Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

UK's xth most populous city

A lot of articles on British towns and cities say Town X is the UK's xth most populous city with a link to the now deleted (and with good reason) List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population in their opening paragraphs. I recently changed the one on Aberdeen to instead of saying the 29th most populous city in the UK that it is the 39th most populous built-up area in the UK. I was planning on making similar changes to all articles with links to the now deleted article but what I am wondering is whether I should change it in the way I just did or is there a better terminology to use because the use of the word built-up area or urban area or conurbation may be meaningless to a lot of users. Or should I change it to something else like saying it is part of the Xth largest local authority or just remove the sentence entirely. Obviously if they already say it's part of the Xth largest local authority and the Xth largest urban area then I would just remove the sentence saying it's the Xth largest settlement in the UK. Eopsid (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Misleading parish statistics in 2011 census

Statistics are based on output areas, and some small parishes are combined with larger parishes, resulting in missing data and sometimes the appearance of significant population increases. The page that explains this (Parishes and communities) describes this as "statistically correct as they relate to the geography in place at that time", but the 2011 Parish Hierarchy is not the same as previous hierarchies, or parishes, and it's misleading as in the example used on that page, it increases the 2001 population from 48 to 112. Maybe the 2011 census shouldn't be used unless it's either confirmed to be the same area as the parish, or explained in articles where it's used that it is not. Do accurate statistics exist? Peter James (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The method used by the ONS is explained at [1], which also says: 'Another approach will be possible when the 2011 Census Unit Postcode Headcount data (Postcode estimates tables are currently expected in May (p35 of the 2011 Census Prospectus (.pdf)) are published. These will provide details of the number of males, females and occupied households for each Census day postcode and will provide a very accurate method of redistributing the population to ward boundaries. ... Census estimates for other areas such as Parishes have also been best-fitted from whole OAs. This re-estimation method can be applied to any zones where best-fitted figures are insufficiently precise.' JonH (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers

In the river guideline there is a section which suggests listing tributaries. Lists without explanatory text are discouraged per WP:Embed. The Waterway routemap template provides a suitable means to present the tributaries, along with other data, in context. The decision as to if a river article needs to include information on tributaries could be left to editors' discretion in the developing of the article; when it is felt that such information is relevant and significant, then advice should be to either create an appropriate prose section, and/or to utilise the routemap depending on circumstances. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion has started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers#Lists / Route maps are optional. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Advice please

In some place article "Transport" sections I've noticed timetable ref links to mentions of bus services, for example, something like this - here, and sometimes web sites such as this. I usually remove timetabling written directly into articles per WP:NOTDIRECTORY or WP:NOTGUIDE, although these guidelines don't specifically mention rail or bus timetables - I can't imagine why people would come to a encyclopedia to get the times of trains anyway. Would a link to this timetabling fall under any sources, or other, guidelines, and is there a consensus whether or not these linked timetables should be accepted. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 12:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

@Acabashi: If we do include them they should go in a separate external links section per WP:EXTLINK. I would say that works well for specific "Transport in X" articles or individual transport operator articles but less so for "place" articles. I can see both points of view - if you go back to Wikipedia's founding principles of "making the internet not suck" and making information easy to find, then it certainly makes sense to link to the timetables; but I agree that's not really encyclopaedic information and now that Wikivoyage is now in the Wikipedia fold the info really belongs there, with a {{Wikivoyage}} link included in the Wikipedia article. WaggersTALK 07:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Please use {{Replyto|Waggers}} when replying so that I receive a notification.

Many thanks for that Waggers. It seems, therefore, that whether or not to add timetables is a matter of judgement, as there appear no guidelines which exclude them, except if they are rich media or subscription. I suppose the addition of lots of links of this type might fall under WP:LINKFARM. A Wikivoyage link temp is a good idea, but as Wikivoyage seems embryonic, there would be a need to write a new place article there before adding timetables - there are only four WV village articles in my interest, Lincolnshire. Do you have an example I can look at where a WP article has a {{Wikivoyage}} link, so I can get an idea how to format it in WP articles ? Thanks again. Acabashi (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

@Acabashi: I've just added one to the Lincoln, England article; you're right though, this only tends to work for "big" entities like counties, cities and larger towns; I'm not sure if the plan with Wikivoyage is to have a guide for every village and hamlet. That said, I guess if they're sufficiently notable to have a WP article there must be something worth visiting! WaggersTALK 14:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. Gives me something else to do. Acabashi (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity table

I cannot find clarification in the project's guidelines, so came here to ask. I recently added 2011 ethnicity data to the city of Plymouth. At first I added a collapsable list to the infobox and now I have instead added a table to the demography section. The table seems a little large and blanks out quite a bit of space for an article otherwise full of prose. My question is whether or not all this information should be included? Perhaps a table or list of the five main ethnic groups, with prose detailing notable ethnic groups and their changes in recent years? Jolly Ω Janner 01:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jolly, adding all the ethnic group categories as a table is too much detail. Also expressing data just as %s and %changes between census dates is not of much value and is open to misinterpretation.. Adding in population and % in brackets of just the major ethnic groups including the Mixed and Other groups in the info box is OK and then providing a consise commentary perhaps just focussing on specific changes with either a small table of numbers and % change since 2001 again for all the main categories. II found several differences between %s in the text and the table so might be worth checking the source table on ONS or neighbourhood statistics again. Also the graphics of change over time is not very easy to read so you might want to remove this unless just focussing on the reasons behind the major historic blips in the population. Perhaps reorganising the section so that historical data comes first and current census data last.- Other editors may disagree with me so worth seeing what also is suggested but hope this helps.Tmol42 (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The percentage change in the text is based upon change in absolute population, whereas the table is change in relative population. I think change in relative population might be more useful, so will change the text to that. Jolly Ω Janner 02:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Population within a postcode area

Hi, I would like to know if there is any reliable source to know how many people live within postcode areas. Unlike other cities like Sydney where a suburb is clearly defined, London is confusing. Sydenham is defined by the borough councils and locals alike as being every street within the SE26 postcode area. However, its within many wards: Sydenham, Forest Hill, Penge & Cator, College, Perry Vale and the Bellingham wards so accurate population figure of the suburb its self is pretty much impossible to work out. The same goes for places like Crofton Park and Honor Oak nobody is really sure where it starts or ends because there is no clear definition by any authority and they share postcode their areas with other suburbs. Likelife (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, like most UK statistics you can get postcode area data out of NOMIS, by using their Advanced Query Options. NOMIS is a bit forgotten about because if its "Official Labour Market Statistics" subheading, and the fact that it's a pretty daunting interface, but it's a brilliant resource for all sorts of ONS data. According to it, the population of SE26 from the 2011 census was 28,378. Fingerpuppet (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful thanks! Likelife (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

2011 census release of Built-up Area (Urban Area) data

Last week the ONS released data for Built-up Areas (previously named Urban Areas) in England and Wales. Because of this a large number of articles now need updating. I have already updated a number of articles including: Greater London Urban Area, Liverpool Urban Area, The Potteries Urban Area,Aldershot Urban Area, Blackpool Urban Area, Teesside, Sheffield urban area, Greater Bristol, Luton/Dunstable Urban Area, Coventry and Bedworth Urban Area, Tyneside, Wearside, Greater Manchester Urban Area, West Midlands conurbation, Leicester Urban Area, West Yorkshire Urban Area and List of urban areas in the United Kingdom. What follows is a list of some of the articles that need updating:

I propose that the Portsmouth Urban Area and Southampton Urban Area articles be merged into the South Hampshire article and that new articles should be created on the Newport Built-up area and the Birkenhead Built-up area.

I also think that the articles on urban areas on England and Wales should be moved from Name Urban Area to Name Built-up Area and have names consistent with what the ONS calls them although there is a case for keeping some like Tyneside and Teesside as they are.

I also propose that articles on smaller urban areas should be deleted this is currently true for the following three articles Aylesbury Urban Area, Cannock/Great Wyrley Urban Area and Nuneaton Urban Area. The latter of which had a substantial population decrease from the 2001 census because the boundaries of the buit-up area are now much smaller than before.

What also needs updating is a large number of articles on towns and cities in England and Wales which currently use the 2001 census data on urban areas.Eopsid (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

@Eopsid: Rather than updating each built up area article, would it not be sensible to create a lookup template similar to those in use for districts, so the information can be update for all articles from a central point? WaggersTALK 09:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't know how to use lookup templates and it may not be of that much use because each article on built-up areas usually list the subdivisions of the area and there has been quite a few changes to the names of these subdivisions. Eopsid (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

In fact, they're so massively different in some areas (particularly the West Midlands conurbation) where everywhere that appears in capitals on OS Landranger mapping is suddenly a separate BUASD meaning that most of the previous USDs have been split several ways - for example, Walsall has suddenly dropped in population from 170,000 to the frankly ridiculous 67,000 and Bloxwich has been made a separate BUASD despite being part of Walsall County Borough since 1888, and part of Walsall parish before that!

You can't even use the same table realistically. There will need to be a new table, an explanation of the differences between 2001 and 2011 data. ONS themselves are admitting the the changes mean that is difficult to impossible to compare between 2001 and 2011. Still, at least the ONS are using the word "town" now in the guidance notes rather then the previous dancing around the issue. Fingerpuppet (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and whilst I think about it, a lot of the previous UAs now have different names as BUAs, generally simply named after the largest settlement, so The Potteries Urban Area is now Stoke-on-Trent BUA, Coventry and Bedworth Urban Area is now Coventry BUA and so on. Fingerpuppet (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the BUA's with 'smaller populations' I don't agree that this is a legitmate rationale for mass deletion. BUA's, if included in the ONS database are presumably notable as far as Wikipedia is concerned and the specific population is therefore not relevant in determining notability. I also see you have deleted a large number of BUAs from the list of BUAs and redefined the article as about the 'most populous'. However, the critera of 'most populous' is arbitrarily set and is also set at different levels England/Wales and for Scotland and Northern Ireland.Tmol42 (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The article was always a list of the most populous BUAs or UAs. I deleted the areas with populations between 50,000 and 100,000 in England and Wales mainly because I couldn't be bothered to put them on there although I may do so in the future or you could do it. There was an arbitrary limit in the article of 50,000 before and if there wasn't one then they list could potentially run to thousands of entries (the ONS has data on BUAs for areas with populations of only a few hundred). I disagree with your assertion that all BUAs in the database are notable enough to have articles many are just one village (and the article on the village itself is enough in my view) or a conurbation consisting of a couple of a distinct villages, similarly that a conurbation exists could just be written about in articles relating to parts of this hypothetical small conurbation and no article solely on the conurbation need exist. The three articles I proposed to delete are larger than just a couple of villages but I still think they should be deleted because of my view that we don't need articles on small conurbations and that the articles on the components on said conurbation are enough mainly because if we didn't do that then there would be potentially lots of articles on British conurbations that are notable enough that don't currently exist. However you could make a case for an article on a small conurbation if it consists of a large number of distinct parts with no one area dominating and possible has it's own name which doesn't relate to the areas that already form part of the conurbation as in the case of Deeside or Levenmouth. Eopsid (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Eopsid on this. There is no need for separate articles on many of the BUAs, because they are already covered in articles on towns, conurbations/metropolitan areas, and/or, in some cases, local authority areas. And, there is no need even to list all the ONS-defined BUAs, because they number in their thousands. The list here - which specifically relates to one particular definition, out of many definitions - should have a reasonable cut-off point of, say, 50,000, and decisions should be made in each case as to whether a separate article on each BUA is justified or whether there would be too much overlap with other articles in doing that. For Aylesbury, to give one example of Eopsid's proposed deletions, the article on Aylesbury Urban Area should simply be merged in with the article on Aylesbury, with an explanation in the text of the different definitions that give rise to different population totals. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

All the articles relating to urban areas except the ones I proposed to delete or merge have now been updated. Also I was going to update the Deeside article the problem is the 2011 census I've been using mentions a built-up area called Buckley the map of it shows that it includes most of the settlements mentioned in the Deeside article but the Deeside article makes no mention at all of Buckley which is the largest part of this built-up area so I am not sure whether I should update that article with the 2011 census figures. Eopsid (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I've decided it would probably be better to merge the following three articles into the articles on the largest settlement in the urban area rather than delete the articles. These articles are Nuneaton Urban Area, Cannock/Great Wyrley Urban Area and Aylesbury Urban Area. Eopsid (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead with these mergers but the Cannock one was reverted and after some discussion on Talk:Cannock it was decided deleting the article on the built-up area would be the best way to go ahead. So it would be good to have you views here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cannock Built-up Area. Eopsid (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Metropolitan Boroughs: names in infoboxes

For a Metropolitan Borough named after a town, and that town is smaller than the Metropolitan Borough, is it correct for the infobox to have (i) |name=Metropolitan Borough of Barnsley (like this) or (ii) |name=Barnsley |other_name=Metropolitan Borough of Barnsley (like this)? This also affects Doncaster and Rotherham. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Personally I would just go with the Metropolitan Borough of X and forget about using the other_name field. Keith D (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

All metropolitan boroughs, boroughs, and districts on Wikipedia have the name of the borough, for example, 'Bedford', in the name field and 'Borough of Bedford' in the other_name or official_name field. EverythingGeography (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Only because you have been changing them into that format. Keith D (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Not all of them, but some of them. That is because I believe it tidies them up. EverythingGeography (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Keith D on this, just stick to Metropolitan Borough of X in the name field. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

In some cases (e.g. Bedford Borough and Bedford) the borough covers a much bigger area than the town, so they have separate articles with different infoboxes which should be headed "Borough of Bedford" and "Bedford". In other cases (e.g. Luton) the borough just consists of the town, so they share an article and the infobox should be headed "Luton / Borough of Luton". JonH (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I think from this discussion that the consensus is if there is a separate borough and settlement article then the infobox for the borough should only use just the borough name not the plain settlement name. Keith D (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that's true, but to be clear I would advise droppimg the "Metropolitan" or "Non-metropolitan" per WP:COMMONNAME and stick with "Borough of X". WaggersTALK 13:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Despite the emerging consensus that the name should be kept as "Borough of X" in the name field, I note that EverythingGeography has been engaged in edit-warring repeatedly changing the name field of Borough of Halton to "Halton". He's currently enjoying a 24 hour block for that, because this point was discussed and known to him for some time in this thread (he's contributed to it 10 days ago.) I recommend that if he persists, he should be warned in a similar way by users here if possible because he definitely knows it should be discussed (though I think its clear that the name here should be "Borough of Halton").  DDStretch  (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see consensus here that cities should have name changed to City of.. as has happened at Leicester claiming consensus here as justification. The Leicester article is about Leicester the city/place, not a metropolitan borough. --Michig (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

In fact Keith D seems to be on a bit of a spree. --Michig (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, this discussion is purely about Borough articles, not about cities or other settlements. WaggersTALK 11:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Leicester is a Unitary Authority, prior to which it was a District Council. It has never been a Metropolitan Borough (under the terms of the 1972 Act). --Redrose64 (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I am always of the opinion that blurring constantly shifting political boundaries with those of physical towns and their governance only leads to argumentative stuff like this. Koncorde (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Why is it blurred? If an article is titled "Metropolitan Borough of Barnsley", what could it be about other than the local government division set up in 1974 under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, just as I also agree Barnsley is a town in that Borough. I have issues with articles for towns such as Warrington which have split personalities. Similarly we have issues with the ever growing urban sprawl discussions regarding "what is Liverpool", "what is Manchester" etc, and "where can I throw in references to obscure unofficial boundaries invented by think tanks" into articles *cough* City region (United Kingdom), Liverpool City Region, Liverpool Urban Area etc. *cough* and attempts to rationalise all manner of Original Research out of it leading to recurring edit wars and creeping edits on other articles. Koncorde (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The city region articles could do with sorting out, some are out of date, stray off in to too much detail, they could do with being more about LEPs which have a proper role whilst they city region articles used to be about some stuff made up in a report. But the Liverpool Urban Area wasn't made up by a think tank and has a solid mathematical definition. Eopsid (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

But it doesn't define what is "Liverpool", the Liverpool population, no? Which is where I have an issue. Similarly confusing/conflating Borough with Town, with Authority. Koncorde (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

In a similar vein, though at the other extreme of scale, there are hundreds of Welsh Communities that have the same name as a village, but who's jurisdiction covers several other settlements. Most articles will mention that it is a 'village and community of ...' but then just give an article on the village. Some English parishes must have similar issues, but at least the terminology is less confusing. Is there any consensus/policy on having separate or combined articles in these situations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinLeicester (talk • contribs) 17:47, 23 August 2013‎

Please help get UK listed buildings ready for the start of the Wiki Loves Monuments competition on 1st September!

In September the UK is taking part for the first time in the international photography competition Wiki Loves Monuments. Participants will be invited to submit pictures of listed structures of significant importance (eg grades I or grade II* or equivalent), as recorded by English Heritage, Historic Scotland, Cadw and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency . The main external website for competitors can be found here, and you can leave a message there if you have queries about competing. Do please join in, and let people in your local area know of this excellent way in which both existing and new Wiki users can help improve the encyclopaedia by contributing photographs of local listed structures. What about organizing a local Wikimeet to attract new people?

In preparation for the start of the competition on 1st September there is still quite a lot of work to do, and we would like to ask for the help of members of this wikiproject. Many of the listed structures are residential or other buildings, but there are a significant number of rail-related listed structures that may be of specific interest to members of this project. Your local and expert knowledge will be invaluable in ensuring that the lists of eligible structures are up to date and correctly formatted. If you look at Listed buildings in the United Kingdom you will see how many structures are included. If you then follow the links, you can get to the detailed lists for your area. Alternatively have a look at the WLM planning table. Can you help to ensure that the lists for your area are up to date and well presented?

Some of the lists have been semi-automatically generated from data provided by the official listing organizations. These use pre formatted templates (eg EH header) which will make it much easier for competition participants to upload their photographs to Commons as an automated process. Please don't change the template structure, as we need to ensure that the templates are properly compatible with the WLM standards that are in use worldwide. The format will allow a bot automatically to collect the information and to put it into the international Monuments Database.

The data still needs the attention of local editors:

• The "title" may need wikilinking to a suitable article name (whether we currently have that article or not). If there are several buildings in one street all of the wikilinks point at an article about the street; however each entry has a separate line in the list.
• The "location" column looks and sorts better if just the parish or town is included (& wikilinked).
• The "date completed" column sometimes has eg "C19" for 19th century, and "C1850" for c. 1850 when the date is uncertain - these need to be corrected manually.
• The "grid ref & lat & long" (which is occasionally missing) may be given to 8 characters — only 6 (grid ref) or 5 (lat & long) are really needed.
• Clicking on the "list entry number" should take you to the data sheet for that entry on the official database which can be checked if needed for details.
• The image column should have a picture added if we already have a suitable image on Commons. (N.B. if you are going to be taking photos yourself for inclusion in the competition don't upload them until September)
• References may be added according to normal WP practice.

For further information, please see Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United Kingdom.

If you have any queries, please post them not below but on the Organizers' help page on Commons.

Anything you can do to help improve these lists will be much appreciated. The final deadline for cleaning up is 31st August.

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Traditional counties

I think that the WikiProject should be made aware of the creation of Wikipedia:WikiProject British Counties, Template:Traditional counties of the United Kingdom, Traditional counties of the United Kingdom, Template:WikiProject British Counties, Template:British Counties. I am surprised that the topic of "traditional" counties was not already covered, therefore I suspect that existing pages may have been duplicated. Perhaps somebody could look into this, and merge where necessary. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

To Redrose, thank you for your message. Many of these templates and pages were created by me, and will hopefully be used by many of the members of the Association of British Counties. They have in the past added information about the counties on a site called Wikishire, but (despite the need for a bit of 'coding' and 'text' knowledge) I think it would be better served here on Wikipedia. The traditional counties is generally the name used by those (including politicians/MPs) however I do understand that sometimes historical counties is used. However, and this is where things get complicated, the traditional counties are supposed to represent a non-governmental form of the counties. Ceremonial counties (of which many share the same name) are the governmental departments of the UK (eg - County Council), historical county is a term sometimes used but focuses more on the governmental aspects of the council before (generally) 1974 or in some cases 1996 (government acts). The ABC does have various patrons who are MPs and support within it's smaller county groups and associations (many with links to history societies), so I can assure you that the information is correct. I guess I would appreciate not merging any of the pages, although I had no idea that there was a WikiProject for UK geography. Anyway my aims are to include more information about history and the natural geography on the page created (plus more on human geography). I am already polishing off various maps that have been created so hope to upload those too. Poiuytre (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking at your Traditional counties of the United Kingdom article there are few puzzling things I noticed about it. The first is the HCN (Historic County Number) and HCC (Historic County Code) in the table. I don't see why that is needed and I don't think they're are used outside The Historic Counties Trust website and I don't see their use outside of databases. The second is the section on Major cities firstly the source you use to decide the 20 largest British cities doesn't look reliable too me and looks like it is a copy of this now deleted article. Also there are a few factual errors such as stating that St Albans and Gerrards Cross are within the M25 when any map will tell you this is not the case. The whole of this section could also use more citations. Also I don't know why used the term Traditional Counties rather than historic counties. Eopsid (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, these need more extensive cross linking to the existing articles. For example, Historic counties of England (a sub-topic) and Ceremonial counties of England (a strongly related topic) should be linked. I'd rather see the UK level article as a gateway/summary of the national level articles.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for your feedback. I will apply the changes. I understand that there does need to be more links and much more referencing. I am researching at the moment, and changes will be made over the next couple of weeks. Regards. Poiuytre (talk) 10:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again. The fans of the traditional counties cleave to any comments by a politician like a drowning man to a matchstick. This article needs a strong dose or reality or deleting altogether. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It needs deleting - the whole lot. It's all basically a mirror for the Historic Counties Trust which itself is a front for ABC (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historic Counties Trust)... which is (rather interestingly) operated by a person in Cardiff. Which also suggests a conflict of interest here and thus in breach of a whole range of policies. We have quality articles on these topics already. We don't need or want these repeated attempts to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

A Wikiproject set up specifically to attract members of the Association of British Counties - a pressure group whose purpose is the promotion of a fringe theory - is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV and WP:CANVAS. The templates listed above are also highly misleading. They should all clearly be deleted. JimmyGuano (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that the article - Traditional counties of the United Kingdom - should be deleted. Its clearly written from a POV perspective, but its not a fork of existing content. There is a gap in our UK-level coverage between Counties of the United Kingdom and the detailed articles like Historic counties of England, which that article addresses.

I can see value in having at least three UK-wide lists. One - current administrative areas. Two - ceremonial areas (ceremonial counties in England, lieutenancy areas in Scotland etc). Three - the historic ones. That last one is doable in an NPOV manner.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The counties of England are not completely analogous to those of Scotland, or of Ireland. There isn't really a concept of "British traditional counties" beyond ABC propaganda - it just ain't verifiable. It's not unlike saying "traditional counties of Scandinavia" or even "of Europe" and making a website assuring people that this exists by plucking various opnions of individuals (such as horoscope readers, disgraced politicians, and anonymous persons) together under the title of "official government statement" and then creating a Wikiproject for it as a platform to promote it on Wikipedia. A simillar thing happened with the "White Dragon Flag of England" not too long ago - it's a hoax dependent on the clever production of unofficial websites made to look like official authoritative sources. We have List of counties of the United Kingdom which works well. My biggest concern here though is that, at best, this really is a very opportunistically un-Wikipedian attempt to use our encyclopedia for the purposes of canvassing and soapboxing non-neutral fringe forks, and I hope the team see sense, see what's happened here, and make a sound judgement for the best of our site. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The names used for the entities that existed in the history of the administration of England and Wales should be those which come from reliable sources. These reliable sources should be evaluated carefully to avoid any bias, and should, ultimately, involve no original research on our part. If you trace back their source-trails, they should ultimately refer back to work by recognised local historians. Such reliable sources will often, but not always, be strengthened if they come from books that are not self-published, or websites that have not been set up by pressure groups or proponents of fringe topics. I suggest that the books by F A Youngs (Guide to the Local Administrative Units of England) and published by the Royal Historical Society (which have shown that they have reliable credentials) be used as a starting point. I see no mention of "Traditional counties" in them, or in work that reliably takes the research in those books further. It is true that proponents of "Traditional counties" might merit some mention on wikipedia as an example of what some people believe and as a fringe topic, but to erect a system of templates gives them an undue emphasis. (A distinction between teaching religion in schools and teaching about religion as examples of beliefs and cultures is analogous here) Any mention of historical entities of which today's counties are successors, can be adequately dealt with (a) in any article that deals with the (administrative) history of the UK, or any countries within it, and/or (b) any article that covers the (administrative) history of individual counties.as they exist today. I reject the idea of having all these new templates because it simply gives undue emphasis to pressure groups intent on giving a fanciful set of entities some reality above and beyond what is justified (i.e., people pushing fringe topics).  DDStretch  (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the Association of British Counties is using "County Flags" as part of a systematic campaign - details on their campaign website here [2]). This is manifesting itself on wikipedia in POV-pushing on pages such as List of British flags, templates such as Template:County flags of the United Kingdom and pages such as Flag of Northumberland, where the argument is made that county flags can only exist for historic counties, as these are the only entities for which the Flag Institute will register a county flag. There is of course no Flag Act in the UK and all flags are therefore unofficial, the status of flags in the UK is determined by their usage and their inclusion in Wikipedia should be governed by their coverage in reliable sources, of which the Flag Institute is one but only one. The Flag Institute is a private members society of vexillological enthusiasts that clearly has no authority to determine what does or doesn't constitute a county. JimmyGuano (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree 100% with this and with DDStretch. And equally flags for metro counties or even post-74 counties (like Cumbria) exist anyway - but are just as unofficial. I've notice the flags creep in more and more, but we need some measure in how this is included for our readers. I said (a couple of years ago) that WP:FLAGS should be used here (so shouldn't be used illustratively in lists and templates as say like that on Template:Cumbria or on Ceremonial counties of England at present); and that these should be included in county-level articles where referenced by news articles etc (in say a Culture section or a Symbols section) but not in the infobox. This is Wikipedia, not Wikishire! --Jza84 |  Talk  09:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

This discussion doesn't really help anything (its preaching to the converted, no?). Suggest MFD for the Wikipedia:WikiProject British Counties and Template:WikiProject British Counties. Template:Traditional counties of the United Kingdom and Template:British Counties should either go to separate TFDs, or possibly could be lumped into the MFD.

As for Traditional counties of the United Kingdom, IMO the redirect to ABC is both wrong procedurally and to the wrong target. Procedurally, there is at least a possibility that it could be written in a NPOV manner, and that's something that AFD would determine. As for the choice of target: Someone looking for "traditional counties" should end up at a neutral article about counties, not a page about the ABC.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with TfD as next step - anyone willing to kickstart the process? I think there's a sound consensus here and users have seen that this isn't right or neutral for Wikipedia at this present moment. Furthermore, Traditional counties was a redirect to ABC for a long time - that's changed since I last checked so I agree my redirect might need adjusting in hindsight; however, I'm keen to stress that the entire article was phoney - (mis)using blogs, unreliable sources, and misattributation of quotes (particularly with regards to England v.s UK), and therefore (redirect technicality aside) does not properly belong as a standalone article on Wikipedia anyway; any decent content (and I think there was a newspaper article used somewhere which was interesting in a different way) could readily be cited in (say) the historic English counties article about allegiances. Traditional counties of England redirects to the Historic English counties page, which is a sound call and I think does the trick while we're on that topic. It should be considered too that "traditional counties of the UK" and "British traditional counties" is a term/concept belonging to, or at least originating with ABC in the 1970s/80/90s - while we're at this crossroads there's an opportunity here to prove otherwise in a fair and transparent way too it should be noted. For me, the redirect is apt, but I'm cautiously open to alternative that are best for our readers. I've seen this type of work a few times over the last half a decade or so, and so I was keen to bring my perspective to the table, hopefully bringing with it some clarity. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with MfD or the guidelines for the existence of Wikiprojects, but am happy to take the templates that are not simple project paraphernalia forward to TfD.

The article Traditional counties of the United Kingdom should redirect to Counties of the United Kingdom IMO. There isn't a sufficient degree of commonality among the histories of the counties of England & Wales, Scotland and Ireland to make the scope of a single page coherent in the way that eg Historic counties of England can clearly refer to a specific set of pre-1889 entities. A typical wikipedia user looking for information on the subject needs to end up at a page that explains and contextualises the development of county-level entities across the UK and the extent to which they are or aren't "traditional" in a balanced way, and Counties of the United Kingdom would seem the correct place for this. The danger when we have an organised campaign of POV-pushing such as the ABC/CountyWatch etc is that we end up over-compensating rather than remaining neutral. If the ABC's theories about counties are a ridiculous over-simplification to meet a specific worldview, to structurally assert that the very concept is entirely a figment of their imagination is probably an over-simplification in the other direction. JimmyGuano (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

TfD now set up at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_13#Traditional_counties JimmyGuano (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

We should probably set up an RfD for Traditional counties of the United Kingdom. There was a similar discussion 3 years ago here when Traditional counties was a redirect to Association of British Counties. The result then was to change to a dab page, and a redirect to that dab page might be the way to go for the new page.--Mhockey (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Pages in Wikipedia: space should go through WP:MFD, even if they are (apparently) WikiProjects. I say "apparently" because I see no evidence that this "WikiProject British Counties" was proposed at WP:WPPRO, let alone received approval. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The user Jimmy Guano has created a page that wants to delete templates I made. You can see the page here. I replied to him but I thought I would post here too in case that page stayed, well, barren! Reply below.

Copy of TfD comment

To JimmyGuano. If you had actually given me some time to make changes, then I would have been in a much better position to explain myself. I would (presume) that these issues have been discussed amongst 'Wikiproject: UK Geography' before, hence why pages were deleted very swiftly, certainly not in ways which I have experienced before (usually it takes weeks and a discussion!!). I have been a member of Wikipedia for a very long time (June 2006), contributing to a variety of articles particularly linked to sport (I was a member of WikiProject: Rugby league), music, and (some) linguistics. I saw a clear gap in Wikipedia, when I wanted information about my home county, and thus decided to do some research. Whilst some of this did include a trip to Cambridge Uni Library (I hadn't got round to writing/refs what I had done there!), some of it was provided by ABC and HTC, two websites that I deemed reputable - perhaps I shouldn't have now; and I have always believed that if a group can add history and information to Wikipedia then they should. I thought the community would be best placed to revive some of the articles hence why they were mentioned. I realise now that WikiProject: UK Geography seems to a have a strong voice on all matters relating to county and is the 'place to be' or 'place to discuss'. If I had known I would have published my work on their page first, asking for feedback, instead of posting it straight onto Wikipedia, but I did not realise this was such a tetchy subject. I think at the very core of this discussion though is what is a county, and I think this is where many people would disagree with Wikipedia's current stance. But this has also caused huge confusion when it comes to signage, postage, and history in this country too! Wikipedia's stance seems to be that county is primarily concerned with governance and administration. One might argue that this was the reason for the original founding of the counties but actually I think you would find that there were separations in culture and environment between counties and that it wasn't just a case of administration or 'who owned what'. In my opinion this is not the case however. When something is longstanding it is not just about governance at all, but there is something else that represents community and culture. Changing governmental boundaries does not in my experience effect that whatsoever. Clearly though county is administration too, and thus a middle point must be made. I just don't don't think Wikipedia has found it. Your argument saying there has been many changes over the years is not entirely true really! Of course some have been, but the system has been fairly static for 500-1000+ years now. More changes have occured in the last 35 years then the hundreds before then! I really cannot fault ABC for standardising this, and they seem to have used very good sources and been very thorough in their 'Gazetter' upon doing this. From the pages I've looked at online they seem to have much support too (even amongst politicians as your friend Tmol42 acknowledged on your comments page), and their database is sold to companies. It makes perfect sense to me as there are and no doubt will always be changes in administrative and political boundaries in the near future (as I think generally our politicians put party and power before country). I have looked at the treatment of counties on Wikipedia concerning Ireland and I think it is much better to be honest. For instance they have North Tipperary County Council and South Tipperary County Council but County Tipperary as an article still lives on and has weight. In fact there's an article on Google saying that the Dail recently recommended that the two merge back into one Tipperary Council, despite it being just 12 years old! Which kind of gives weight to my argument! It would seem that articles and categories are more 'dualed' if you like (for instance modern articles categorised as both North Tipperary and County Tipperary). All I can say is that as someone in their 20s, I consider myself to be from Huntingdonshire. And I consider that to be a county. Yes Huntingdonshire may be administered by Cambridgeshire County Council, but for most they have allegiance to, and use, Huntingdonshire. When we receive post the letters always say Huntingdonshire! Several pubs and shops have the green flag of Huntingdonshire behind the counter/bar. And there are cars with Hunts stickers. I'm not 100% sure on this but I think the Cambridge News (our local paper) uses Huntingdonshire too if, for example, an accident has happened there. There are few who really use Cambridgeshire, except perhaps, those from other parts of the country. Because of this I find it extremely difficult to accept Wikipedia's layout of things! Just last week I had a friend over (same age) who was from Wigtownshire, and once again she uses that term. But I presume you guys would argue that it has been dead and buried since 1975, just because it's 'Dumfries and Galloway' that collects her rubbish! Last year I visited the Banffshire Coast, advertised as Banffshire by Aberdeenshire Council!! (see banffshirecoast.com) with signs saying Welcome to Banffshire, but you must think it's... Aberdeenshire?! Or Grampian?! And of course my family and relatives who still live in the great maritime city I was born say they are from Lancashire! But of course I understand I cannot speak for the entire country. I think it would be better if infoboxs mentioned (in some way) both, even if traditional was clearly subordinate. That there can be categories for both usages too. And that one can update articles like Huntingdonshire and bring them into 2013! (it has the population figures for 1911 in it's infobox!!). I admit it would be very hard on an article like Lancashire though (whether to include info on Liverpool and Manchester too for example). I would hazard a guess that some of this has been discussed before! I did notice though that I was very quickly linked to the 'WikiProject: Greater Manchester' page after submitting my article, which might explain why if it has been discussed before it may have been defeated. After all if one has spent months on articles about County Greater Manchester then they are not going to want changes to effect their hard work. I completely understand that. Feel free to delete the two templates if there is consensus. The former took me quite a while but is a little pointless without a corresponding article. Although it may still be of use for quick flicking. The flags used on there correspond to the traditional boundaries. I've noticed for example on the Lancashire article (of the 'non-metropolitan borough') you have used the flag of the proper county but there is no note there which is slightly misleading, so really it should probably be removed from the article. In future I will consult WikiProject: UK Geography if I am posting any geographic related articles and am sorry if I ruined your groups pages and articles or upset your members!! I will post this message onto the other page too as nobody has commented on this yet!

Regards, Poiuytre (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

County Terminology

It is important that we discuss the counties of the UK in a sensible fashion which maintains the spirit of impartiality on Wikipedia expressed in its "Five pillars".

The subject of the counties has been extensively debated elsewhere on Wikipedia and also on this page relating to the creation of templates for 'traditional counties'. I created this topic to separate the general debate from the specific case of those templates. The problem is that we continue to experience knee-jerk reactions from all sides. Separate pages and templates are not the way forward, nor is an approach which results in bias.

The convoluted history of county identity in the UK

The counties were created hundreds of yeas ago. This is already widely documented on Wikipedia. (I use the Counties of England article as an example.) Their function (as already described in Wikipedia articles) has evolved in unique ways to federal structures elsewhere. The problem comes with the changes in 1974 created by the Local Government Act 1972. Until this point the identity of the counties was universally accepted. At no point does the act state that what are understood as the 'historic or traditional counties' were abolished. In describing the 'new Local Government Areas in England' the Act states: "For the administration of local government on and after 1st April 1974 England (exclusive of Greater London and the Isles of Scilly) shall be divided into local government areas to be known as counties and in those counties there shall be local government areas to be known as districts." The key point are that these are areas "to be known as counties" - i.e. Cumbria is just as much of a county as Cumberland.

The Origin of the term 'administrative county' dates back to the Local Government Act 1988, where the first major distinction between a county's administrative identity and other identities is made and the term 'administrative county' appears. The term 'administrative county' also appears in the 1972 Act.

The status of the historic counties is understood at different levels by many. Frequent (and often highly sensational) ascertains of 'fringe status' are often not backed-up by meaningful arguments or sources. It is important that both arguments (for and against the use of historic counties) are backed-up by respected examples. Omission of the term 'historic county' or 'traditional county' can hardly be argued as evidence of their non-existence. The historic counties have been, and continue to be documented by sources such as the Victoria County Histories and used by organisations such as the England and Wales Cricket Board. Indeed the existence of the historic counties is even recognised by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government - "Eric Pickles will assert that England’s historic and traditional counties still exist, and are now recognised by the government - including the likes of Cumberland, Huntingdonshire, Westmorland and Middlesex." They are also recognised as an identity for county flags in the 2012 amendments to the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements)(England) Regulations.

A possible way forward

A possible way forward would be to take the example of the highly-respected Encyclopaedia Britannica which states that "every part of the United Kingdom lies within what is known as a historic county. The historic counties have formed geographic and cultural units since the Middle Ages". Britannica uses both senses of county in the present tense and explains the differences for each county. For example, in the Devon article, the county is described: "administrative, geographic, and historic county of England. It forms part of the Southwest Peninsula of Great Britain and is bounded to the west by Cornwall and to the east by Dorset and Somerset. The Bristol Channel lies to the north, and the English Channel abuts it to the south. The administrative, geographic, and historic counties cover slightly different areas." A similar approach could be used on Wikipedia. Whether or not the term 'administrative county' is used, this approach (identifying differences between the historic, ceremonial and administrative identities, as well as using the present tense) for each article on the counties could bring a more neutral (and hopefully mutually acceptable) solution.

Mfgarber (talk) 10:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

A sensible, nuanced and constructive post - thank you!

However the Association of British Counties' claim that you've alluded to above "At no point does the act state that what are understood as the 'historic or traditional counties' were abolished" is a bit of a myth - the act clearly states "for any reference to an existing county or its council there shall be substituted a reference to so much of the new county or counties as comprises the area of the existing county or any part thereof or, as the case may be, the council of that new county or the councils of those new counties." ([3] section 262 Local Acts and instruments.) Legally speaking it's completely unambiguous that the new counties replaced the old ones for all statutory purposes, just as the new councils replaced the old ones.

The law isn't everything, of course - geographical terms still describe geographical areas whatever their legal status and cultural identities are fuzzier still. There has never been a formal or legally defined geographical area called "The Black Country", but the sentence "The Black Country doesn't exist" is still verifiably false. However it's hard to see any sense in which the sentence "Sutton Coldfield is in the ancient county of Warwickshire" differs in status from the sentence "Sutton Coldfield is in the ancient Kingdom of Mercia". Both are meaningful, both are true, both impart valuable information about the historical, geographical and cultural identity of Sutton Coldfield, but neither implies the existence of a contemporary county of Warwickshire that includes Sutton Coldfield any more than either implies the existence of a contemporary Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of Mercia. Still less does either imply that either of these ancient divisions should somehow take precedence as the definitive contemporary geographical description of the area.

All of this is of course is different again to the question of whether Sutton Coldfield should be in a formally-defined county of Warwickshire, or whether the term "county" should be redefined to refer once again to these historic entities, both questions which are none of Wikipedia's business.

JimmyGuano (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

@Mfgarber: You put "The Origin of the term 'administrative county' dates back to the Local Government Act 1988"; but later in the same paragraph you put "The term 'administrative county' also appears in the 1972 Act"; these are inconsistent.

I have verified your statement "The term 'administrative county' also appears in the 1972 Act" (the Act being the Local Government Act 1972), and the term appears in section 1(10) and extensively in Schedule 1. But although our article Local Government Act 1988 gives a link to the text of the Act, that Act doesn't use the term 'administrative county' at all (the closest is 'administration'). Please could you verify your aforementioned statement? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It is rather bizarre - have a look at the pdf of the original Act which can be downloaded. It defines some terms. Mfgarber (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

What I'm trying to do here is understand the basis for your statement "The Origin of the term 'administrative county' dates back to the Local Government Act 1988" when it is demonstrable that the term was in use at least fourteen years earlier than that. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It's going too far that suggest that Section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972 means that "Legally speaking it's completely unambiguous that the new counties replaced the old ones for all statutory purposes, just as the new councils replaced the old ones." The words quoted are preceded by "In any local statutory provision to which this section applies and which does not fall within subsection (3) above...." They were necessary simply to avoid difficulties in interpreting older legislation, no more, no less.

And I don't think it's helpful to compare ancient entities like the Kingdom of Mercia with counties abolished or substantially altered in 1974. The old boundaries of Warwickshire have continued to have cultural importance (e.g. in cricket), are highly relevant to genealogists (who use WP a lot), are the basis of standard reference works like Pevsner and the Victoria County History, and are well known to those still alive who were brought up before 1974. None of that applies to Mercia.

None of this is to say that the ABC is right in everything they say. To my mind the question of whether the ancient/historic/traditional counties still exist is not the real issue. The issue is how far should WP recognise them. Articles on places almost always state the pre-1974 county, usually in the lead section. Articles on ancient counties should use the present tense if that's what reliable sources use. We should not be influenced by what ABC say - it is just as silly to say that everything they say is wrong as agree with everything they say. But we should not dismiss other evidence, whether the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Eric Pickles or the Post Office, just because it agrees with a view of the ABC.--Mhockey (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Mercia has a contemporary relevance too. There is for example a Mercian Regiment and West Mercia Police. There is even the Mercia Movement, quite similar to the ABC in some ways, which campaigns that "Mercia remains a legally autonomous region and we intend to re-create its independence in reality" [4] (like the ABC they seem baffled at the scandalous refusal of the entire rest of the world to share their counter-factual world-view). Comedy fringe movements aside, Mercia's contemporary relevance is of course far less than ancient Warwickshire because its formal existence is much further in the past, but the difference is only one of degree: its status as a more extreme example of the same situation is precisely why it is an illuminating comparison here.

And of course the clause in the LGA1972 is only there to clarify legal interpretation - that's what Acts of Parliament are for. But it could just as easily have said "existing counties shall remain as a geographical frame of reference and shall refer to their existing extent". This is what the ABC claim that the act did implicitly, but in fact it explicitly did the opposite, it clarified the interpretation by stating that all legislative and other legal references to then-existing counties should be replaced by expressions in terms of the new counties. It's hard to see how the clause could have been worded any less ambiguously, even if the world's most ardent advocate of Humberside had been invited to write it.

But your point "To my mind the question of whether the ancient/historic/traditional counties still exist is not the real issue." is the nub of it. I strongly disagree with this - this is precisely the issue. Abingdon's history as part of Berkshire - for a long period its county town - is true and important and it has contemporary cultural relevance and I am enthusiastically in favour of it being lavishly covered in the relevant WP articles. Where there is substantial popular discontent with contemporary county arrangements and strong identification with historic counties this should also be covered, in accordance with its representation in reliable sources. Is anybody seriously against any of this?

The problem comes when it is suggested that Wikipedia should represent as fact the theory that there is a secret phantom network of formal, defined, still-existing counties, definitive and eternal, whose strange absence from the Ordnance Survey, the Office for National Statistics, the overwhelming majority of geographical descriptions of the country and (apart from a tiny handful of cherry-picked examples) the mainstream media is the result of "confusion" on behalf of, well everybody except the few people blessed with the "correct" historical interpretation. This is the very definition of a WP:FRINGE and to support it would be a gross example of WP:UNDUE.

The longstanding consensus at WP:UKCOUNTIES of covering historic counties comprehensively but as historic phenomena with, where attested, contemporary relevance still seems correct, as it remains in accordance with the majority of mainstream interpretation. JimmyGuano (talk) 09:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

1. The modern use of Mercia by some organisations is a bit of a red herring. Those organisations do not, I think, claim anything other than a loose geographical connection to the ancient kingdom (a bit like the use of Ghana for the modern country). That is why I said that the old boundaries of Warwickshire continue to have cultural importance. The boundaries of the Kingdom of Mercia do not.

2. The LGA1972 could not have easily said "existing counties shall remain as a geographical frame of reference and shall refer to their existing extent". That is not what the Act was for. It was about Local Government. (And I do not know what the ABC claims or does not claim: I do not think that is relevant.)

3. Too much ink is spent on debating whether or not the historic counties still exist. Who cares, except the ABC? An esoteric argument on the meaning of "exists" would be futile and inconclusive. The fact of the matter is that some people think they all exist, and everyone thinks that some of them exist. (Does anyone seriously think that Yorkshire and Sussex no longer exist?)

I agree with Nilfanion that we should use neutral language in writing about counties.--Mhockey (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Apart perhaps from Yorkshire I'm not sure that your example of County Cricket clubs do either. Warwickshire CCC don't seem too concerned that half of their Edgbaston Cricket Ground is in "historic Worcestershire"? And Eric Pickles enthusiasm for historic counties seems to extend to Wessex too [5]. Mercia is a sideline here, but it does form an instructive reductio ad absurdum for when analagous arguments are applied to counties.

2. That section wasn't about local government, it was clarifying the meaning of laws and other legal instruments that referred or applied to specific areas, things or people, where those laws could have been made ambiguous by changes to administrative arrangements in the rest of the act. That specific clause relates to laws and other legal instruments that refer or apply to counties as geographical areas. It could have specified that "Lancashire" would continue to mean what it had always meant as a geographical term for non-administrative purposes, and that the changes in the rest of the act were purely changes to council arrangements, not legal geographical descriptions. It didn't, it actively specified that all legal references to old counties should be replaced with references to new counties, even when they didn't relate to "functions exercisable by a local authority" (which were covered by the previous clause). My description above - "it's completely unambiguous that the new counties replaced the old ones for all statutory purposes" - is straightforwardly accurate.

3. The difference between "Abingdon was in Berkshire until 1974" and "Abingdon is in Berkshire" is quite an important one, surely? A reader of Wikipedia would reasonably expect us not to use them interchangeably.

I support Nilfanion's "historically within..." formulation too, subject to the oversimplification caveat that he/she mentions below, and I support the WP:UKCOUNTIES guideline of which it forms a part. JimmyGuano (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your point 3, although you could equally say "Abingdon is within the historic boundaries of Berkshire". On point 2, I think it's a stretch to equate "In any local statutory provision to which this section applies" with "for all statutory purposes", which I think you are doing. And I too support Nilfanion's formulation.--Mhockey (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The only difference between "any local statutory provision to which this section applies" and "all statutory purposes" is that Greater London is excluded, as it had already been dealt with in 1964: "This section applies to any local statutory provision which is in force wholly outside Greater London (except in the Isles of Scilly) and so much of any local statutory provision which is in force partly in Greater London as is in force outside Greater London". Anyway, we seem to broadly agree on the issue of substance. JimmyGuano (talk) 06:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

My concern is the oversimplification of looking only at 1889 and 1972. There have been numerous less drastic changes throughout history, with places being transferred from one county to another. This makes it hard to justify the counties as static unchanging entities - that part of the ABC's views I disagree with.

"Cumberland is a historic county of England" is a very different statement to "Cumberland is a historic county of England with these boundaries". This has a big impact on how this information can be imparted. "In 1890, Cumberland included X, ..." or "Historically in Cumberland, X is..." are straightforward to justify, as past borders can be readily verified. Its harder task to justify "X is in Cumberland" - says who? The ABC? Who says their definition is correct? (I'd disagree with them in some cases) Royal Mail? They want to drop all mention of them in PAF, and just copy-pasted the ABC gazette.

Saying Cumberland exists today as a historic county is different from saying it even has a border today, nevermind what that border is. My preferred formulation - "Historically in <county>, <place> is..." - is reasonably neutral. It neither implies the location currently is in the county nor does it imply its strictly part of the past, and usefully, it doesn't get bogged down.-Nilfanion (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I think this debate is well worth having again. Although I have personally found this issue tiresome and a real drain on building quality articles, debate like these over the years have always come to very simillar conclusions - despite just how painful in the backside some users have been! Equally, I think what Nilfanion and Mhockey are hitting on is that the approach and consensus formed in the past some years ago pretty much got the approach right, and doesn't need changing, i.e. we include the historic county in every article about a place in the UK in the lead section where boundaries have changed using "Historically a part of" or "located within the historic county boundaries of".

Traditionalists (as I like to call them, which I happen to think is quite a nice term) are in a bit of a muddle when it comes to "expressing" their greivances. In some respects they say that the boundaries never changed (legally/culturally or whatever - they can't quite get a grip of that); in other respects they assert that they are pushing for boundaries to be changed back (inadvertently undermining the alternative arguement that the boundaries never changed in the first place).Then there are the "official government policy statements" which are infact a real pick 'n' mix of opinions (and they are only opinions) from (as I've said) celebrity astrologers (Russell Grant... hmmmmm), disgraced politicians (Phil Woolas... chair/vice-chair of the Friends of Real Lancashire), and other unknown persons which when you trace them back are infact rather doctored and sexed up (the classic one is that "official statement" made in The Times which ABC etc hold on to dearly, but at best is just what one unknown politician said to the reporter at that moment in time, and has no bearing on any Act of Parliament anyway). Then there's the crude arguements made by traditionalist trolls, like "you're uncultured", "you only care about who collects the bins", "go check with the Land Registry they know the truth".... the last one I did as it happens, and surprise, surprise, I was in Greater Manchester as you can see for yourself (that ain't my address now as it happens - I'm not that daft!).

In terms of who or what is valid, I think it's important to note that the LGA72 substituted the new counties "for counties of any other description" for purposes of law - a part of the act not mentioned on ABC material about the changes of 1974. Also (as it's been mentioned), the statutes and codes creating county cricket clubs pre date the LGA1988, let alone 1972, and there are sports representing modern counties all the same anyway (see [6] and [7]); and of course Cricket does not have a monopoly on geography anyway. Furthermore, geneaology was mentioned - anyone born post 1974, will have the county and/or distirct of the time on their birth certificate, and are indexed according to modern county boundaries (I'm not brave enough to post one up as that's a bit too personal for obvious reasons!). And finally, in terms of Wikipedia, I'd urge traditionalists to find a census report telling us what the population of Cumberland or Middlesex was in 2011, who the lords lieutenants are etc (which gets to the heart of why it's not the right stance to take because their scope as a living entity is limited to heritage and symbolism).

So, if there really is a necessity to have this debate again - and I'm quite openly looking at the Owains and Vexilos and others who can be publically linked to projects like Wikishire (and I'm in no way knocking that as a bad thing) - then I say, bring it on - let's really bottom this out if you as a Traditionalist truly believe that strongly in your sources and think that consensus can and should change off the back of it. If not, then let's please bring some closure to this debate and agree that we have got this issue sorted, and allow us all get on with improving Wikipedia and its wavering reputation. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Scotland

This thread on WP:SCOTLAND and this RFC on Commons are likely of interest to editors here. Basically, an unrelated issue matter relating to the Scottish counties has flared up simultaneously with the above, but unlike the above has had a significant practical impact, as the POV has actively been pushed in articles/on Commons.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)