Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties

County naming conventions

See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) which has a section on 'Counties of Britain'. To make progress on county articles we may need to revise these conventions and hold a new vote if necessary. The convention is currently being ignored in a number of articles. We should either adhere to it or change it. Chris Jefferies 1 July 2005 14:21 (UTC)

InfoBoxes

There needs to be some suggestions, somewhere, about the kinds of InfoBoxes that can be added to these entries. I know there appear to be InfoBoxes for the Counties and the Districts (at least in England), but perhaps these need documenting here? Also, given that there are InfoBoxes for Counties, Districts, and Settlements (at least in England!), I think there is a need to complete this by having an InfoBox for Civil Parishes. Such an InfoBox would at least specify the name, its position within the district and county, and its area and population. The usual kind of things, in fact. What do people think about and suggest for fields in such an InfoBox? Should there be an InfoBox at all? I would definitely have a use for one, myself, as part of the work I am doing on the Cheshire project.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There is already a parish infobox for parishes of Penwith district (see St. Buryan for example) which is planned to be expanded across all Cornish parishes Mammal4 14:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Would it be possible to make use of that for ourselves? Can it be modified in any way?  DDStretch  (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes - Template:Cornwallparish is the template I've drawn up for this, so you would only need to add {{Cornwallparish}} to the relevent pages, and then the shorthand for the information. It would be relatively simple to rename the template to UKparish. The style of the infobox is consistent with that of UK county infoboxes. The boxes currently on the penwith parishes are all written in longhand at the moment as I hadn't worked out what templates were for when I originally put them in!Mammal4 14:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

In the new guide it would be helpful to have a listing of useful templates and how to use them in the County context- at a level understandable by newbies ClemRutter (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ceremonial v Administrative

Until you have tried to contribute to a ceremonial county that contains a unitary the size of the problem isn't apparent. Everything has to be duplicated- statistics/including those in infoboxes- location of county town/s- all value judgements- e.g. the largest road/river frontage. This needs to be considered when the new guide is written.ClemRutter (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Images

In the new guide- a list of the type of images that are relevant and how to format. Where to upload, a link to the Commons:Geocoding and a mention of www.geograph.co.uk project ClemRutter (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we need more guidance about this. The issue that has recently come to my attention about images is the deletion of images of county and district (tier two) coats of arms that were going into various infoboxes and articles. There are two aspects of the matter: (a) should a coat of arms go into a county or district infobox or article at all, rather than the article specifically about the council that administers the region (county or district)?, and (b) should we make sure that any coats of arms created as images are as safe as possible from being deleted if that is at all possible? I've seen the deletion of the actual images, and I wonder what the policies or guidelines say about this. I'd appreciate some comments and guidance about this.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

New guidelines

I think this guideline is due for an overhaul as proposed. Having just worked (with others) on getting Somerset to GA, we tried to work to these guidelines & incorporated some from WP:UKCITIES as they were missing. Take a look at the talk page(archive 1) for more discussions with GA reviewer etc. (including a debate re etymology v toponomy) I would agree with the problems about historic counties with unitary authorities, particularly n relation to the infobox & population stats. Also in the infobox the area etc is done as km (miles) where as the rest of the article, following UK conventions, was miles (km). Under optional sections we were asked not only to do culture & transport but also education. We were also asked to put the "title" for tables of economy & climate, into the boxes rather than being in the text.— Rod ^talk 09:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I have just uploaded some draft guidelines. After thinking long and hard about this, I have developed and split guidelines for counties according to county type; the rationale being that Greater Manchester doesn't have much in common with Cornwall! However they are not entirely dis-simillar layout proposals.

I haven't mentioned anything about miles vs km or titles for tables, and have left this open for someone to include a suitable way forwards. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This seems appropriate but could get complex if someone changes one "type" of county & the change should really be made to all of them. Under politics it may be worth specific mention of "unitary authorities". Just one minor point - under landmarks you suggest including "any war memorials" - could this be changed to particularly notable ones as most towns & villages have them but they shouldn't all be included in a county article.

I also noticed that "former counties" recommends "Use Template:Infobox England historic county or Template:Infobox historic subdivision where appropriate." but there is no similar recommendation for the other types. — Rod ^talk 14:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

OK I've made these changes. Anything else? Please be brutal! It would benefit us all if these were much more futureproof than the previous set! -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The Scotland section needs work the sentence but still sometimes serve a cultural and ceremonial role I can understand the ceremonial but what cultural role do they have ? --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 03:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right to raise this, because, it appears it's totally unnecessary. I was thinking at the time that some are used for leiutenancy (but that's convered by "ceremonial"), and also serve as a geographic demarcation in tracing familly history (but it is just that - history!).

I do intend to look into writing something up for Scotland - but I'm looking for some good examples. I will of course get WP:SCOTLAND to take a look into these one their written. This is just a draft proposal page. -- Jza84 · (talk) 11:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've only now returned to look at these after a short time effectively away from wikipedia. I've made a couple of minor spelling corrections, and will be taking a more detailed look over the next few days. One immediate thought has struck me concerning counties which no longer effectively function, like Cumberland and Ross-shire. The guidelines give good advice, but I think it might be worthwhile to be more explicit in one respect: they are now of historic interest, and so they should be written about as one would write about a deceased person, using past tense, rather than the present tense for currently functioning counties. It might help resolve some potential problems that traditional counties advocates would introduce. Or am I concerning myself with too fine a detail?  DDStretch  (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think your point re writing about historic counties is valid. I ran into the problem when writing about Yorkshire. The current edit has reverted much of my work but I found myself confusing past and present!! Although the geographical areas of historic counties still exist it is difficult to equate facts with them as most current information is produced by administrative bodies working to current administrative areas.I am also wondering if it is valid to include the history of an area before the historical administrative county existed e.g. Roman Yorkshire as counties were not designated for several centuries after the Romans left the British Isles.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this input; both of you. I too am against any kind of political soapboxing that breaches our conventions, research and policy. I have comparable views to the majority here on this issue. I was concerned about going overboard with stressing WP:PLACE, but if there is a will to make this clearer, by all means feel free to do this in the guidelines.

I do think that a separate guide for counties that no longer function should exist. Certainly their former political makeup, their geology, historic population change would be very helpful - particularly in respect of family tree researchers. Certainly these types of counties do serve a minor cultural role (certainly not in resepect of "natural boundaries" or the breeding of different races of men as is suggested by some of the more "exotic" political pressure groups) - I'm thinking Yorkshire has the Yorkshire Post, and Yorkshire Tea, Yorkshire TV etc etc. I think it is helpful to include this in a new "Legacy" section. However yes, I do agree that we need to be mindful of anachronism and displacing historical periods. Perhaps I should include a note on this? -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason to refer to traditional counties is simple: The 92 traditional counties of the UK (39 in England) have existed for around 1000 years, they were established centuries before parliament came into existence and so no legislation has ever or could ever change, move or abolish the real traditional counties.

The Local Government Act of 1888 created local government areas loosely based on the counties, then subsequent legislation in 1965 and 1972 repealed that Act and established new areas of local government. Modern ceremonial, administrative or preserved counties are merely administrative creations whose boundaries are fluid and can change to suit various needs, they are not the true geographic counties whose boundaries are static and can't be changed. Tourists, visitors, people in general aren't interested in who empties the bins, but they are interested in the real, geographic, traditional county they are in.

The States of America are much younger than the British counties but they are static and are not subject the the absurdities of chopping and changing as the British administrative areas are. Doesn't it make sense to use a fixed frame of reference such as the traditional counties? --DonaldsonAC (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You might want to consider starting a new discussion at the bottom rather than adding to a twelve year old discussion that is lost in the middle of the page. In any case, I think you will need to come up with something that has more weight than those tired old arguments. Being a thousand years old is not a reason to refer to or to use historic counties as the default region within the UK. To do that would create the absurd situation of having an encyclopedia refer to Chelsea, Middlesex instead of Chelsea, London. Whether what you say about the various local govt reforms is true or not is irrelevant to what we use as the default county. Comparing the American states with UK traditional counties is also pointless: they are completely different in almost every sense. It is difficult to see what you actually want to happen other than to have an undoubtedly well intentioned rant bemoaning the loss of something that once was but no longer is. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Gone Live?

OK folks, I've took on board most, if not all the concerns raised so far. I've expanded some material for Scotland and Wales too (though more is needed for the Principal areas of Wales and Counties of Northern Ireland).

I'm assuming now that these guidelines are now live (?). If there are any fresh concerns or need for adjustments, I for one would appreciate it if users could explain their intentions here first to achieve consensus. Spelling mistakes and other simple changes of course being exempt from this. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Berkshire

Just a comment on the Guidelines table. Berkshire is no longer an Administrative County, but it is a Ceremonial County. Unfortunately, its unusual status means that with the wording currently in use, it actually fits in two separate guidelines - the top one (as it's a Ceremonial County) and the third one (as it no longer functions with an administrative role). Can someone think of slightly better wording so that it's quite clear which section (presumably the Ceremonial County one) that it fits within? Fingerpuppet 16:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not offering a solution, but want to add that if the changes in local government proposed for Cheshire come into force in 2009, I understand that Cheshire will be in a similar situation, since it will be made up of unitary authorities with no functioning overall county administration.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

These are good points - just the kind of thing I was hoping we'd find really! I would be very much inclined to write Berkshire from the ceremonial perspective, would others? Perhaps all that is needed would be a including Berkshire adding on? I don't know, -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I think of Berkshire as being a "halfway house" between Traditional Counties and modern Administrative Counties. It's not quite dead yet, but it's not far short of being. I've been thinking about it, and I'm still not sure how to phrase it - but I've realised that we need to be very careful with any use of Administrative Counties in the phrasing, as all Unitary Authorities are technically Administrative Counties (such as the County of Derby, County of Leicester, County of Southampton et al). Fingerpuppet (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. If the changes for Cheshire go ahead, then one possible way of dealing with the article might be this. It's the best I can think of at the moment, but may be it can spark some better idea in someone here: the article about Cheshire should talk about the ceremonial role it has in the present tense, since that aspect of it would be still in existence. The history of the county then would be written about, but since this would deal with an entity whose functions would have by then disappeared (apart from the ceremonial ones), these would be written about in the past tense, as if we were writing about a dead person. In effect, most of the specific articles as they exist for a "live county" would be transformed into articles more like "History of..." articles. Does that seem right just for a starter, or should it be altered a bit? Can anyone suggest anything better?  DDStretch  (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You are aware that Cheshire existed for many hundreds of years without a county council, right? Lancsalot (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

On this occasion, I'd be inclined to agree at least partially with Lancsalot's take on "former" counties -- unless I've misunderstood what ddstretch is suggesting. People are still going to call Cheshire Cheshire, just as people still talk about places being in Berkshire. (Which, incidentally, is why I usually don't agree with those pushing for greater coverage of traditional counties: people in general do not talk of Bournemouth being in Hampshire or Liverpool being in Lancashire.) That "former" counties no longer have any official duties is not grounds to put everything else into past tense: we have lots of informal regions -- I for example, can describe myself as being in the Blackmore Vale without the need to convene a council. And anyway, most of our county articles are written primarily from a ceremonial county point of view, with the mention of administrative and historical deviations mentioned -- Dorset (FA), Somerset (FAC), and most (if not all) the rest of them include their unitary authories . There is, therefore, no need to change anything to past tense except the governance section. Joe D (t) 00:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"people in general do not talk of Bournemouth being in Hampshire or Liverpool being in Lancashire" - Many of us do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.32.76 (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, on reflection, I agree with you. Ignore my previous message. Only the governance section needs to be in the past tense.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox historic subdivision

I've been busy expanding Template:Infobox historic subdivision, which now replaces a variety of infoboxes for historic subdivisions and incorporates fields found in Template:Infobox England historic county and Template:Infobox London Met Borough. They are nominated for deletion. MRSC • Talk 20:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have incorporated articles using Template:Infobox Wales historic county, which is now also nominated for deletion. MRSC • Talk 15:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Unnoficial county flags

I usually remove these from infoboxes and place them somewhere in the article with a caption "Unnoficial county flag of Foo". I do this because I think it is wrong for us to imply in any way they are official, by presenting them in infoboxes often without so much as a caption. Did we come to a decision on this? What do other editors do? MRSC 06:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't checked through the county articles for a while but I thought these had gone from infoboxes (bar Yorkshire and Cornwall). I would have though it best practice not having these in the infoboxes for the reasons just stated including the two just stated. Other county emblems, particularly "county flowers" should be treated with caution too. Of course we have things like the Cheshire cat, and the Red Rose of Lancaster, but there seems to be the Plantlife charity list of their "county flowers" being used in lead sections! I'd be happy for a note about this on the guide. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A long long time ago, I created a "symbols" section for Devon to move the flag out of the infobox. It returned. Joe D (t) 20:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we agree something here and get some support. I don't want to see any more flag-war over this. MRSC • Talk 11:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification on official stance by the government of the United Kingdom and the monarchy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have added a vertified section, backed up by official statements made by those who decide in regards to the traditional counties. Something as important as this doesn't get decided on opinion, it needs to be decided on the fundamentally vertifiable stances of the people who control the country. Here it the vertified clarification....

In regards to traditional counties, official statements made by the United Kingdom government should be respected. The most recent clarification on the Local Government Act 1972 was made in 11 July 1990, by the man who was the Minister of Local Government and Inner Cities at the time. Effectively, as minister of local government, the most reliable source in regards to such as issue. He made clear the traditional counties existence and the 1974 arrangements are entirely administrative, with the direct statement.

“ I can confirm that the government still stands by the statement ..... that the local authority areas and boundaries introduced in April 1974 do not alter the traditional boundaries of counties. The 1974 arrangements are entirely administrative, and need not affect long-standing loyalties and affinities. ” — Michael Portillo, Minister of Local Government and Inner Cities. 11 July 1990.

In respect of England, Scotland and Wales, a fundamental part of this guide is to reaffirm the long established policy that we do not take the minority view that the historic/ancient/traditional counties no longer exist. As this would contradict the government of the United Kingdom's most recent statements and that of future King of the United Kingdom, Prince Charles of Wales who in in late 2001 made it clear that the traditional counties are "still" in place and are "extremely important".

References

Unless there is some hard prove to back up otherwise, something so fundamental should not be replaces with mere opinion. Cheers. - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Her Majesty's Stationary Office, Aspects of Britain: Local Government, (1996) says (from my notes) that boundary changes 'did violence to loyalties'. This position is backed up by a range of academic literature, much of which is used as referencing in the various articles. MRSC • Talk 04:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Charles' statement was made in late 2001, most recently. And the allegation of "violence to loyalties" in no way addresses whether they are entirely administrative (as Portillo explicitly states) or not. And doesn't even touch on the official existence of traditional counties either way. However if you can provide literature from senior governmental figures claiming otherwise please provide it. Facts of government stance, not opinion of anarchists. - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Who is the anarchist???? MRSC • Talk 05:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Those who are of a hardline, baseless stance which contradicts governmental and monarchal stance, and sets out to destroy or demean the local cultural heritige within Great Britain, despite the people who actually get to decide explicitly and officially telling stating otherwise. Which adjective would you use to describe a baseless, non governmental stance such as "dem 1000 year old counties don't exist cuz when I vote for local MPs dem title not represent entire counties". or something equally illogical?? - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to be coming from a more neutral starting point when editing the encyclopedia. Your personal views (as you detailed for us here) come across in your editing and in the way you deal with others. MRSC • Talk 05:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Which other stance is there? That the government and the monarchy are simply "wrong" in the official statement they make about the country which they run? These are the people who actually get to decide the facts of the matter. Its not a matter of POV, its a matter of what is official stated by these people and can be used as a base. It is that simple. Base overturns baseless. That is the principle of an encyclopedia. - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The Prince of Wales does not decide UK policy. Any statement from him is his own personal point of view, such as his well known ideas about architecture. The statement by Portillo in 1990 reiterates the early statement and I notice neither are official policy statements. Academic literature describing boundary changes is as follows:

• Her Majesty's Stationary Office, Aspects of Britain: Local Government, (1996)
• Byrne, T., Local government in Britain : everyone's guide to how it all works, (1994)
• Arnold-Baker, C., The Local government Act 1972, (1973)
• Hampton, W., Local government and urban politics, (1991)
• Barlow, I., Metropolitan Government, (1991)
• Kingdom, J., Local government and politics in Britain, (1991)
• Dearlove, J., The reorganisation of British local government:old orthodoxies and a political perspective, (1979)
• Saint, A., Politics and the people of London, (1989)
• Redcliffe-Maud, & Wood, B., English local government reformed, (1974)

They can't all be 'anarchists'. MRSC • Talk 05:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that the official statements made by the government are not "official statements". Unless you can its baseless, government and monarchy who run the country and make the rules overide people who write books for a hobbie. However, you have yet to even show quotes which pretend the traditional counties no longer exist from these books either? You've just listed some random books on local government. Do you have absolutely any shred of evidence at all, from of a senior governmental figure officially quoting, or monarchal figure to say that the traditional counties do not exist? The answer, is still, no. - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

All of the above texts refer to boundary changes as changes. These are academic peer-reviewed works and were found during a literature review I undertook for Historic counties of England and related articles. They are neither random or "written as a hobby". Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy - you appear to have distain for this policy. This is unfortunate as it is the basis for adding content to the encyclopedia. Spoken statements from Prince Charles or politicians do not have greater weight, and the burden of proof is on you to prove that Portillo is making an official policy statement. MRSC • Talk 06:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course there were changes, to the organisation of local government administration. This is the thing which is staring you in the face, but you seem to be ignoring for some unknown reason. Just look at the titles of the books you have wrote a nice list of. You seem to have a distain for official sources, such as those from the people who actually run the country and decided whats what.

Portillo, the man who was Minister of Local Government and Inner Cities, directly in control of local government issues himself made this explicitly clear in this comment. You've aware of this, because the quote is on this very talkpage, where he refers to the changes as being "entirely administrative" and that these "do not alter the traditional boundaries of counties". Why are you glossing over that I'd like to know? ... and you've still not provided any proof or even a quote from any of those books to claim that the traditional counties were disolved. You've shown that local government administration was reorganised which was never disputed. - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Your summarising of the content of published sources based only on their titles really isn't helping. I see there is response at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Yorkshirian_.28again.29. MRSC • Talk 07:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, however you completely neglected to address any of the points or requests made in my post at all. Lets not get sidetracked. Pretend this is Newsnight and directly address and answer the points that were brought to the table, so this debate can find an solution backed up by the official stances of the United Kingdom. - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Given the circumstances, I would prefer some undertaking at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Yorkshirian_.28again.29 that future discussions will be undertaken with civity and on a rational basis. Entering into discussion with you is pointless whilst you offer responses such as your "anarchist" rant above. MRSC • Talk 07:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

By "given the circumstances" do you mean, given that you are unable to personally vertify your personal opinion and hardline stance which is not backed up by the government of this country, that the traditional counties were "disolved". You'll "pretend" we are not having this conversation at all and gloss over the points and direct quotes which were provided as evidence showing your opinion does not match the rulers of the country? That is not a constructive way to establish a result here based on the official stances of the United Kingdom at all. - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

By "given the circumstances" I mean the rude and adversarial approach you take with other editors and their escalating concerns about the standard of your behaviour. These have been reviewed by a neutral third party and you need to address those concerns here. MRSC • Talk 07:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what has triggered this debate, but to try to make sure i had got the terms in my head appropriately I looked at the Boundary Committee for England which is part of the Electoral Commission. (My particular area of interest includes Somerset & the 2 unitary authorities which make up part of the traditional/ceremonial county & Bristol which has reverted to City & County status after the abolition of Avon (county). The glossary on the Boundary Committee web site says:

• Administrative county - The area run by a county council or unitary authority. Can also refer to a metropolitan area.
• Ceromonial county - The area in which a Lord Lieutenant acts as the Queen's representative. Some are identical to Administrative counties, others include additional areas.
• Historic (or Traditional or Geographical) County. - The 39 Counties which existed prior to local government re-organisation in the 1960s and 70s.
• Unitary Authority (UA) - A single, all-purpose council, which has replaced district and county councils in some areas.

My understanding is that the Lieutenancies Act 1997 (a page which appears to have been vandalised) is the current relevant legislation in relation to ceremonial counties. Perhaps this debate should most appropriately be included at Association of British Counties?— Rod ^talk 08:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be already summarised here. The argument above seems to consist of a beleif that these comments should be used as the primary basis of encyclopedia articles and considered above reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. MRSC • Talk 09:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

break

MRSC, you still have not addressed the issues stressed. Now that I have replied to the Wikiquette thing, can you please reply to the points addressed here before? I'm especially still looking from you direct quotes from these local government books which put across your POV directly saying the traditional counties "no longer exist". Or a statement from a senior politician or royal saying this, to counter the ones I have provided. Thanks.

Jza however, seems to be "reverting" the project guideline (not a "policy" by the way) in an attempt to push his minority view POV that Greater Manchester and other local government administration invented areas which are subject to change, are actually recognised cultural areas in the sense of the "traditional counties". This is vast POV and certainly a minority opinion. His refusal to engage in discussion on this talkpage, is also somewhat irksome. - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There is little to be gained by debating with someone who misattributes a policy which is against their position, in an edit summary to keep preferences. Simillarly, as stated already by MRSC, I think you need to come from a more NPOV here; you have a clear bias.

What are these "traditional counties" you speak of? Where were these "traditional counties" defined in law? By whose tradition do they allude to? What function do they serve? What sources use them? Were the "traditional counties" not invented as administrative areas once? Do the Boundary Commission, Ordnance Survey, County and Borough Councils, High Shrievalties, Lord Lieutenancies, European Union, Judiciaries or other bodies not use modern counties? What county is Ancroft "traditionally" part of? Who invented the term "traditional county", and does this term appear in law or non-partisan gazetteers? What role do they serve?

What is your understanding of WP:PLACE Yorkshirian? There's not much point discussing this matter again; although you're not likely to admit it, the wealth of material against your position is actually overwhelming. I look forward to your answers to my queries above. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that you have attempted in some part to chance your behaviour to a more constructive stance of engaging, though your view that discussion on talkpages are a "waste of time" is of some concern. However in reply, I hope that you find this helpful.

• 1Q. What are these "traditional counties" you speak of? Where were these "traditional counties" defined in law?
• 1A. Historic counties of England's article should answer your concerns.

• 2Q. By whose tradition do they allude to?
• 2A. The tradition and culture of the island of Great Britain, established in the times of the Angles and Saxons. The basis of regional culture on said island and thus why the government of the United Kingdom has not officially disolved them and why they, as well as the monarchy (as sources on this talk) continue to make comments expressing that they "still" are in existence. Do you disagree with the future king of the United Kingdom?

• 3Q. Were the "traditional counties" not invented as administrative areas once?
• 3A. the traditional counties were invented by the Angles and the Saxons and have existed continually for hundreds and hundreds of years, without ever been officially disolved. They existed even before this country did.

• 4Q. Do the Boundary Commission, Ordnance Survey, County and Borough Councils, High Shrievalties, Lord Lieutenancies, European Union, Judiciaries or other bodies not use modern counties?
• 4A. You seem to be confusing local government administration, with the ancient counties. Shrievalties and Lord Lieutenancies are changed with local government administration, since they are in a way a form of local administration. For example take the High Sheriff of Greater Manchester, when the local government area of Greater Manchester is aboloshed or changed, likely in the near future considering it was only invented in 1974 and local government is rapidly changed in recent times (see, Humberside as an example), then the High Sheriff and Lord Lieutenancy titles will adopt a different name.

• 5Q. What county is Ancroft "traditionally" part of?
• 5A. In following with the meaning of the word tradition. Ancroft is traditionally part of Durham.

• 6Q. Who invented the term "traditional county", and does this term appear in law or non-partisan gazetteers?
• 6A. Tradition, historic, ancient, all words are usable. Personally I find it offensive that you would asert that your and my future king, Prince Charles is a "partisan gazetteer". The word "partisan" could be better placed on those on a mission to asert, without backing from senior government figures or monarchy members, that areas of "entirely administrative" (Michael Portillo, 1990) local governmental administration are actually cultural areas, and without evidence the opinion that the "traditional counties do not exist".

• 7Q. What role do they serve?
• 7A. the basis of local culture and tradition within the island of Great Britain.

I look forward to hearing your replies to these answers. Thank you. - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There's not much to answer to. It's all flowery, POV, conjectural and unsourced retort on your part (e.g. "basis of local culture and tradition within the island of Great Britain" - is just unsourced, unacademic garb). You've even cited Wikipedia as your own source! I seriously doubt you're not here to WP:SOAPBOX. If you have any doubt, reread counties of England and the Greater Manchester article, or take your concerns up with the High Sheriff of Greater Manchester or Lord Lieutenant of Greater Manchester.

You missed a question though Yorkshirian: What is your understanding of WP:PLACE? --Jza84 |  Talk  12:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be in violation of WP:Assume good faith, with this comment; "seriously doubt you're not here to WP:SOAPBOX". Please reform your conduct to follow policy and discuss in a more civilised manner to avoid appearing antangonistic in tone. Thank you. In your reply, you completely avoided addressing or replying to any of the answers provided. Odd. Perhaps a realisation that you are not in the right about this one prompted such a tactic? As for sources, they're cited above in this talk section. If you need more please specify on which you will like to be vertified and I will be only too glad to provide.

As for recently created titles of High Sheriffs and Lord Lieutenants of Greater Manchester. I'm not sure what good asking them will do since those temporary titles probably will be renamed in a couple of years when the next reform of local government administration happens. Perhaps a former High Sheriff of Humberside could shed some light on this? - Yorkshirian (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Or the former High Sheriff of Yorkshire? Before we continue, I'll have to repeat the question: What is your understanding of WP:PLACE? Don't forget you're at WP:RFC here. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  16:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Which former High Sheriff of Yorkshire would you like to ask? Certainly a well established, traditional, cultural area has many former Sheriffs to choose from, built up over almost a thousand years. :) Oh, you still haven't made replies to any of the answers, nor have you pointed out which pieces of information you will like sources for. - Yorkshirian (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As it is you who seeks change, and happen to be in the minority here and are the subject of a Request for Comment, and are in breach of naming conventions, I'd urge you to rethink your approach here. Think about it, the burden of acheiving consensus and policy change is on you; WP:PLACE is clear; the statements above are clear. I'm completely happy to withdraw discussion as the status quo favours a preference I'm aligned to. If you want a debate about "traditional counties" (which your points are totally unfounded - i.e. Lancashire was founded centuries after the arrival of the Saxons, and a forthcoming policy review is actually seeking to strengthen regional unity in metropolitan counties as city regions), you'll have to find somebody, and somewhere else: Wikipedia is not a forum for general debate. Just to be clear, I object to the preferences you seek, and thus, you have not achieved consensus. Cheers, --Jza84 |  Talk  17:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether you personally object to a view which is against your minority stance, is of absoutely no consequence, as you do not WP:OWN Wikipedia, which you seem to be imply. You also seem to be engaging in violation of WP:NPA once again, by commenting on the editor not the content. As this page was authored by you, to express a minority, unorthodox view that non-permanent areas of local government administration which are not based on cultural affinities or tradition (such as Greater Manchester which was invented in 1974, for example) take presidence over the historic counties which were not officially disolved, then the onus is on you to provide vertification for this.

Wikipedia works primarily on that concept, if you cannot provide this, then it can be changed with information which is vertified and up to standard. If you then removed vertified information, without providing sourced information in its place, this is a form of WP:Vandalism (as well as baseless WP:POV pushing) as expressed in the rules of Wikipedia. Personally, I think the former Minister of Local Government and Inner Cities, Michael Portillo... and the future King of the United Kingdom, is in a better position than to comment. However, this isn't even policy this page is anyway, its a mere project opinion, an unvertified essay by one editor which other users are in no way bound to follow in editing actual articles, especially on such a contentious issue. Cheers. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You're failing to recognise that whether these "traditional counties" exist or not, We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries. Debate their existence all you want, but the naming convention is clear, and thus a project guideline reflects this. Simillarly, project guidelines are written by the community, for the community. If you want to propose your own guideline, feel free. Cheers, --Jza84 |  Talk  17:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the talk archives of the Wikipedia:Place it is evident that there is no "we" there is a you, claimed a non-existant count to back up your POV on this subject and then entered it into the mainspace.[1] On the talk page of WP:PLACE in December last year, you deceptively use voting on an article for deletion as the basis of a policy vote on an unrelated guideline talkpage. This is a false, and deceptive claim at consensus because these people are not aware of voting for anything to do with WP:PLACE and its guidelines of British counties.[2] I have rumbled that and brought it up on that talkpage now.[3] It looks like "we" do not accept the minority stance that the traditional counties were disolved afterall, eh? Additionally, the contentious and unvertified piece of information about counties in this project guideline was orchastrated by you in November,[4] not the "community". Please stop pretending you have consensus to back up an unorthodox stance, when you don't have that or vertification. Cheers. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You have made some very serious claims about Jza84 and the links you have provided do not point to supporting evidence. The vote was tallied and added on 1 January 2004 by User:Morwen. [5] Two years before he started editing. 19:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yorkshirian turned out to be a serial troll, puppet master and banned user. MRSC • Talk 15:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Corrections to changes to the guidelines + culture & sport guidelines

I've not had time to follow the evolution of this page closely, so I apologise if I'm wasting everyone's time going over old ground, but I would just like some clarification on a few changes (to the English counties box) that have occurred since I last checked in. Were these changes discussed before they were made, were any arguments made in their favour, and are they really what we want to be encouraging?

1. Climate section -- in our featured articles (Dorset and Somerset), climate is part of physical geography, and I thought this was the case with our guidelines. I am sceptical that climate would ever need a section of its own, and am therefore unsure that we should be encouraging having such a section. I think that the addition of this section to the guidelines has also caused the introduction to the box to be incorrect: "Editors are strongly encouraged, however, to follow the first five sections outlined here." -- I believe that this applies to History, Geol/lands/ecol, Politics, Demographics and Economy sections.
2. Settlements - we are now being encouraged (underlined, so strongly encouraged) to use a table. My immediate unconsidered reaction is that this is a terrible idea. My considered reaction is only a little more favourable. This section always used to encourage prose, briefly describing the important settlements. Again, our featured articles use prose for this section.
3. Sports - didn't we used to encourage including "sport" within "Culture"? Once again, in our featured articles, sports form a paragraph within a culture section.

I am rather surprised that "culture" has been relegated to "optional" sections, and I think it would be helpful to have a proper guideline for writing culture sections -- after all, I'm sure that I would be able to recommend a county for "FA" without such a section. If we do make such a guideline, in addition to using our FAs for ideas, Cornwall might be useful to take a look at (not that I think the culture section is especially well organised, but it is quite comprehensive).

I would actually suggest that we discourage having "sports" as even an optional section, unless we can be sure that some editors will monitor it. My experience of the "culture" section of Bristol is that it is a constant battle to prevent these sections from filling up with "victory cruft". If one tried to study British sport using Wikipedia, you would find that every team in Britain is in the top 5%, winning important victories and trophies. At the very least, I think we need some good guidelines about what not to put in a sports section -- no more than three sentences for any one sports team (if the team is notable, it will have its own article); avoid individual match results; be careful not to include too much recentism, or, conversely, too much historical detail.

Cheers, Joe D (t) 21:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

County templates

I've recently created new county templates for Leicestershire, Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire and Hertfordshire all using Template:County, however I've noticed that several county templates are using Template:Navbox instead and there is inconsistency as a result.
So..am I correct in thinking that Template:County is the preferred template to use, and should any templates using Template:Navbox be converted to Template:County for consistency?

Some other questions:
1. Some county templates such as Template:East Sussex are using alternative colours - is this encouraged or should all templates use default colours for consistency?
2. Should county templates be added to settlement articles (eg villages) that aren't actually linked in the template, or just to those articles that are?
3. Is there a list somewhere of preferred topics to be included in county templates?
4. Some counties also have "Places in" templates such as Template:Places in Bedfordshire and Template:T&W places. Should these be replaced by county templates and phased out, or retained and used as well?? My own view is that they're unwieldy and unnecessary since "Places in" can be accessed from the main county template, but what do others think?
Dallan72 (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

How to write about districts

Please note I am drafting Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about districts and it has some overlap with this policy. MRSC (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Page to be redirected/merged with this one

Please have a look at WP:Naming conventions (UK counties) (it was marked as a guideline, but I've demarked it as it seems to be in such poor shape), and comment on its talk page as to whether it should be redirected to or merged with this page. Thanks, --Kotniski (talk) 12:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Assumptions about County Names creates Confusion and illogical Articles

Hi everyone. I expect this post will ruffle a few feathers and I hope it does. Numerous Wikipedia articles deal with British counties. Very many of them do nothing but cause confusion and contradiction. The reason is the false assumption that historic counties, administrative counties and ceremonial counties are all variations of the same thing that has been modified over time. This is simply wrong. They are separate entities that have the misfortune to have in common the word 'county', the same name (such as Somerset, Hampshire, and so on), and a reasonably similar location on the earth's surface. To argue about whether or not Romford, for example, is in Essex is pointless unless you first define what Essex you are talking about. If you are talking about the historic county then of course Romford is in Essex, but if you are talking about the Ceremonial county then no it is not in Essex, it is in Greater London.

The convention on Wikipedia, that seems to have been arrived at many years ago without much in the way of later review, is to treat, in this example, Essex as one entity, the administrative Essex, and then to have an article about that Essex and to try to accommodate the other Essexes within it. You are effectively then trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. The result is confusion heavily laced with illogical comments. Somebody can quite correctly write that Romford is in Essex and somebody else can just as correctly write that Romford is in London. What we do not want, and the wider, especially unfamiliar, readership does not deserve is for one of those statements to be removed or criticised as being incorrect. To do so also does a grave disservice to the truth and the intent of Wikipedia.

What then is the solution? Drawn out though it may be there may be no option but to take the onerous path of having three articles for Essex and to amend the very many other articles that will be affected by this change of approach.

It is unfortunate that a more robust analysis of the problem of 'counties' was not undertaken many years ago in the early days of Wikipedia. Had that been done we might have avoided the increasingly big hole we are digging for ourselves.

To end, here is one example, from the WP guidelines on county names, that illustrates my point. It is stated that WP does not follow the minority view that the boundaries of English historic counties still exist. Of course they exist - they were and you cannot change what was. What, I think, the author meant to say is that the boundaries of historic counties no longer have an administrative purpose. Most champions of historic counties know that they no longer have an administrative purpose, but so what? The historic counties still have other purposes that more than justify attention being given to them.

This mess with county names has been created by successive governments over a relatively short time. It is not our job to undo the mess but rather to accommodate it as best as possible in wiki articles. To change facts or twist the truth, which is happening far too often, is anathema to what most of us believe and what Wikipedia stands for.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I've found the original discussions about this topic which took place in 2003/2004 if it's of interest to you. G-13114 (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Roger, everyone. I hope my appearance here does not ruffle your feathers:-) For what it is worth, I agree wholeheartedly with above post and particularly the final sentence part "to change facts or twist the truth, which is happening far too often, is anathema". I have only been 'in' WP forum for a few days, but, I have consulted a fair number of many WP pages and reams of 'talk areas'. I have seen far too many cases of obfuscation, and, this is the first requirement for 'truth' that I have seen and was beginning to despair for WP entity. Using the example above I would offer, please, a suggestion where there could exist one only Essex article, called, Essex (County of). Detail will be placed in Roger's proposed guideline. after each section, for brevity and ease of understanding. I would suggest that the description of the differing 'counties' takes place on the "WP:Counties of England" article. This could briefly explain the chaotic progression / development that has resulted in counties having complimentary but different boundaries, 'traditional', 'administration' and 'ceremonial', and, that not all counties have all of these. A new discussion will be required on "WP:Counties of England" article but will reduce repeat text on individual county articles. An interesting observation, for later consideration / different forum. It is the case, I think, that admin boundary is under control of the (unelected?) Electoral Commission, and, Ceremonial is under control of Parliament via Lieutenancies Act. Who, or what body, if any, has vested or other authority to change 'traditional / geographical' boundaries? Starting to tire here. Final for tonight. If community consensus is to use term 'traditional boundary', I would suggest a need to quantify the term to avoid future challenges based on timeline. I further suggest that, for WP purposes, 'county traditional boundary' be specifically defined, at the highest subjective hierarchical place, as referring to the county's configuration immediately prior to the 1974 local government reorganisation (this being the point where we brits lost the plot:-) The terms 'traditional counties / boundaries' may also be open to later interpretations. To avoid this, can I suggest going back to the much earlier term 'Geographical Counties' described as "the County Boundaries in existence at the time of (the 1974 Act, better words needed)" This should lock it down. Mikewhit (talk) 08:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Proposed change to guidelines on how to write about counties

There is no consensus to adopt any of the proposed changes to the project guideline.

Cunard (talk) 06:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Proposal

The current guidelines here:

At the WikiProject UK geography, we believe the counties of the United Kingdom are important subjects. In order to facilitate the development of these subdivisions of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland the following guidelines have been put together.

In the United Kingdom, the meaning of "county" can be confusing. There are several types of official administrative area that are described as counties due to historical modifications of the borders, and because the extent of the "administrative county boundaries" are often not exactly the same as the ceremonial and ancient county boundaries by of the same name; the counties of England and Waleshave undergone vast geographic transformation in the last few centuries; the counties of Scotland were officially abolished but their territory (in some cases) exist with a ceremonial role; likewise the counties of Northern Ireland have no administrative role, but are used for geographic demarcation and lieutenancy.

In respect of England, Scotland and Wales, a fundamental part of this guide is to reaffirm the long established position that we do not take the view that the historic/ancient/traditional counties still exist with the former boundaries. Unless (using consensus) a good reason is made not to, the article should describe any administrative and ceremonial changes differences within one article, including any difference in the statistics between them. In England and Wales, where the historic county boundaries are different to modern boundaries the article should discuss these differences, and not be split into new "Historic county of Exampleshire" articles.

Where counties have been abolished or no longer serve any municipal role (such as Cumberland or Ross-shire) these should have their own articles, but maintain that they no longer function as contemporary counties/subdivisions of territory.

Should be replaced with this:

In the United Kingdom, the meaning of "county" can be confusing. There are several types of demarcation areas, fulfilling different roles, that are described as counties. They often use the same or similar names and cover similar geographical areas. The main demarcation types are the traditional counties, that have developed over centuries and different administrative areas, such as the ceremonial counties, that have been created by various legislation from the late 19th century onwards. A common misconception is that the legislation that created the administrative areas has also abolished the traditional counties. There is no evidence to support this claim.

Unless (using consensus) a very good reason is made not to, the article with the name of a traditional county should be about that traditional county. Any administrative area, ceremonial county or other demarcation area with the same or similar name as a traditional county, should be described briefly within the traditional county article but have an article of its own dealing specifically and in greater detail with that other type of county or administrative area. For example, the article entitled ‘Essex’ will be about the traditional county. Reference to its governance will be made in the article, including the area currently administered by London boroughs within Greater London, such as Romford, and areas such as Southend that are administered by unitary authorities. More detail about local government in Romford, since 1965 when the London borough of Havering was created, will be dealt with in the ‘Havering’ article.

In practice very little will change except removing the contradictions caused by the non-referenced and incorrect assertion that the traditional counties have been abolished or altered. Currently, there are different articles dealing with the different areas anyway, so no new ones will be created and to claim otherwise, as some of us are doing, or to claim excessive doubling-up, is misleading. All that will happen is that the counties/areas different roles will be more clearly and more accurately defined, which is what wikipedia is here to do. Therefore, this proposal will actually simplify and clarify matters, having the opposite effect to what the neigh-sayers claim it will have.

(References to back both sides and to give relevant weight will follow. Any help in this regard would be welcome, but please avoid using any ambiguous citations that do not define what county is referred to, or citations that reference back to or feed off each other.) Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The word 'county' must be more clearly defined in UK articles Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The current guidelines were adopted around 15 years ago and have led to numerous editorial contradictions and circular discussions. This means the guidelines don't work properly and need updating. It is even questionable whether there ever has been a consensus created. I hope a healthy debate will follow here first. Many other editors who use the various county related sites should also be advised of this discussion, and someone might also begin a Request for Comment.

The current guidelines are factually incorrect in claiming the historic counties no longer exist. This is probably the route cause of most of the problem. The use of the word 'county' to refer to different things comes a close second. Change will not be easy because there are so many inter-connected articles and assumptions, but change is necessary. We must keep any changes simple and not get trapped into discussing the minutiae. However, precision is important, because the lack of it has led to the current muddle. I very much think we should avoid discussing at any length whether historic counties exist of not. Some people just don't get it so we are better off just accepting that and moving forward. I propose the following:

1/ When referring to a county, the default meaning is the traditional/historic county. Different meanings of any name are qualified by such words as Essex (Ceremonial county). It is more often than not that confusion arises by using the ceremonial county as the default, even though it was originally thought this would not be the case.

This means, for example, there will be an article named Essex dealing with the historic county and one called Essex (Ceremonial county) dealing with the more recent area. The current Essex article will not change much, and would have a small sub-section on recent local govt, referring to the CC article: the new article, Essex (CC) would deal only with that county, mainly local government. This is no different from countless other article topics.

2/ Have separate articles for the different types of county. Combining everything together is not practically possible without making POV assumptions that trigger the endless edit wars. Inserting opinions and false information not backed by the evidence or by closer examination does Wikipedia a dis-service.

3/ Use the term 'traditional' county (as does the govt), because 'historic' can be confusing. The use of the word historic has caused much of the misunderstanding that has created the confusion.

...If we adopt these two changes alone, there will be limited need to change the numerous contradictions in the articles because the changes once made will easily lead to the fairly quick ironing out by editors of so many problems caused by the current way of handling counties. There will be problems relating to each county but they will be reasonably easy to deal with once we have adopted point 1 above. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. 1. I would strongly object to this, as it is out of line with modern conventional usage of the term. 2. is a recipe for confusion and is again out of line with conventional usage. 3. I'm fairly indifferent to. G-13114 (talk) 09:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

  Out of line in what way? All that is proposed is clarifying what is meant when the word 'county' is used, or when a county's name is used. That is exactly what happens, when needed, in modern usage, in any given spoken or written situation. WP does not have many of the verbal, visual and written aids we use to convey the context being used outside in the wider world, (ie which county type), so WP needs to be a little more specific, such as noting what, say, 'Surrey' we are writing about on this website. Putting a note in parentheses after a county name is not changing the name, it is clarifying it, if that clarification is needed, such as in the heading. Further into that article the word 'Surrey' alone can be used because the context has been set. It causes fewer problems by taking the historic county name, not the administrative county name, as the default, which has been shown by the evidence, and which is what is causing the confusion you refer to. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

In the interests of simplification, hopefully solving User G-13114 opposition, the large number of UK population who find this topic confusing and, that parts of above sections warrant it, I would suggest to elevate the changes to "WP:Counties of the UK" page (which also currently carries errors), vis:

All below applied to WP:Counties of the UK,

Re Section 1, First paragraph. Provide a brief history and make clarification of the different county types, and the relevant authoritative body for each type. Sounds complicated but is easy to do with a small table.

(Together with Section 3), I think it true that the only 'type name' at issue is variously called Historical, traditional, geographical. This can be fixed to one acceptable to WP. Names of types 'Administrative' and 'Ceremonial' are not at issue

Section 1, second paragraph (Article Essex) and Section 2 . Explain that 'Essex' can have one or all of the different types, and, the boundary of each type may not be identical. Include for County Essex page relevant maps of each type (or, single map with multi- line markup).

Only one 'Article Essex' required. Sub sections may be required dependent upon specific county complexity, at discretion of county page team.

(As a sidebar / ajunct, 'Places' also need one page. Links are already provided Place page / County page. in the case where Town X is in one geographical county and seperate Admin County, statement of case and two links.

If we can get consensus of the amended proposal we can move discussion to "WP:Counties of the UK" Talk page. Mikewhit (talk) 19:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose proposal 1 and 2, for the reasons G-13114 gives. The default meaning of "Essex", if unqualified, should surely be the current, administrative meaning as it affects, and is understood by, the majority of the population, not an archaic one espoused by a few pressure groups and regarded as little more than a curiosity by the rest. Most neutral observers would, with a full understanding of the historical position, accept that Barnoldswick is currently in Lancashire and Abingdon in Oxfordshire (and I speak as a former resident of the latter). They would also consider the default definition of "Yorkshire" to be "the combined areas, as currently defined, of the modern counties of North Yorkshire, East Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire" rather than "the combined areas of the former East, North and West Ridings as they were defined between the Counties (Detached Parts) Act 1844 and the Local Government Act 1972". The Yorkshire article can, and should, discuss the differences between the two, and the timing, succession and controversy of the changes, but there's absolutely no need for a separate article just because the boundaries have changed in a few places. No-one would reasonably object if the word "county" was properly qualified where the meaning is significant and ambiguous – indeed I'd support such changes as an aid to clarity – but the idea that there should be separate articles for the historical and ceremonial counties of Essex is giving undue weight to the minutiae of boundary changes, and the idea that the 1974 boundaries should take precedence over later definitions is surely POV-pushing.

I fully understand the legal nicety that the historic counties were never formally abolished, and it's entirely reasonable to mention that "Abingdon was in the historic county of Berkshire" or whatever, but suggesting that Abingdon still is in Berkshire in any meaningful way does not aid understanding. This is a fringe theory, regardless of statements from Tory politicians trying to avoid losing a handful of votes from traditionalists.

Finally, I don't wish to personalise the argument, but I think it's notable that Mikewhit is much more concerned about Barnoldswick than Abingdon, whereas the administrative realities are similar: his comment at Talk:Yorkshire that "Yorkshire is not Berkshire, fortunately for us both. I dare say there will be different responses to the question almost county by county" strengthens my view that this proposal is driven by motives other than clarity and objectivity. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Dave, your comments are welcome and needed. This proposal is not about specific county issues and I hope, that unless it clearly is part of a wider point, we can all avoid getting trapped in our own wee local pet town or county. Similarly, this is not yet another time wasting discussion about whether traditional counties still exist. That is a dead end. They do exist and the question is how best to incorporate their existence in wp articles, that is all. The current method does not work properly and the proposal is no more than trying to change it to make it work properly. There will be some editors who will continue to bury their heads in the sand, use the terms you have used like, "as is understood by the majority" (POV??), and pretend otherwise, but so be it. Please, stick strictly to the "non ambiguous in any way" facts, as determined by A1 RSs. To do otherwise is to do a grave dis-service to WP. In any case, we are not here to follow the majority opinion if that opinion is wrong. Most people probably think that lemmings commit mass suicide by jumping off cliffs. Should an encyclopedia go along with that urban myth just because most people think it's true, or use the evidence to show otherwise? A better line of discussion here would be about why using the traditional county as the default does actually cause less confusion than using the administrative county, counter-intuitive though that might sound. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Approve Roger, Dave, It is clear that the different types perform different functions. If the explanation of types is done correctly, there is no requirement for a default meaning. Also, adopting my suggestion above complies with the requirement not to split articles. Please also remember the full paragraph from existing guideline, particularly last sentence;

"In respect of England, Scotland and Wales, a fundamental part of this guide is to ....... between them. In England and Wales, where the historic county boundaries are different to modern boundaries the article should discuss these differences, and not be split into new "Historic county of Exampleshire" articles."

The guideline is silent relating to the views of the population, majority or not, it just asks that the differencies be explained. It also asks this AFTER stating the belief that the boundaries no longer exist - so, mistaken or not, in this regard, existence is not material. I don't see why this proposal should not go ahead. It is after all just an examination to determine if the guideline can be improved, and to what end. If the answer is no changes, then it is no. The determination will be a matter of record which should avoid discord for a time, at least. The required result here is surely to ensure that the WP articles are factual, unbiased and fit for purpose. Mikewhit (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The reason the guidelines are illogical is that the writer assumed that the same one entity was changed from an old version to a new version (called HC and Admin County). Because the evidence contradicts that assumption, as is pointed out by many editors here, a form of compromise was inserted that allowed sentences that treated the two versions (HC and AC) as different entities, not as variations of the same. You then have a fundamental contradiction. That is the basic problem: the only way to solve it is to remove the first, false assumption that both entities are variations of the same thing. My proposal attempts to do just that and by making as few changes as possible. The biggest change needs to be made in the minds of the reading public, many of whom have been unknowingly and unintentionally mislead and confused for the last fifty or so years. These relatively minor but pivotal changes we would make would overcome the nonsense of having articles about two so interlinked counties as Lancashire and Yorkshire treating each one as different entities - an HC and a CC. If the community thinks that changes to the guidelines are required, we can all then discuss exactly how to do that, but it will have to be based on the firm principal that the county types operate in parallel and are different. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

At this juncture I think we are in front of ourselves, discussing, again, the issue. It is precisely this that demonstrates that the proposal has valid basis - .

It is also why WP is not 'set in stone'. When change is warranted, it should be made.

We need to have an agreed consensus, as requested by the author,

'Proposed change to guidelines on how to write about counties'.

This is not about specific changes it is about agreeing that changes are required.Mikewhit (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Some users appear fixated on rebuttal of changing the article and / or 'policy'. Lets' agree that change is necessary. Once past that, it can be identified what changes are necessary, and where they must be made.Mikewhit (talk) 08:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Gentlemen, ladies. To date I have had little response to my comments, apart from accusations of 'fringe', 'bias', and other such, which, after personal consideration, I find unwarranted.

I am going to pose a direct question. If there are no responses I will take that to mean that my presence on this forum is not beneficial to you or to me.

Q. Do we agree that change is required with respect to how UK Counties is presented? Mikewhit (talk) 08:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

So. No responses to date.

After much reading, I realise that I cannot 'abandon' WP.

The reasons why I began this journey are still valid and my conscience will not allow it.

I will continue by pointing out that this situation has existed almost unchanged since WP was created, and I cannot find any use of Arbitration. Why not, I wonder.

I will further point out that some users and WP article positions are in direct conflict with the information contained in Encyclopedia Britannica.

While I don't suggest WP copy Britannica, I think it fair to say that it is not in WP interest to suggest or even infer that it is wrong.Mikewhit (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

By "Arbitration", I take it that you mean the Arbitration Committee. That is always a last resort; the first thing that that they will ask is whether all other avenues to settle the matter have been exhausted - if not, they will reject the case. Even if they do take the case on, it will all end in tears for somebody. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

So, if I have this right, it is preferable to allow what amounts to poor or misleading information on an unknown scale for fifteen years or so, than admit failure to reach solution / consensus due to fear of the process? wow. Thanks for the warning🤔

Anyway, thanks Redrose, first response for days. Thought everyone had gone on holiday😊 Have you comment on my post of 8th in support of Roger 8 proposal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikewhit (talk • contribs) 17:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

whoops, forgot to sign. Straight to bed no tea for me tonight😁Mikewhit (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose 1 and 2, neutral to 3.

1. If there's a situation within articles where this can cause ambiguity, then we should be spelling it out either way. In most cases it either won't matter which version of the county we're referring to or will be obvious from context. In the rare cases where there's enough actual ambiguity to be confusing then we should be resolving that ambiguity in the article text; an average reader won't be familiar with our policy and won't know that we always default to one meaning unless specified otherwise.

Specifically with regards article titles, if we were to have separate articles then I believe that the default should be the ceremonial counties. WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY explicitly states that historical age is not determinative, and the ceremonial counties are the more common usage.

2. This seems like a WP:REDUNDANTFORK at best and a WP:POVFORK at worst. What would go in the different articles? If both covered the same topics (history, culture, sport, etc.) then we end up with a lot of duplicated content. If the historical county gets to be the main article and the ceremonial county just covers local government, then that heavily implies that the historic counties are more important and the cerremonial counties merely administrative entities, which would be WP:UNDUE weight. Lowercaserho (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Since these proposed changes apply to every county article, etc. can I ask whether the proposer to this RFC has advertised this discussion on all the relevant county pages? I would have thought it would be better to do this, rather than end up with any changes that might happen being "sprung" on people who were otherwise unaware, merely because a few people with similar viewpoints about any supposed inaccuracies have been active on here for various reasons. I have views of my own about this RFC which I will post once I have clarified in my own mind the response I will give to it.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

To this, I might add, one could add all the pages of districts, towns and cities etc whose articles would be significantly altered by these proposals. For example, Stockport (I'd like to see how the resulting mess which already existed, and would now be much much worse, and which was solved by the 1974 changes would be handled by the proposers), and Wirral, etc.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Please rest assured I am well aware of the very relevant points you have raised. I have given a lot of thought about the wide scope of this request, how best to get the message out there, and how best to express and implement any changes. I am also aware of the need to keep the suggested changes as simple to understand, to debate, and to implement as possible, without going off down countless side-tracts. I hope to be able to revise this RfC shortly to make it more usable. That will include posting notices on many of the county related articles. Any help or suggestions would be welcome, but to everyone...PLEASE be succinct and keep to this page and to this exact topic, not specific examples unless they illustrate a wider point. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I can appreciate that there have been problems as I have been involved in the discussions since my first edits on wikipedia in 2005. I can understand the motivation for trying to sort them out, too, and I thank the proposer for trying to make some steps in sorting them out. But I wonder whether merely changing the assumption that, say, "Cheshire" should stand for the traditional county, rather than the ceremonial county (as it does now) would merely be substituting one interpretation for another, rival one? I consider it would provoke a different set of problems, even though some others would be solved.

I wonder whether a far more radical proposal would be better considered? For example, why not replace the article for "Cheshire" by a simple, slightly expanded redirection page, where in a very succinct way, the different interpretations of "Cheshire" (as a county) are listed with links to articles that deal with them? There would have to be some discussion about what fitted where, but this solution would also allow for the other interpretations of, in this case, "Cheshire" to be listed along with their own articles. For example, taking my cue from the definitive reliable source for such matters - F A Youngs' volumes (which you really should know about if you are making these proposals etc, and if you don't, then why don't you!) - we have "Cheshire (Ancient County)", "Cheshire (Administrative County)", and "Cheshire (Non-Metropolitan County)". These volumes also show that it is a myth that the so-called "historic counties" were fixed and stable in their extent, which has often been advanced as one reason for opposing the "ceremonial county" interpretation of the various counties in favour of the supposedly "unchanging stable historic counties".

Finally, I want to urge us to be precise and accurate, and to be guided by what the reliable sources say, and, if there are conflicting accounts, we need to "come clean" about this in these discussions here and attempt to deal with issues of precedence, and decide what to do in the written articles. I urge those who have a particular desire to alter the current situation to consider all reliable sources to come to a rounded position. At the moment, I am minded to oppose proposition 1, I could be persuaded of a solution like proposition 2, though I disagree with the reasons advanced in the explanation, and I'm concerned about selectivity in proposition 3, as it's still not clear to me just what this new term, mentioned in it, would be referring to.

 DDStretch  (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Roger 8 Roger the proposal is no longer brief; this is how it now appears at the RfC listings (it was only 11 words before, excluding signature). Please also respect accessibility guidelines. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Redrose64 for your comments to date including this one above. I take your point. I also accept responsibility for allowing this RfC to become too large and patchy. That was a risk I was aware of when I started but I thought it was a risk worth taking. Perhaps my biggest regret is that I have absolutely no doubt there are very many people who agree with me that reform of the guidelines is necessary but that this clumsy RfC has not allowed constructive debate to occur. Somebody else at a later date might try to handle the subject, hopefully with more success. In the meantime I will back off this RfC, comment as and when the need arrises but no further. Once again, I apologise to any editors who might have been looking forward to a constructive debate. I might be missing something obvious, but trying to keep this topic succint and simple is nowhere near as simple as it first looks. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The problem is not with the overall size of the RfC (I have seem many that were easily twenty times as large; some were placed on their own dedicated subpages because of sheer size). The problem is with the length of the opening statement (see WP:RFC#Statement should be neutral and brief) - remember that Legobot (talk · contribs) copies everything from the {{rfc}} template (exclusive) down to the first timestamp (inclusive), like this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Everybody, in an effort to simplify.

Principal issue is that the guideline applies unilaterally to ALL counties.

Individual counties are not allowed, quite literally, to decide if the stated (?POV?) belief is true or not for their case.

Proposal is asking to reword the guideline to allow the flexibility.

It is worthy to point out that until flexibility is allowed, any discussion of change / degree of change / knock on effect is moot and/or unhelpful.

I would suggest that Roger 8 Roger start a new proposal on the lines of rewording to allow flexibility. Once approved, discussion can begin on replacement wording.Mikewhit (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose any attempt to make things different for individual articles. They should all be governed by a single top level guideline or else you end up potentially with every article going its own way and nothing following the guidelines. Keith D (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep it simple, simple, simple! The root cause of the problem is the assumption that traditional counties were changed or abolished with local government legislation from 1889 onwards. Remove that assumption and the mess we currently have in UK county articles will unravel itself over time. The way to start that is to change the wording in the guidelines, as I proposed above. This proposal has already become cluttered but it is probably still workable. Whatever happens, stick to that one proposal and do not go off in different directions. Once the guidelines wording is changed all those other problems about how exactly to implement it can be discussed. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The old hundredal system of government was never officially abolished, and yet we have only the occasional advocate of an eccentric position, that we should continue to treat them as valid still-existing local government areas and bodies. I would argue, after thinking about it, that since the local government changes happened in 1974, we are fast approaching the same situation with the pre-1974 county areas. This is not to label all who are in favour of these old extents as holding eccentric views on the matter. Some are clearly not, but some are, and some more are fast approaching being thought of as having eccentric views. I think some are in danger of being seen as recently active, single-purpose accounts, which often are a sign of a pressure group member, of which we have seen plenty arguing for the changes suggested here over the years. It's like the way we can often tend to do things in the UK - we just supplant old ways of doing things with newer ways, and these newer ways become, de facto, the official ways, situations, and methods, with only a few people resisting such developments.

I wish to make the following points:

• I suggest any myths that the so-called "historic" or "traditional" county extents were unchanging shows a lack of knowledge of the true situation.
• I suggest that a failure to mention the two-volume definitive reference for these issues (F A Youngs, in 1981 and 1991, which people should really know about) further adds to this because if they knew about them they should have already mentioned them.
• No number of sources by people who are not experts in the field of local government systems trumps these definitive volumes as guides for us to use (otherwise we would be facing the situation of re-labelling, say, "The United Kingdom" as "England", given the majority of Americans who use this inaccurate term in the wider world. Another point is that statements by, say, UK politicians about pre-1974 county extents can not be taken as definitive because politicians may make any number of statements for many reasons in which accuracy need not be a top priority).
• A simple look at the boundaries shown in the latest issues of Ordnance Survey maps refutes the idea that the so-called "historic" or "traditional" county extents should still be used in wikipedia.
• If there is confusion, we should be educating people as to the real effective situations using these reliable sources.
• If there is any ambiguity that exists after we have taken all this into account, I would argue that it makes much more sense to use the latest boundaries as used in all local government operating today.
• There may be a need to review the wording of the guidelines, to make clear we are not dismissing any mention or discussion of county boundaries prior to 1974, but we should neither change the position that was adopted by the editors of them, nor should we be giving the boundaries that existed before 1974 any undue emphasis. (I do not recall having any role in writing the guidelines, just to make it clear).
• For the above reasons, I Oppose any attempt to have anything other than a unified guideline applicable for all county articles, and that the single, unified position should be essentially the one that already exists.  DDStretch  (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

For those unaware of the Youngs volumes I am referring to, here are their details. I possess both of them if anyone has a query about anything in them and doesn't have access to them.

*Youngs, F. A. (1981), Guide to the local administrative units of England. (Volume 1: Southern England), London: Royal Historical Society, ISBN 9780861931279

*Youngs, F. A. (1991), Guide to the local administrative units of England. (Volume 2: Northern England), London: Royal Historical Society, ISBN 9780901050670

They give fully-referenced entries to the primary sources which announce boundary changes or which first mentioned the boundaries. More recent changes can be reliably sourced in the usual ways we have at our disposal here.  DDStretch  (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Keith D. This is unnecessary and as DDStretch points out, this proposal is an incoherent mess and an embarrassment. (Summoned by bot) Chris Troutman (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose 1 - linking to an article with the name of a current administrative area should always lead to an article about the current administrative area (e.g. Essex should be about the present day administrative county of that name). Unsure about 2, this should be decided on a case-by-case basis. If there have only been minor changes to borders (e.g. Cornwall) then it seems very unlikely that a separate article should exist; but if there have been very extensive changes (e.g. perhaps Oxfordshire) there might be scope. Neutral about 3. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose - Creating multiple articles for a county is unnecessary, untidy and would be confusing to readers. Chris Jefferies (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Chrisjj, the problem with that argument, that has been made by others, is threefold. First, the creation of overlapping and confusing articles about counties has already happened due to the current approach, so it cannot get much worse. Second, by their very nature the different counties are different entities, so there is no reason not to have different articles. To combine them, as is the current guideline approach, is illogical and confusing. Third, by having different articles for the different entities we are likely to reduce the creation of county articles, not increase it, because there will be far less illogical contradiction and hence far less need to use newly created articles contradict the contradictions. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why you have a problem with that very simple argument, Roger 8 Roger. Let's take your three objections one by one.

• There are already overlapping articles so it can't get much worse. That simply does not follow. It's entirely possible for one article to cover everything. Look at the article for Gloucestershire as an example.
• The various kinds of county are different entities so should have separate articles. They may be seen by some as different entities, but others may see them as a single entity with a history. Perhaps this is what the discussion is really about. But look at Poland as an example of an 'entity' with a history. Its borders before and after World War 2 are entirely different. But we don't argue that there are two different Polands and they should therefore have separate articles. You are arguing from a point of view while claiming it's the only valid point of view. But it's not.
• Your third point seems to be just a restatement of the first and second points. A sort of expansion of the argument by restatement.

Your argument has strengthened my opposition. Chris Jefferies (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose 1: Besides what has already been pointed out, the policy also makes the mistake of assuming that the pre-1974 or pre-1889 counties are a clearly defined set of boundaries. There might be people who say that Romford is still part of Essex, but I don't hear anyone claiming that Hull is still part of Hullshire, or that Wokingham is still partly within an exclave of Wiltshire (I'm not joking).

Oppose 2 also. It's confusing, and if articles on countries can cover their past definitions, then the existing county articles are adequate at encompassing the administrative, ceremonial and various historical definitions.

Weakly oppose 3: I don't necessarily see "traditional" as being better or worse than "historic", but I don't really get understand why the OP thinks historic is a confusing term. Anywikiuser (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

What, in reality, is being proposed?

I suggest everybody first reads the original 2003 discussion that led to the current guidelines. There are some strong and well structured arguments made by several editors, some reading this page now. One leading proponent of the current approach says this

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Like all encyclopaedias, dictionaries, books on grammar and style, it must reflect the reality that is out there in the world. An encyclopaedia doesn't exist only to tell people facts, that's far too narrow a definition. It's role is to give people information - yes, about facts - but also about opinions, common perceptions, customary understandings by ordinary people. Chris Jefferies 00:13, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This could be seen as the start of the slippery slope. Unintentionally, he has disposed of the need to be truthful and has thereby opened the floodgates for the factually twisted imbroglio we see today. Soon after the guidelines kicked in an interesting little series of spats occurred involving Owain here [6] that forewarned of trouble ahead. We now have the huge advantage of 15 years experience of seeing how those guidelines work in practice, and the best we can say is that they don't work. Like any flawed system it is pretty much ignored, with different articles following their own ad hoc policies.

What will actually happen if we change the guidelines and accept what the original modernists confirmed was true, namely that traditional counties do exist, even though they could not quite bring themselves to state it without resorting to words like archaic, technically, not in reality, et cetera? Despite acknowledging their existence in the discussion, the editors back in 2003 still inserted into the guidelines this erroneous statement:

In respect of England, Scotland and Wales, a fundamental part of this guide is to reaffirm the long established position that we do not take the view that the historic/ancient/traditional counties still exist with the former boundaries.

What will now happen? Each current article will stay as is. The section on local government would become a summary of historic changes that would re-direct to another article that would cover the current administrative area or areas in more detail. This is where there might be a need to create another article called, for example, "Essex (administrative county)", or similar. All the existing anomalies and illogicalities would get ironed out by all the edit-beavers who love doing that sort of work. There are loads of them spending time on their own favorite county articles. This would inevitbly mean that the default meaning of a county name would be the traditional county, not because we are promoting them but because it will be the only logical and practical way to do it. We would then have an encyclopedia that reads more like an encyclopedia, and we would increase the credibility of Wikipedia by another notch. All the more specific detail would therefore be sorted out in time but first we must get rid of this factual inaccuracy. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

What will actually happen, has yet to be seen. I will list my opinion of some of the opportunities I see, next post.

Firstly, 'new' information, not presented on WP to date as far as I can see. There are a number of reliable sources, discounted without relevant citation, during and since 2003.

Adding to these, the Office of National Statistics and the Encyclopedia Brittanica both include full support for the change in support of Roger 8 position. Mikewhit (talk) 09:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)Mikewhit (talk) 09:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, some benefits, no particular order, resulting from WP community simply withdrawing from current guideline Re denial of the existance of historic/geographical boundaries;

• bring closure to around fifteen years of disagreement,
• ability to produce a simple to understand narrative relating to the three 'types' of county,
• allow 'county' pages flexibility to post county specific conditions,
• remove obvious ambiguity from present guideline
• create ability to reduce page content by using links to existing and sub pages
• provide reliable sources and links for source information
• bring WP position in line with other information sources
• create a more efficient county / place context
• avoid damage to WP reputation
• remove need to invoke WP Administration resolution to impasse
• identify and fix root causes why this was unresolved for over a decade

Just a few. I won't add any more, yet.Mikewhit (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Personally I'm fairly ok with the current policy, it may not be perfect but it broadly reflects how counties are used in the real world and on modern maps etc, which is how wikipedia should reflect these things. It has stood for 15 years now with no problems. I can't see a particular reason to change it. Changing the policy to the one being proposed would inevitably cause havoc and edit wars on dozens of pages, and frankly as the matter has been settled to the satisfaction of most editors for such a long time, that's really something we should avoid. G-13114 (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

So, G-13114, your 'real world' bears no relation to my real world.

In my world, the proposed approach is consistent with and supported by the repeated statements of position by various UK governments, defacto published use of respected official and unofficial bodies such as the ONS and the Encyclopedia Britannica, and, maps.

There are a lot of maps. Some represent administration areas, some geographical, some ceremonial.

Perhaps you could broaden your search to include some of the maps that contradict your position?

In your world, your 'policy' could be 'policy' or guideline, at your choice apparently, which does not appear on WP 'Full Index(es)'. Nontheless, policy or guideline, under WP rules both may be subject to edit.

Your world also seems to allow you to ignore the constant 15 year long discussions, some heated.

You personally claim, without a shred of citation 'it has stood......without problems....., and, 'has been settled' and a belief that a small number of involved contributors is 'most'.

In the interest of objectivity, please provide the supporting evidence of the source, formal consensus achieved and issuance of the policy/guideline so that fact of its' existence can be determined and the contentious statement subjected to examination in accordance with WP Pillars and issued policy.Mikewhit (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

G-13114, I must admit to a little frustration there, I apologise. I don't know how Roger 8 does it.

One thing I will suggest, lets both simply agree we live in different worlds.

The change that is being requested will introduce the flexibility to for wp 'counties' to represent more positions. So, if 'your' county doesn't want to use its' geographical boundary, it need not. Some counties, however, absolutely insist on it.

Please indicate agreement to make the policy more flexible, we can work it out from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikewhit (talk • contribs) 16:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Whoops, forgot to sign. been botted again.

G13114, if you wish I will redact all of 12:50 post.Mikewhit (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Complaint: I am still waiting for notices advertising this RfC to be placed on all relevant wikiprojects, county pages, and pages of towns and cities which would be adversely affected by all this. Until this is done, I fail to see how this set of proposals could ever hope to have been discussed as widely as it needs to have been. So far, I have seen one notice placed on the Lancashire project, but this is completely insufficient for the scale of changes being proposed here. Additionally, I want to see a succinct description of what is being proposed, together with a clear and succinct list of reasons why. I say this, because I see what seem to be messages suggesting what is really being proposed is something other than is stated at the top. (Can I suggest that there are less long, rambling messages posted that are tiresome to read?) The succinct statements could be placed in a specific section of this RfC (I suggest at the top), and not subject to editing on a whim. Finally, I expect to see some signs that a weighing up of the reliable sources both for and against the changes (or the status quo) has been done, otherwise, the changes could be seen more as an attempt by a pressure group (which we have seen before on this very issue), to make changes. We are supposed to be an encyclopaedia here, and not appear to be a set of zealots for or against any particular point of view.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I oppose the motion, in particular the use of different articles for the same county - for goodness sake, the different meanings of Essex, for example, can succinctly be expounded upon in one article, namely the Essex article. This motion has the faint whiff of a personal/group campaign to use Wikipedia to help shift the overton window with regards to English counties towards a wider usage/understanding of the supposed "traditional" or whatever counties, which of course themselves changed over the centuries (so quite why they are then 'fixed' at a certain 19th or 20th century date in the minds of those who use them...) Sumorsǣte (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Approve the concept of changing the guidelines to clarify traditional counties and their status. It is a long-needed change to the guidelines, and will address the incorrect information currently on this encyclopaedia. The fact is, that traditional counties continue to exist (see past and recent government press releases and statements. If these aren't clear enough citations/references, I don't know what is). It is therefore only right that this 'encyclopaedia' should reflect this, and state the facts. It is not acceptable that this fact should be omitted just because it may cause confusion to some readers. Facts are facts. Even so, this should be the impetus for clarifying the different names for counties that exist. Reasons for my support for the change:

1) There needs to be clarification on the different county statuses. Currently, some pages have had edits reverted because they refer clearly to the traditional county. Whereas, in the example of Yorkshire, the current page still states (at the time of writing) that it "is a historic county of Northern England". This quite correctly shows that the historic/traditional county still exists.

2) It is not correct to show the traditional county flag on county page infoboxes, which refer only to the ceremonial/administrative county. This is a contradiction of information, which is actually a contributing factor that causes the confusion. The English county flags registered with the Flag Institute represent the traditional/historic county. Not the ceremonial/administrative ones. The flags should either be removed from all county pages, or used only for a page that talks about the traditional county. This issue has already been discussed on the Berkshire talk page: Talk:Berkshire.

3) It is not sufficient to say that a settlement "was historically in the historic county of XXX". Using this wording seems to show that the settlement no longer presently exists within the traditional county boundaries. If the traditional counties still continue to exist, how can this wording be correct? Thus, Abingdon still is in Berkshire (traditional county), but also in the ceremonial county of Oxfordshire. Slough is in the ceremonial county of Berkshire, and the traditional county of Buckinghamshire. Ceremonial counties and traditional counties are separate entities, as we have established already. Hence, it is like comparing apples and pears. Why should the two county entities be discussed on a single article with one type of county being discussed preferentially? Acapital (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you DDStretch, for your contributions to date. The relevant point in your post above is at the start, although the reasoning behind it is flawed: the rest is off topic. Hundreds have no effect on the lives of anybody today beyond the history book. Traditional counties by contrast most certainly do, in contrast to your claim that they do not, and whether that is true or not is the point we should consider. Hundreds being abolished, or not, is irrelevant to your argument. A better example to back the point you make is to look at places long since absorbed into the urban sprawl of large cities. Of what relevance is it to anyone today that, say, Aston is in Warwickshire or Deptford is in Kent? Your reference is about local government, not directly about traditional counties, and, even if it does in part refer directly to the existence of traditional counties, as it cannot be viewed by most readers here, it is of little use to anyone who does not automatically accept your word on what is says and what it means, which most people here will not do. I am sure you would agree that a healthy dose of skepticism is essential on Wikipedia. Once again, please stay on track and avoid any hint of personal opinion. What evidence do you actually want to see that traditional counties do impact the lives of people today or affect the way society functions? I think there is a good case for claiming that the onus is on the modernist crowd to show that the traditional counties are of no relevance or have been abolished, rather than on others to prove the opposite. The fact that that was not done fifteen years ago when these guidelines were established by a small group, using contested consensus, is not really acceptable. The follow-on damage those guidelines have done to the reputation of Wikipedia is something we should address with urgency. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Serious Complaint: I will deal with other serious issues raised by Roger 8 Roger later. However, now I must make a serious complaint! I asked quite a few days ago, for adequate notices of these proposals on all counties affected by them. So far. I have seen one notice on Talk:Lancashire here. But there have been only two more, both of which are highly selective and create biased notices given that no further notices have been posted. At the moment, the ones posted stack any participation in favour of the proposals. The first one is an oblique notice on Talk:Historic_counties_of_England here, a site which is patrolled by editors, some of whom are single person accounts who will be naturally supporters of these proposals. It hardly counts as neutral advertising given the place it happens in when it occurs in isolation of any notices placed elsewhere. Similarly, a notice on Talk:Historic_counties_of_Wales here very recently appeared. This also creates a biased form of notice for similar reasons. In the light of unexplained inertia in adequate notices being placed on all county articles, I request either that this RFC be stopped immediately, or immediate steps be taken by the proposer to remedy this biased form of posted notices. If any notices do appear, I hope that copies of them will be provided in links posted here, as I have seen in other situations where views are called for about a particular issue. Section 3.6 of WP:RFC is relevant here. At the moment, notices are insufficient and two of the three specifically posted will result in a biased selection of comments in favour of the proposals.

Look, I have some sympathy in the idea that the wording of the guidelines should be amended, but I have serious doubts about the proposed solution, and the conduct of this RFC to date. Can I suggest you withdraw it and start again, this time doing it more carefully and providing specific evidence of the recent problems the current guidelines have created, together with how any proposal will solve the problems without creating new ones? We are not supposed to be on opposing camps here, though your language sometimes ends up polarising discussion: we are here supposed to be engaged in what is known as a "critical discussion" by researchers into dialogue theory, where together, differences and a willingness to sort them out in discussions which may be tough at times leads to a success. This is not to say one should not point out the dangers here of single purpose campaigning groups to sway the discussion in partial ways, but it can be a tough set of discussions. In the light of this, I make one more point which is serious enough it needs immediate airing:

As I said, I will, address the errors posted by Roger 8 Roger in his comments addressed to myself later. However, in the meantime, I do wish to address one of them, where he attempts to dismiss the two reliable sources I posted, I draw his attention, as well as the attention of others to the second point in the FAQ about reliable sources here, and further explained in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Cost. I am surprised this point was not known. In short, reliable sources cannot be dismissed if they are even as rare as being available only in one copy which is hard to access. Additionally, the sources I gave can be found in libraries, and a search of www.bookfinder.com here shows copies of the volume can be picked up for as little as £3.50 and £12.00. So, I think a dismissal accompanied by unjustified doubting of any information I might give from such volumes is unsupported. There is a point about being sceptical, but to demand such a stringent set of checks from another editor on information they might supply verges on the unacceptable, especially when I am not aware of any questions being raised about my behaviour or ability in supplying information from reliable sources before. However, if need be, I am happy to provide photos of the pages I draw on for any information I provide, if such doubts are maintained, but then shouldn't such doubting be extended to everyone, included himself? (This feeds through to at least one more point I will raise later). In fact, what specific reasons has Roger 8 Roger for saying that any information I supply, as opposed to anyone else, is to be doubted in such a way?  DDStretch  (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

DDStretch doth protest too much methinks. Sifting through this latest post, we find this - I have some sympathy in the idea that the wording of the guidelines should be amended - which is the one relevant point this time. So, you do in fact agree with the proposed need for change. To vote and argue otherwise suggests there is more to your position. And here it is! Tucked away here [7] we find your true thinkinking, something you have not yet, but should have, disclosed in this debate. So you too tried to reform the guidelines back in 2009, an effort that did not really achieve very much because the mess is still here. The huge benefit for us now in reading these 2009 posts, as well as the comments you made further up on this very page we are now on in an earlier debate, is that it reveals your thinking, which in turn explains why this endless, apparently illogical approach to UK counties has developed over time. It is so simple: you, and many others, have assumed that traditional counties functioned only as local government units. Therefore, when different local government units were created, the traditional counties no longer functioned. Speaking in a general sense, what a simplistic approach! "Let's ignore everything else about traditional counties and just pretend they served only as local government entities." All this means that any form of discussion about the issues is utterly pointless. Finally, it is great to see that you are actually on our side and that we can add you name to the growing number of supporters. That makes 4 in favour of a change, when will the next supported throw his or her hat in the ring? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Unless proven otherwise with clear and strong evidence, the opinions of some Wikipedia editors, that traditional counties no longer exist, should be irrelevant when up against the facts. Would someone opposing the fact that traditional counties continue to exist, please supply any form of substantiated evidence or citation to prove so? The proof that traditional counties still exist is beyond doubt, according to official government publications. It is not my opinion. It just is what it is. This issue has been a long established misinterpretation by modern day media after local government reorganisations in the 1970's, and needs to be corrected or clarified. Acapital (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Roger 8 Roger. People are allowed to change their minds. I am sad you have chosen to launch a personal attack upon me. It's not what one expects to see, especially as you have mentioned, twice, as far as I can see, above, the need for others to avoid opinions. Do the rules you wish to remind us of not apply to you, then? The accusation that I indulge in "tag team" editing is a serious one, and you need to withdraw it as it obviously is not happening in this discussion. Where is your evidence for this accusation about my conduct? Withdraw it at once, because you have no such evidence. These attacks only undermine your position, which, as I have said, and say again, I have some sympathy for (because people are allowed to change their minds, certainly over a 9 year period).

However, as yet, I have seen no evidence in the form of a list of the current problems caused by the guidelines or explanations of how these will be solved without introducing more problems. I don't doubt that for cultural reasons, etc, what some call "traditional counties" (though that is a made-up synthesized term) still exist for many people, but you need more reliable sources that refer to these cultural ideas etc - more than you have alluded to here and ideally not mere assertions that they do still exist by people not usually judged to be experts in the area of local areas within the UK (for reasons I gave before). You have provided no reliable sources in this discussion, as far as I can see, that demonstrate the existence of the old county structures for any cultural reasons, as it is not a particularly well-structured rfc. They may be there somewhere, my apologies if I have missed them. So I still oppose your proposed solution as being unsupported and because I think there is an issue of undue emphasis at work. This is not because I believe that old country structures do not exist any more in any form, as I have shown in some comments, above. You are simply incorrect to say I support what you are proposing, though I am not sure you meant that seriously. In which case, if you didn't, you shouldn't have included it given your accusations you made immediately before. Furthermore, the attempt to draw a distinction between facts and opinions is drawn too starkly here, as anyone familiar with epistemology and the scientific method will tell you - what we think of as "facts" we use on wikipedia are still tinged with interpretations which naturally involve opinions of some sort, but they are critical opinions, meaning they have ideally undergone strong, reasoned investigations as to their validity. And yet they still remain opinions, for the simple reason that wikipedia does not use primary sources. It is this failure to acknowledge the critical aspect to forming relevant opinions which is an error here. So when we come to an opinion about something, it isn't like any capricious opinion of an uninformed source here, but one which has gone through this critical phase, and which can be explained if asked about.

I was intending to offer some help in reframing a rfc as I think I could help you do it better, and the offer is still there, even though you have been so aggressive in your replies to me. As was said earlier by someone else I have no connection with - it's a bit of a mess and an embarrassment at the moment. Your confrontational approach is unlikely to win any friends who are as yet undecided about this, and it certainly doesn't fit in with the ethos of wikipedia. Please think again.

I've already given you some pointers of how this rfc could be improved. Here are some more: After the simple statement of the problem in summary form, you should finish and sign the message there and then. This then allows the next sections to expand upon and discuss what happens next. First, have a section in which links to notices of this rfc are placed (you could have the dates on which they were placed and by whom as well). This will help show people that you have carried out an appropriate and complete coverage of all places where people who might be interested in this rfc might read it. You could do with a section that expands on the introduction to the rfc with something like "Expanded Statement of the Problem" together with links to places where particular instances of the problems have caused difficulties recently. A section called "Proposed Solution" might then follow which simply states what you intend should be done about it. You need to show how the problems discovered in the previous section would be "fixed" by your solution, but you also need to have section in which additional problems introduced by your proposed solution are listed. You can then have a general discussion section. I think this might make it more clear what you are proposing and why, and help to clarify where things need further discussion. I don't care if such structuring of rfcs may not have been done before, but I am sure your will do a better job of clearly trying to persuade others if you adopt my suggestions or something prompted by your reading of them.

Now, I must be a bit tough here. I have tried my best in the context of aggressive attacking responses from Roger 8 Roger to remain true to the spirit of wikipedia here, but if there are any further failures to assume good faith, then I may adopt a rather different mode, though still remaining within the bounds of acceptable behaviour for wikipedia, and this would definitely NOT use my administrative powers.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I note that another 3 wikiprojects have had notices posted about this rfc, but its still insufficient. I am surprised given that Roger 8 Roger has been active on other articles in the meantime. I think this needs seriously addressing. Do you need help? I can post the same notice you have posted but to a list I have of a great many more relevant wikiprojects than the ones you have posted to up till now.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I would like to contribute, but unfortunately this debate has got so long winded and splintered that it's impossible to track what is actually being proposed, discussed, agreed, or moved on with. If this is an RFC I would suggest that a new start is made with a more thorough explanation of what the changes are intended to convey and the issue at hand. Starting with a change in text without understanding why the text is being changed means I have had to read an awful lot of comments and still be none of the wiser. The likelihood now is that broadcasting this RFC now is going to be a non-starter because it is already too prolonged.

My instinct is to oppose on grounds that this RFC doesn't appear to have conformed to a standard I would expect if this is going to result in the changes I think it is. Koncorde (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I have just become aware of this RFC. I have briefly scanned some of the arguments above, and have contributed to previous ones on a similar topic over the last 10+ years, but it is not clear to me what is currently being proposed. My perception is that the situation is complex and two examples, local to me, illustrate some the issues:

• Somerset is a ceremonial county (with its own lord-lieutenant etc. It is also a historic county. The ceremonial county of Somerset consists of a non-metropolitan county, administered by Somerset County Council, which is divided into five districts, and two unitary authorities. My impression of common usage is that readers have a concept of Somerset but may not know the ins and outs of the statutory or historic issues. Trying to create separate articles for the Ceremonial county of Somerset and Historic county of Somerset would be extremely difficult and probably more confusing for the reader than the current situation, particularly as current and historical sources (eg for population figures) use different criteria.
• Bristol is a city and county. Parts of it have been parts of the counties of Somerset and Gloucestershire in stages of its history while still being within the city! Bristol is both a city and a county, since King Edward III granted it a county charter in 1373. The county was expanded in 1835 to include suburbs such as Clifton, and it was named a county borough in 1889 when that designation was introduced, and I haven't even mentioned Avon (county) (most locals try not to). The Lord Mayor of Bristol, not to be confused with the Mayor of Bristol, has now been joined by the Mayor of the West of England.

We need to reflect and try to explain some of this complexity for the reader but I don't think a plethora of articles each trying to represent different aspects, which this RFC seems to be advocating, is the way to do this for them.— Rod ^talk 13:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I entirely agree with the comments by Konkorde and Rodw, and I made much the same kind of comments, quite a few days ago, above. I really do suggest the whole thing is withdrawn and time taken to just reflect on the consequences of any proposals, and then a new rfc can be proposed and a more focused discussion can take place. The new rfc could be better structured, more clear, and have better indicated evidence that all relevant notices about it have been issued.

Just to be clear, because of various unsupported and as-yet not withdrawn allegations about my behaviour, above, I have not been in contact with any of these new editors who have commented this morning about this rfc, apart from having placed notices on various places, as indicated blow, which were identical to those posted by Roger 8 Roger in at last one other place.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

To make it clear, a reference to tag teaming behavior I made earlier was meant semi-light heartedly and was not directed at anyone in particular, including DDStretch, whose contribution to this debate is welcome and essential if any changes are to occur. I regret any implication to the contrary and have self reverted that phrase. Now, moving on: It seems to me that there is a general consensus that change to the guidelines is needed, but not in the way I have suggested in this RFC, and not through this actual RFC debate that has become too unwieldy. If that is true then I agree and I also suggest we start again with a new RFC. I would also ask that someone else organises that, someone who is more practised in the mechanics or how to do it. An alternative approach is to begin debating what, if any, changes are needed in a new subsection below. If a new RFC is set up it should happen quickly to maintain the momentum. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Notifications

Notifications about this rfc have been placed on the following talk pages. Please add a link to ones you add and sign when you place a notice about this rfc. I suggest using the simple, neutral notice, as recently used by Roger 8 Roger:  DDStretch  (talk) 09:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• WP:UKGEO  DDStretch  (talk) 09:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• WP:CHESHIRE  DDStretch  (talk) 09:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• WP:MANCS  DDStretch  (talk) 09:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• WP:YORKS  DDStretch  (talk) 09:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• WP:BRISTOL  DDStretch  (talk) 09:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• WP:SOMERSET  DDStretch  (talk) 09:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• Talk:Yorkshire (n.b. the talk page of an article, not of a WikiProject) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What is this source saying?

Our guidelines, here [8], that have caused much debate over time, state that -- we do not take the view that the historic/ancient/traditional counties still exist with the former boundaries. The writings of Joan Beal provide reliable secondary sources on topics relating to the regions of Britain, as here -- [9] (pp 218-220). Is Beal saying that historic counties still exist with their former boundaries, or that they do not? Opinions welcome. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Sufficient evidence for a change

I have watched the county argument go back and forth. There have been many publications, official statements and documents supporting the proposition that historic counties are an extant concept, but insufficient for being accepted here.

A challenge then: what would suffice? A government statement at cabinet level? We had one of those. Inclusion in official databases? Again, that is already there.

What would be required as a reference source to change the policy? Howard Alexander (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Quality reliable secondary sources leading to consensus change, Howard Alexander. The guidelines you want changed say: In respect of England, Scotland and Wales, a fundamental part of this guide is to reaffirm the long established position that we do not take the view that the historic/ancient/traditional counties still exist with the former boundaries. Irrespective of the point you are trying to make, do you consider these guidelines are ambiguous and should be amended for the sake of clarity. What exactly do they mean? One view of the meaning is that HCs do still exist, but with changed boundaries, eg Hampshire and Kent. This implies that some HCs no longer exist at all, eg Westmoreland and Yorkshire. It also implies that the current administrative areas, if they are equal in the way they are used which is not contested, are a mixture of 'already existing in 1974' HCs and newly created administrative counties. Several lines of reasoning follows from that point. If we take another interpretation of the meaning of the guidelines we will reach another point that also expands into further lines of reasoning. There are other apparent contradictions and lacks of precision resulting from the guidelines. If the guidelines are reworded to make the intended meaning as free from ambiguity as is humanly possible, you might feel there is no longer a need for other change? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I read the guidelines as meaning that the Wiki shall not assert the continued existence of historic counties and will treat references to counties as if current local government counties were a continuation of the ancient counties. Clearly the new counties are not just the old counties with different borders: they are explicitly created by the Local Government Act 1972 or later statutory instruments, but for the purposes of the wiki they are treated as if they were.

A change which is frequently advocated is to reverse the 'we do not take the view that the historic... counties still exist'. There have been sources that say they do, but what level of source is required? There have been official pronouncements, for example recognising the existence of the counties; or this one; or this one. Then there is official guidance.

If that is not good enough to have articles on counties which are considered so culturally important, what would be? Howard Alexander (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Guidelines contradict

Here [10] we are told to put a settlement's historic county in the lead. As in the section above, we are told the historic counties no longer exist. User:MRSC keeps stating, with determination, that historic counties should not be put in the lead of settlements in outer London boroughs because they do not exist. [11] What should we do? MRSC has been involved in some edit squabbles with different editors, including me, where he reverts, contrary to the lead guidelines, and without giving references to back his position. She (maybe he) is an experienced editor, so the constant use of original research is puzzling. For those of you who have not seen all these changes, look at Surbiton as an example that according to MRSC is not in the historic county of Surrey. 'That means there is a question mark over 28.7 million google sites. What do we do with Surbiton then? Which guideline do we follow? What do we do with all the reliable sources putting Surbiton in Surrey? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Cuxton, Medway

Cuxton is a town in the unitary authority of Medway in South East England. It was, until 1998,[2] part of Kent and is still ceremonially associated via the Lieutenancies Act. This can be viewed in different ways. Any comments welcome. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

my last edit- I don't think I have anything to add to the wording debate on ceremonial Kent- we played this out ad infinitum in agreeing the wording of election leaflets all thro the 1980s. And later in tourist leaflets for RuMCC and fledgling Medway. But calling a crossroads with no facilities a Town is ridiculous it has 2600 inhabitants many living in outlying farms and in Upper Bush, one lady and her Labrador used to canvas both Cuxton and Halling in an afternoon!--ClemRutter (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

This may help to verify the confusion. Kent Teach directory of schools (sic) describes this as a lovely little village between the M2 and M20. Cuxton Library (Medway) is open for 16 hours a week - but cherished.--ClemRutter (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

This article came up from my watchlist today. It says Twydall is a suburb of Gillingham in Kent in south-east England. In 1998 responsibility for local government was transferred from Kent County Council to the newly created Unitary Authority of Medway[2]. Both articles use the same citation [12]. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Unitary authority areas

Looking at the 5 different guidelines listed in the "Guidelines" section, none of them cover the case "English, non-metropolitan county that isn't the same name as a ceremonial county" which includes most of the unitary authority areas. Has a deliberate decision been made that WP:UKCOUNTIES doesn't apply to these counties? And if the answer is yes (which I think it is), shouldn't that be explicitly stated somewhere in these guidelines, to avoid ambiguity?  Dr Greg  talk  20:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

At the moment we seem to be inconsistent in whether we treat unitary authorities as non-metropoltan counties. Metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties of England includes most UAs as counties, which as I understand it they are in law (outside Berkshire), whether or not they were previously districts. With the spread of UAs to larger and larger areas - North Yorkshire and Somerset in 2023 - I agree the guidelines need to be updated and some consistency applied. Mhockey (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Probably articles like North Yorkshire (district) and Somerset (district) should be created for the unitary districts like Shropshire (district). Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a good idea. The new unitary districts are the same areas as the current non-metropolitan counties - all that is happening is that those counties are changing their form of local government. Indeed in law the new unitary districts will be the same non-metrpolitan counties, albeit with different governance arrangements. While it is true that the North Yorkshire and Somerset articles cover both the non-metropolitan counties and the rather larger ceremonial counties, it seems better to explain the difference in meaning within the articles, rather than create separate articles. We do need articles for the new councils governing the areas, and those have already been created.

I don't think Shropshire (district) is a good precedent. It is a short article which should probably be merged into Shropshire, which already covers the geography, history and politics of the unitary area.--Mhockey (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the question then needs to be asked why we have North Yorkshire County Council and North Yorkshire Council then? Since both cover/will cover the same area shouldn't these articles then be merged?

Although a unitary district may have similar functions to any other non-metropolitan county its a bit different to that as far as hierarchy goes as with many countries you go country>state>district>municipality>locality so we might (as of currently) write something like "Glasshouses is a village in the civil parish of High and Low Bishopside, in the Harrogate district, in the county of North Yorkshire, England" and for Middlethorpe "Middlethorpe is a hamlet in the civil parish of Bishopthorpe, in the York district, in the ceremonial county of North Yorkshire, England". Currently Harrogate and York have the same status as being districts of North Yorkshire apart from York being administrated separately while after 2023 "North Yorkshire" the unitary district will have the same status as York in the sense that we would have something like "Glasshouses is a village in the civil parish of High and Low Bishopside, in the North Yorkshire district, in the ceremonial county of North Yorkshire, England". That said it is a bit awkward to have the distinction made from the time the UA comes into place when the boundaries weren't changed from the former non-metropolitan county. Perhaps though UAs are an exception to the WP:UKCOUNTIES general rule of not splitting between ceremonial and administrative.

I'd consider merging the majority of district council articles to their districts such as Shropshire Council>Shropshire (district) and Telford and Wrekin Council>Telford and Wrekin per Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about districts#Local authorities with the exception of the likes of Eastbourne Borough Council where the district is combined with a settlement or some other entity. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

North Yorkshire County Council and North Yorkshire Council serve/will serve the same area (the same non-metropolitan county) but with different functions. Both are/will be very large councils, serving the largest county in England (by area) - the new council will be by far the largest UA council in England, with the complicated politics that go with that, and I would have thought each needs its own article.--Mhockey (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Workshopping an RFC question on guidelines

The current guidelines state:

"In the United Kingdom, the meaning of "county" can be confusing. There are several types of official administrative area that are described as counties due to historical modifications of the borders, and because the extent of the "administrative county boundaries" are often not exactly the same as the ceremonial and ancient county boundaries by of the same name; the counties of England and Wales have undergone vast geographic transformation in the last few centuries; the counties of Scotland were officially abolished but their territory (in some cases) exist with a ceremonial role; likewise the counties of Northern Ireland have no administrative role, but are used for geographic demarcation and lieutenancy. In respect of England, Scotland and Wales, a fundamental part of this guide is to reaffirm the long established position that we do not take the view that the historic/ancient/traditional counties still exist with the former boundaries. Unless (using consensus) a good reason is made not to, the article should describe any administrative and ceremonial changes differences within one article, including any difference in the statistics between them. In England and Wales, where the historic county boundaries are different to modern boundaries the article should discuss these differences, and not be split into new "Historic county of Exampleshire" articles."

I suggest they are amended to say the following. The lead guidelines (Where is the link?) that allow reference of the historic county should be removed.

1/ The default county used is the current ceremonial county. Unless clearly stated or implied otherwise, the word county refers to that type of county.

2/ The historic county can be menioned in the lead only if it is relevant and is a summary of what is in the main article. This is decided on a case-by-case basis.

3/ These terms and similar are discouraged and should not be used. ‘Beckenham is a town in the London Borough of Bromley and the historic county of Kent.’ ‘Beckenham was historically in Kent but is now in London.’

4/ Create an ‘historic county’ section in the infobox to be used only if mention of the historic county is in the lead.

I hope this will allow common sense, that the current ceremonial area is the primary unit of division. In order for the historic county to be in the lead it must be relevant enough to the town in question – in some towns it is and in others it is not. If mention is warranted in the lead there must be a good section in the main article. This is no different from how the lead should work. That would then encourage editors to do some work and create good, referenced sections in the history section and/or a governance section. A place’s connection with its historic county would then be much clearer. Linked to the lead is the infobox. Reference to Middlesex in the Chelsea article, for example, would probably not get into the lead, meaning we would not have the unwarranted and odd situation of seeing it in the infobox. But for Beckenham, for example, it would be in the lead, and the infobox, and not look out of place. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• comment Thank you for bringing this discussion here. Can I just clarify: is this the RfC itself or are we, at this point, workshopping the RfC question? If it is the RfC, Template:Rfc doesn't seem to have been applied. However I think it would be useful to workshop the RfC question a little, because I think you make some good points here, but there are also things I would disagree with, and it would be useful to ask the question in the RfC in such a way that improvements would be possible without forcing a support/oppose on the whole. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The question of the historic counties obviously provokes a great deal of strong feeling, particularly among those for whom local government boundary changes mean their places of birth or residence are no longer in an administrative or ceremonial area that bears the name of the historic county out of which the said area has been formed.

In my view the following could help in appeasing those who have such deep attachments, whilst in no way creating confusion as to the current administrative location. In the infobox, perhaps below the row which provides the name of the current ceremonial county, there could be an inclusion of the name of the historic county to which a settlement has belonged/belongs. The current guidelines don't seem to be affected by this, since stating the relevant historic county in this way does not use a verb, and so the issue of present or past tense is avoided. The Historic Counties Trust Standard would be a useful resource in cases of doubt. Fr Richard Bailey (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for not being clearer, this is meant as a workshop first. I expect my idea to be discussed and altered (hopefully not by much). There is a danger in going straight to RfC template that a lot of clutter and disagreement will occur that will detract from the intent of getting workable guidelines. I also didnt have much time and I am not the best at sorting through the technical stuff of a RfC template. At least this discussion is where it should be. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. So some initial thoughts: I strongly support the principles that a lead should be a summary of information in the main article and not modified to a formula unsupported by the main text. That, and the issue that information in the article be verifiable to reliable sources are key Wikipedia policies that we can certainly re-iterate in the guidelines with a suitable sentence or paragraph up front or early in the page. Before taking that to an RFC we should agree what text would be inserted and where and that proposal should get an easy ride.

Default county - you are proposing we change the default from ceremonial/geographic county to administrative one. This needs thought because ceremonial counties, the current default, are the only ones that cover the whole of the country. There are areas that are not in an administrative county, London being a prime example (albeit an exceptional one). However ceremonial counties, defined by the associated lieutenancy, do cover the whole country which is why they are used as geographic counties too. A map of ceremonial counties does not have white blank spaces in it. This appears to be behind the original decision to use these as the default county. Often the ceremonial and administrative county are co-extensive, but clearly not always and pages can and do make clear where there is discrepancy, but the default is ceremonial and we need a good rationale to make any change to this.

Looking at London in particular, I would say that there is one argument against use of the ceremonial county, and that is that it is not very widely understood or used. If you ask someone from Bromley where they are from, they will probably say that it is the London Borough of Bromley, which is stressing administrative region. They won't usually say the county of Greater London, although they may well and often do just say London, which is imprecise for our purposes. So common usage, particularly in London, does not tend to stress or even notice the ceremonial county (unlike in the past, where the old County of London had better popular penetration). All the same, London is exceptional, and generally the ceremonial county appears to be the better option. The question is whether, in London articles, we should mention ceremonial counties at all, and that might be a question for the guidelines on talking about towns rather than guidelines on talking about counties. But yes, is there any rationale for making administrative counties the new default? An RfC on the question would need to make the case.

Historic county in the lead I think what you propose is the status quo isn't it? Historic county is mentioned in the lead if it differs from the current county. But again, the principle is that the lead follows the main on this, and if its not relevant in the article, its not relevant in the lead. Agree with the general principle there.

Historic county in the infobox That may need an RfC in its own right owing to the previously vacated RfC on the subject. Also, I think this is more relevant to the WP:UKTOWNS guidelines, as the infobox parameter would be used for towns rather than the county articles... except maybe you just mean county articles. Ceredigion might use the infobox to show it was, essentially, the historical county of Cardigan, so a parameter could be used but is it needed in a county article? And should we mention short lived Dyfed too? Town articles would be where this would get most use, Bromley would list Kent, Romford - Essex, Croydon Surrey. That then would be an RfC in its own right on the towns guideline pages. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

This would not be the right place for an RFC on Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements (WP:UKCITIES / WP:UKTOWNS / WP:UKVILLAGES). I suggest this workshop be moved to that talk page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements or simply to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography (WT:UKGEO, the previous venue for such discussions) before it becomes any longer. It should also have a slightly different title such as "Towards an RFC on guidelines" or "Workshopping an RFC question on guidelines", as it isn't an RFC. That explicit purpose might help avoid such protracted discussion as last year's Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 23#Historic counties, which never did result in an RFC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NebY (talk • contribs) 12:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

We're here to build an encyclopedia. We are not here to entertain endless forum shopping on this issue. MRSC (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I cannot do it at the moment but if you are able and willing that would be appreciated. I have changed the heading.

Okay, NebY, I don't mind shifting this to a more appropriate place if others agree, and to do it quickly. Sirfurboy, I have also changed administrative to Ceremonial - as it is now was my intention. I think the main difference is the stress on having better treatment of local govt in the body that will put the county dispute in context and remove a lot of the need for constant disputes. I also do not see doing that as a fudge. Much of the disputes occur around blunt sentences taken out of context. And, yes, the infobox (4) has wider implications and may have to be treated separately. I assume you are aware of the last very extensive problem with HCs being put into the infobox? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Well aware. I remember how long I spent trying to workshop with you at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 23#Historic counties and cannot do that again, but one point needs making.

This does not address the issue of the HC being identified in / forced into the very start of the lead with the claim that the guideline can be read in any order, which is currently being addressed on a case-by-case basis. That doesn't work. When you wrote at at Talk:Romford#Romford is not in Essex following much back-and-forth about that point and calls for you to simply launch an RFC, "I think it is time for a RfC on guideline amendments as suggested by others. I will see what I can do" I took it that you would launch an RFC that addressed that issue, but now I see it doing anything but address it. NebY (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose (for if this is a current discussion rather than just a workshop) we should at least allow the mention of historic counties even though we state that they aren't current. Historic counties are generally important to most people and places moving counties is generally controversial, see CountyWatch. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Ceremonial Geography

“A note on any divisions or suburbs of the settlement.”

I think it needs changing, I assume it was left over from using a settlement how to as a template. Maybe:

“A note on any districts, towns and cities of the county.” Chocolateediter (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

A reword

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties/2023 Reword sandbox

I’m proposing a new guideline rewrite, this puts emphasis on varying content on types of article, increasing the articles that use the guide and looking to make the new collage guidance set to all these articles. If anybody wants to pick up on anything (please do) I’ll be happy to accommodate any changes, removals and additions. Chocolateediter (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties/2023 Reword sandbox Chocolateediter (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC) - updated 00:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

You are obviously very enthusiastic but my advice would be don't. There will be disagreements and from what I have observed editors don't read what is already there and don't even take notice when specifically told. I say this in good faith. Esemgee (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Chocolateediter, re-writing the entire thing would likely need a lot of discussion and only should be replaced with clear consensus for it. This will be a lot of work, so I think a piecemeal approach would be better and easier to manage rather than ditching the agreed for a new one. So as per above, it is a likely non-starter being so bold, requiring a lot of checking. Plus there is no Gwynedd lieutenancy article.

Thanks for the good faith though. DankJae 20:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

As long as I can back up the content I have put with facts and people back me, I will try to get something resembling what l've put down through to the guideline. How did this how to come about but by people wanting something to rely upon when they get stuck and a lot has changed since 2005 when it was first created by Steinsky. I know a lot of Wikipedia editors know way more, too much, about counties than they did back then to help.

Preserved counties are lieutenancies:

Gwynedd

"The preserved county of Gwynedd, which is used for ceremonial purposes, includes the Isle of Anglesey."

Preserved counties of Wales

"eight current areas used in Wales for the ceremonial purposes of lieutenancy and shrievalty."

I know I need full consensus, haven't changed it yet have I and that is why I have opened this discussion up. I am open for anything that a group agrees on wanting to amend and am will to take on the project of bending, convincing and debating with others. Chocolateediter (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Chocolateediter, just confused as Gwynedd covers both the modern and preserved county, there is no separate article, so not sure how your guideline is supposed to apply there. May be use Clwyd, Mid Glamorgan or Dyfed as an example. Just a minor note. DankJae 23:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I said to look at the overlapping sections and fill for both in the singular article, pretty much what we do now, and if they a lot of differing boundaries just use the settlement how to for structuring it since most infoboxes and guides are based off the settlements model. Could just split the article if push comes to shove. Preserved counties are the Welsh equivalent to ceremonial counties so are modern, Historic counties of Wales exist and Gwynedd isn’t one. For Anglesey to Gwynedd is the same as Darlington to County Durham and County Durham (district) is to the Gwynedd council area. Chocolateediter (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I commend your good faith intention, but... For this topic, a re-write is far easier said than done. Anything new will have to be worded correctly and that will require a lot of preliminary discussion, and I am not sure if consensus will ever be reached anyway. I agree with the need for a change. The fact that this topic has been the subject of countless heated discussions over the last twenty or so years is evidence enough that the guidelines don't work properly. If you do want to start a discussion then do so. My suggestion is to propose a change to the whole, not to pick at it in pieces: everything is interconnected and if we start changing bits in isolation we will only be asking for trouble. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)