This template is within the scope of WikiProject Shropshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Shropshire 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.ShropshireWikipedia:WikiProject ShropshireTemplate:WikiProject ShropshireShropshire articles
I personally find the County template very restricting. Would anyone oppose using the below instead. My only concerns (I would guess) people would have would be what is considered 'major' and what should be put into 'other settlements', and maybe people will oppose the prominent position of Telford. However, Telford is made up of lots of different towns with sizable populations (by Shropshire standards), so It really did need its own category. On a side note, what do people think of the image? Anyway, feel free to fiddle around with it. Thanks, Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have one or two issues with this proposed template. Firstly, why should settlements such as Stirchley within Telford gain such prominence? And I would suggest that the Settlements category is sub-divided into three categories: "Major towns", "Telford", and "Other towns". The "list of civil parishes" link should be moved somewhere else in the template - it has more to do with governance and geography than settlements. David (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well Stirchley could easily be removed, I was just proposing a change to the restrictive County template. The list of civil parishes link is there solely because it is there on the current one, but I have no qualms about moving it. What would you propose should be put in Other towns? Does Shropshire have enough towns which aren't considerely (relatively) major to justify a seperate field? And as they're not major do they warrant inclusion on the county template? Just a few thoughts :) Thanks, Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the reason I added Stirchley in the first place was because population-wise it's bigger than places like Bishop's Castle (10,000[1] vs. 1,630) which remain on the template. However, I am aware that population is not the only thing that makes a place warrant inclusion, so I am open to suggestions as to how we should decide on what and what not should be included. Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shropshire has 22 official towns. I would categorise them as such:
Major - Shrewsbury, Oswestry, Ludlow, Bridgnorth, Whitchurch, Newport and Market Drayton
Telford - (Telford), Wellington, Oakengates, Dawley, Madeley and Ironbridge (not a town technically, but we'll include it)
Other - Bishop's Castle, Clun, Cleobury Mortimer, Craven Arms, Ellesmere, Broseley, Much Wenlock, Shifnal, Wem and Church Stretton
(To be put into alphabetical order of course.) I'm not too sure about adding other settlements, even if they have larger populations than the smallest towns. It depends if they are notable. Stirchley isn't IMO. David (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the suggested modifications, but feel free to edit it if you spot any mistakes! Overall, do you think it looks better now than the current one does? I feel this version makes more sense given the odd sense of new towns. I didn't know where to put the List of Civil parishes so I just put it in the bottom bar. We could always put more relevant lists there if need be. Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, but my only concern is how to designate 'other notable'. To bring back another issue, and I am in no way trying to push Stirchley of all places onto the template, but how is Baschurch more notable than any other settlement? and in general the field seems a bit ambiguous and impossible to verify, whereas having the 'other towns' field you suggested was good just because we can actually say which settlements are towns. Just a few thoughts, Thanks, Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think we should implement it now then? I'm pretty sure we've reached something like consensus, seeing as very few people seem to be interested in Shropshire-related articles! Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.png){kind=small}
