes, the whole area has merged with Barking as it has been built up, but that doesn't mean it has no identity.

"editors work on these articles then, for one reason or another, abandon them, leaving them to contain outdated and false information."

How does abandoning an article render any of it false? History doesn't change. As to being outdated, I have been very careful to give temporal contexts to my additions, avoiding terms like "currently" which pepper W/P articles.

Sources: The list on which I commented re Upney had no source cited, but I chose not to add to it in case it had a source.

"much of the article was not reliably sourced". Maybe not, but it's hardly controversial. Cardinal 1962 (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Upney, Low Upney and High Upney are shown on the 1875 OS map and the name Upney is still in use locally and is not limited to the station, despite what W/P upholds. → That's fine; produce the reliable sources to show this, then include this at London Borough of Barking and Dagenham#Geography.
• How does abandoning an article render any of it false? → This comment was addressed to the directory of Citizen's Alliance Network Neighbourhoods, BT telephone exchange areas, Nextdoor neighbourhoods, Controlled car parking zones, Becontree estate numbered sections, BD collective/primary care network localities. In the grand scheme of history, many of these are fairly ephemeral ways of subdividing localities, and liable to become outdated.

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 22:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:BT Centre#Requested move 16 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Colonnades Leisure Park#Requested move 17 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Cannons (house) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)