Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places)/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Counties again 2 RfC 2.1 Where now? 3 More discussion copied from User talk:G-Man 4 "Town, Region" form

Counties again

Please note that there is a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography about the suitability or otherwise of ceremonial counties as a way of arranging the "list of places in Exampleshire" articles. G-Man has asked me to raise it here since it relates to the policy on naming conventions. I find the arguments for ceremonial counties taking precedence over the traditional and administrative senses of the term unconvincing, the policy somewhat ambiguous when it comes to stating what county a place is in, and the present arrangement inadequate when it comes to dividing up our primary county articles and their spin-offs such as "list of places in" pages. I'd appreciate some input. — Trilobite (Talk) 6 July 2005 07:20 (UTC)

May I suggest that you canvas opinion from regular contributors to 'awkward' places like Manchester, West Midlands, London, Bristol. --Concrete Cowboy 6 July 2005 10:44 (UTC)

My vote would be for traditional counties. The ceremonial areas are far from satisfactory in Scotland and Wales and large parts of England. Owain 6 July 2005 09:18 (UTC)

Chalk up another vote for traditional counties. It's maddening to see people talking about Unitary Authorities as if they are real counties! UAs are always going to be changing -- what kind of reference scheme is that? MonMan 6 July 2005 13:54 (UTC)

Mine for traditional and/or admin, depending on context. The ceremonials do not appear to have attracted popular acclaim. --Concrete Cowboy 6 July 2005 10:44 (UTC)

And my main concern is that the articles we write make good sense to our readers. As I noted above over a year ago (!), the library in St Neots says above the door, 'Cambridgeshire County Library, St Neots'. The road signs as you enter the town say 'Cambridgeshire', the OS map shows the town within Cambridgeshire. So should the Wikipedia article, and this is what the current policy requires. But the 'traditional counties' approach has the town in Huntingdonshire! We really do need common-sense to prevail if we want our articles to be useful to our readers.

In an article about Oliver Cromwell, I would refer to St Neots as being in Huntingdonshire because at that time it was. The current policy supports this.

As far as I'm concerned the issue was decided when the vote was taken (85% in favour of the existing policy). I do not want to debate the whole thing again (sigh). Let's be very clear. The current debate is taking place because a small minority refuses to abide by a policy decision taken a year ago. Chris Jefferies 6 July 2005 11:10 (UTC)

I think you're misrepresenting it somewhat. I certainly do abide by the policy decision, otherwise many of the stubs and articles I've created would have been worded differently, categorised differently, and listed differently. I'm trying to argue for a slight softening of the line that ceremonial counties are of paramount importance, which is the principle that guides the present arrangement of our county articles and related pages such as "list of places in". This actually contradicts the policy, which says: "We should use the current, administrative, county". Ceremonial strikes me as absurd. I'd favour traditional as the guiding principal, but I'd be happy to compromise and do everything straight down the line administrative, with nice infoboxes for population and all the rest of it in the articles on all the administrative counties and unitary authorities, with traditional county articles done separately and talking about history and culture, etc. For individual place articles I'd like a recognition of what may well be the real consensus but which the policy is ambiguous about, namely that we talk about a place's traditional, administrative and ceremonial counties, all qualified as such, and all in the present tense. Once policy decisions are taken they are not sealed forever, particularly if a substantial minority dissents and the policy is poorly worded and inadequate. Furthermore, I am not refusing to abide by it (you seem to lump me in with POV-pushers). I have always objected to the policy, but came across it after it was a fait accompli, and have never really had the stamina to have a go at arguing for a change in the face of people who have got their way and understandably don't wish to see the debate reopened. (Actually I don't much feel like having a marathon argument about it now, but since there is a push to complete the "list of" articles and the question of why they are all ceremonial counties was raised, I felt compelled to say something). — Trilobite (Talk) 6 July 2005 11:44 (UTC)

No, no, I don't mean to lump you with POV-pushers, Trilobite. If I gave that impression I apologise. Ceremonial or administrative county is fine as far as the St Neots article is concerned, just as long as the town is recorded in Cambridgeshire I shall be very content. If the policy needs to be revisited and adjusted that's fine too, let's do it. All I ask is that we are guided by common-sense and that having agreed, we all stick to the policy. That has so far failed to happen and was failing to happen long before you became involved!

If you have been abiding by the policy but are dissatisfied with it and want to review it, that is very laudable. It is what all of us should have done all along. Chris Jefferies 6 July 2005 13:04 (UTC)

but I'd be happy to compromise and do everything straight down the line administrative, with nice infoboxes for population and all the rest of it in the articles on all the administrative counties and unitary authorities, with traditional county articles done separately and talking about history and culture, etc. — this is very near what I suggested a long time ago, and I'm a "POV-pusher", apparently! I would tolerate the organisation of places primarily by administrative areaa if all the traditional counties had separate article, and, when a traditional county was mentioned, it linked to one of these articles. Indeed, a few articles were created such as Gloucestershire (traditional), etc., but unfortunately certain editors didn't like them and made a great fuss until they were eventually deleted. It is ludicrous to organise county articles as refering to administrative counties, then organise county lists as refering to ceremonial counties, and then, when mentioning traditional counties, link to the former!

It would be a very simply matter to have individual articles on the different types of counties, allowing accurate links from all articles refering to one or another of them. As the bulk of the history of all counties took place when their boundaries exlcusively followed those of the traditional counties, it makes sense to include the bulk of the history information in traditional county article. When someone follows a link to Huntingdonshire from the Oliver Cromwell article, they don't want to know about some council district nonsense dreamt up in the past two decades! This should be moved to Huntingdonshire (council district)! If all the different counties had different articles, along with decent maps in each, they could actually be usefully referenced throughout the encyclopaedia; this cannot be done currently.

On the question of the bizarre choice of "ceremonial counties" as a basis for the 'county' articles at present, naturally I am in favour of replacing these with traditional counties, which are much better known and provide a stable geographical framework. Alongside these could run a similar series of articles on the administrative counties and UAAs. All places lying in each set of entities could then be properly inter-referenced. Ceremonial counties, although poorly known, could also be treated separately, and provide additional information on the location of places; however, I doubt that most people would even known what a 'ceremonial county' was, so they are a very poor choice as a basic geographical framework. 80.255 19:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Why would you be 'content' to see St. Neots as being recorded in Cambridgeshire? Surely the truth of the situation is more important? The infobox already records that it is administratively Cambridgeshire and traditionally Huntingdonshire. Why push a POV that the administration is more important to people than the centuries old traditional county? Owain 6 July 2005 14:02 (UTC)

Why do I get a strange sense of deja vu. Do we have to go through this 'again'. G-Man 6 July 2005 18:21 (UTC)

I thought we didn't. I thought we were going to apply common sense. But then Chrisjj makes a controversial POV statement. Owain 6 July 2005 18:44 (UTC)

I've just been informed about this debate and I've yet to read all the contributions here and elsewhere but following are my initial thoughts on the matter. Whether one likes it or not the traditional (or historic) counties are still with us. I recall seeing a government statement something to the effect that "the historical counties were not abolished in 1974". Therefore it is a fact that, for example, Ulverston is (not was) in the historic county of Lancashire. There's no getting away from it. Ulverston is, of course, also located in the administrative county of Cumbria. Wikipedia is all about conveying facts, so if we don't convey these basic facts about Ulverston then we are failing. We must state in an article about Ulverston its relationship to both entities. As to how we do that is another matter, as is which entity should take priority in the text. Maybe I'll make some comments about that when I've read other people's contributions to the debate. If the Wikipedia naming policy (which I haven't yet studied) says that no reference should be made to historic or traditional counties in location articles then I would humbly suggest the policy needs revising. Arcturus 6 July 2005 20:18 (UTC)

Yes, do read it please (and its talk page too) and then come back and comment. That would be welcome. The policy doesn't say that no mention should be made of historic counties, it says that it's appropriate to mention them in historical contexts or to mention them later in an article on a place. But we also have to consider the guidelines on article structure which says the lead section should contain only the major, basic, essential points. So an article on St Neots should say in the lead section 'St Neots is a town in Cambridgeshire' and then later, perhaps in the section on history, that historically or traditionally it was in Huntingdonshire. Chris Jefferies 6 July 2005 22:59 (UTC)

The problem here Chris, is that what you consider 'basic' points differs from other people's. I for example condsider the ancient county a place is in, as it least as important, if not more important, that the current local government situation. Secondly, you AGAIN seem to like to use the past tense for traditional counties. St. Neots IS in Huntingdonshire, not WAS there. Owain 7 July 2005 08:31 (UTC)

But that is perverse and misleading. Today, Huntingdonshire (district) exists and St Neots is not in it. The only correct statement is "St Neots is in Cambridgeshire but was in Huntingdonshire before boundary changes in xxxx". The past is interesting, but it is the past - so use the past tense. In a case such as St Neots, the article must give both to avoid confusion and ambiguity. The same goes for Huntingdon, as I see is already the case --Concrete Cowboy 7 July 2005 10:47 (UTC)

I withdraw the above. I misread the map. St Neots is in Cambridgeshire and in Huntingdonshire District. There is a better map here. St Neots doesn't illuminate the debate because Huntingdonshire was a shire county and now it is a district: I don't understand why it was cited, other than to create a false semantic argument. [This inserted after Owain replied to my original.] --Concrete Cowboy 7 July 2005 17:15 (UTC)

The reason St. Neots is used as an example is because its administrative county is different to its traditional county. The point is that St. Neots would be in Huntingdonshire traditional county whether Huntingdonshire District Council existed or not. Local government does not define what county a place is in, and never has. Owain 7 July 2005 18:39 (UTC)

How is it perverse? Traditional counties have nothing to do with local government. Yes there was a Huntingdonshire county council, but that only existed between 1889 and 1965. Huntingdonshire itself is an entirely separate entity. Boundary changes change the names and areas of local councils, not traditional counties. Owain 7 July 2005 13:06 (UTC)

Owain, I wonder if you can explain why it's OK for you to see things differently from others, but it's not OK for me to do so? Are you suggesting that everybody else disagrees with my view and agrees with yours? Do you have any evidence for that?

Quite apart from the discussion about the ins and outs of county naming conventions, there is a deeper question which has not been explicitly asked. I'm going to ask it now - because it's much more important than the policy itself.

Does everyone here agree to abide by the policy? I hereby declare that I will abide by the existing policy in editing articles and that if the policy is changed I will still be bound by the new version. If I think the policy is wrong I will discuss it further and try to get it altered, but meanwhile I will abide by it.

Who will stand with me on that declaration? Will everyone go forward on that basis? If not, how can we go forward at all? Chris Jefferies 7 July 2005 12:10 (UTC)

If you recall I used wording out of the policy itself. The sacred policy was never broken. Your objection was to where in the article the text should be placed. That is an argument that is entirely independent of the policy. Owain 7 July 2005 13:06 (UTC)

The idea was to try and come to some compromise between the two camps, and recognise that (a) traditional counties have special significance and (b) that despite this it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia to use them as to imply they are in popular use. We should follow usage of broadsheet papers and similar material and the fact is, that they simply don't write stuff like "Carlisle is in Cumberland". Compare Guardian usage of "Carlise, Cumbria", vs Guardian usage of "Carlisle, Cumberland" - and all the results on the last are false positives, for an institution that is still happily called Cumberland.

At one point we tried to propose "is within the traditional borders of" and "traditionally covers" as compromise wording. I still don't see anything wrong with these from my side.

Some comments have tried to put forward the idea that administrative counties were a creation of 1889 with no precedent. This is just not true - they sprung more-or-less directly (apart from County of London) from the boundaries used by the Quarter Sessions courts, which had e.g. a separate East Sussex and West Sussex, and county borough-like entities in them (see county corporate).

There is the issue of the 1844 changes, and the Scottish exclaves. When people do use traditional counties in day to day life, they don't use the pre-1844 ones (ie I've never heard anyone claim that Wokingham is in Wiltshire, or that Lindisfarne is in County Durham, which was the situation before 1844). I would be interested to hear opinions.

People do use counties in Scotland, and at least here we don't have a nomenclature dispute over what "county" means. However, they generally use the former administrative counties rather than the "traditional" ones, due to the unmanageable exclaves.

If we can get agreement from the traditional counties people on the 1844 and Scotland points, then hopefully we can get a bit more relaxed and work towards consensus. But if I see list of places in County Durham containing Lindisfarne, then I am going to get awfully annoyed. Morwen - Talk 20:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

As the author of list of places in County Durham, I can tell you I have no intention of listing Lindisfarne. Your compromise wording is also the kind of thing I have been using where necessary. An article on a place in Warwickshire that says it's "in the West Midlands and within the traditional borders of Warwickshire" is acceptable, though I can't help thinking that if Warwickshire has to be qualified as a traditional county in such a case, then we ought to qualify ceremonial or administrative counties in other cases, so we'd have places stated as being "in the administrative and ceremonial county of Cumbria, and in the traditional county of Westmorland". The key to accuracy, I think, is to acknowledge the separateness of the three systems and to make each definition explicit to the reader, because those who are under the impression that there is one set of counties that has had its borders changed over time will be hopelessly confused otherwise when it comes to trying to understand that somewhere can be simultaneously in ceremonial County Durham, and in administrative Stockton-on-Tees unitary authority. While in my personal POV-pedia things would be done primarily according to traditional boundaries I can certainly acknowledge that clearly spelling out all three (where they differ) is the most neutral and accurate approach. — Trilobite (Talk) 21:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Apart from Herefordshire and Rutland and a few others. Unitary authorities dont have county status and so arent the same as administrative counties. Personally I think your above formula is needlessly complicated, and likely to cause utter confusion amongst the readers. G-Man 21:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that the system of counties, Lord-Lieutenants, administrative boundaries of local government and all the rest of it is needlessly complicated, otherwise we wouldn't be having this argument. The formula is not needlessly complicated because it just follows from that. I don't think we should be oversimplifying things and misleading the reader about the real situation. For places that have been affected by boundary changes it is just not appropriate to say they are in some county, without qualifying what is meant by county, and just leaving it at that. I'd rather the readers did a bit of thinking and appreciated the distinction between a place's traditional county, its ceremonial county, and the unitary authority that administers it, than that they just remained ignorant of the complexities of the UK's messed-up subdivisions. — Trilobite (Talk) 21:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh my, consensus would be lovely! Morwen asks for opinions, mine is that there are a number of sticking points. I don't believe recognising that traditional counties have special significance is one of them, I'm happy with that and county articles should certainly explain this. I suspect we can all agree on this, if so we can tick off point (a). But point (b) may be far more difficult. The 'traditional borders' styles of phrasing mentioned by Morwen is fine, but I get anxious when I see article after article stating in the lead section that place P 'is in the traditional county of C'. It seems too, well, 'systematic' and the present tense leads the reader to a conclusion that many will interpret as a point of view.

Then there's the messy business of multiple county infoboxes. I would much prefer to see a single infobox linking to a single county article for each county name. The county articles themselves can explain the history, the significance and use of administrative, ceremonial, traditional, postal, and whatever other kind of county is pertinant along with the geography and many other aspects.

We have to accept that British county naming is a bit of a minefield and Wikipedia articles should surely explain the muddle as clearly as possible. Multiple infoboxes will not help people understand as well as clear, concise, descriptive writing and a county map, preferably showing the borders in use at different times in the past as well as the present administrative boundaries.

I have one further comment at this stage. When people use traditional county names in everyday life, I suspect they are often quite vague about the boundaries. For example, the Gloucestershire County Cricket ground is actually in the city of Bristol, and has been for many years, but few people could say where the traditional county line is. Many cities are like Bristol, partly within two or more traditional counties. They began in one county and spread right across the border - that's history! I don't want to have a battle over this, I'm tired of wrestling endlessly with it. But I'm not going to roll over and die either. That is why I've been pleading for everyone to declare their intentions up front. Will everyone abide by the current/future policy? If not, why not? Chris Jefferies 21:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The footer boxes aren't infoboxes, by the way, the infoboxes are the things at the right. I support having a traditional counties footer, in the same way that historical provinces of Sweden do. (see Tavastland for example). Morwen - Talk 13:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Multiple footers are useful when the subject of the article exists in multiple name spaces with different relationships. The articles on Scottish council areas and Welsh principal areas have multiple footers where they share the same name as a traditional county and it works well. Regarding G-Man's argument that unitary authorities don't have county status — well it depends what you mean by "county"! :) The legislation clearly defines them all to be "counties" within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1972. e.g. from: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1995/Uksi_19951769_en_2.htm

Constitution of new county of Milton Keynes
8 (1)  Milton Keynes shall cease to form part of Buckinghamshire.
  (2)  A new county shall be constituted comprising the area of Milton Keynes
       and shall be named the county of Milton Keynes.

The word means different things in different contexts, just as in City status in the United Kingdom, some have doubted the right of the Crown to define the word "city" in the United Kingdom, the same can be said of the word "county". In specific legislation is has been defined to mean specific things, but those pieces of legislation cannot redefine the meaning of the word in general usage. By the way, the southern border of Gloucestershire is easy - it's the river Avon. Owain 14:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I'm more than happy to use the post-1844 boundaries for all practical purposes (as of course was the intention of the Act), but of course any articles on places that fall in such detached parts can easily mention the fact that they are in a detached part. Owain 14:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

A formula such as Kyloe lies in an exclave of the traditional county of Durham, and is locally situate in Northumberland would be acceptable from my perspective. Then, on the County Durham (traditional) page, such places could be listed with an asterisk or similar and a footnote mentioning the fact that the 1843 Act purported to affect them, rather as the current article List of places in Hampshire is primarily concerned with the administrative county, but also lists places in the traditional county with a footnote to that effect. 80.255 19:47, 14 August

2005 (UTC)

I am all for listing the historic counties of Great Britain.Including the 6 counties in Ulster,there are 92 traditional counties.I will be writing some articles on the postal orders used in the 4 British nations. - (Aidan Work 04:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC))

There are more than six counties in Ulster, and none of them have ever been part of Great Britain. Six of them are part of the United Kingdom (as Northern Ireland), but that's a different matter. Grutness...wha? 23:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I think this discussion needs help so I've added it to the RfC page. Here's a brief summary of the situation for those who may offer help and advice.

RfC - Summary so far - There is disagreement and debate about how we should reference British counties in Wikipedia articles. Over a year ago, the subject was discussed in detail, on this page and elsewhere (various user talk pages and a variety of article talk pages). This discussion can be reviewed nearer the top of the page you are now reading.

Eventually a vote was taken and a policy approved by a majority (see the Project page).

Since that time disagreement has continued, some articles have been repeatedly reverted, and there is an impasse.

Now the debate has intensified once again and we need some help to go forward in a way that will be positive for Wikipedia.

Summary posted Chris Jefferies 7 July 2005 14:47 (UTC)

RFC response. I would say the reasonable way is to refer to the traditional counties in any article which is unambiguously before 1974, and the current administrative unit for anything which is after that time. To refer to Oliver Cromwell as connected to 'St Neots, Cambridgeshire' is quite clearly wrong. David | Talk 7 July 2005 21:23 (UTC)

Congratulations on being the first RfC response :-) And thanks.

That's a novel suggestion and worth chewing over. How would you approach articles that span the historical divide? Most town articles for instance deal with the modern town and its history. I suppose we could apply the rule as appropriate, today's St Neots would be in Cambridgeshire but the history section would have it in Huntingdonshire prior to 1974. Works for me. Chris Jefferies 8 July 2005 00:00 (UTC)

I agree. The introductory paragprahs of an article on a town or city should be about the place as it is now. Unfortunately, it seems some Wikipedians believe that the historical county forms a part of the important data on a place as it currently exists. Much as historical counties may have resonance with some people, they remain an administrative division, and one that is no longer current. It's most relevant to mention these in the section on a place's history. -- Tarquin

All this is missing the point. I brought this up originally because of the suggestion that we should all set to work filling out the "list of places in..." articles for ceremonial counties - the worst choice! The way we talk about counties in individual place articles needs clarification, as it seems people have different understandings of what the policy is. What we have got away from though is this question of why we are using the ceremonial counties for the county articles themselves, and all their various spin-offs like "history of..." and "list of places in...". Now since many people find it sensible to use the traditional counties in a historical context, doesn't it make sense to have articles like History of Westmorland and History of Huntingdonshire instead of spending our time on History of something that was arbitrarily designated in 1974, didn't exist before that time, and had all its functions except Lord-Lieutenancy abolished again and devolved to unitary authorities a few years later? The way I see it, supporters of the policy are under the illusion that no one cares about traditional counties these days, so we should slavishly follow reorganisations of local government and treat these administrative "counties" as the real thing. Then they realise the absurdity of this because of the subsequent changes to the adminstrative structure, which means places they like to think of as being in the "West Midlands" are in fact administered by various unitary authorities. While I'd like to see Wikipedia using a stable reference frame to organise our county articles, with all the administrative and ceremonial deviations duly and prominently noted, supporters of the status quo are stuck in an unfortunate halfway house at some indeterminate time in the late 1970s, not acknowledging that things have moved on (something they are quick to accuse supporters of traditional counties of) and former administrative counties like the West Midlands no longer have county councils. Why does the assignment of a Lord-Lieutenant to an arbitrarily delineated patch of ground grant it the right to an article listing all its places, or outlining its history? Why don't we either use the ones that really matter from an administrative perspective, or the stable reference frame that is the 900-year-old traditional system? Why? — Trilobite (Talk) 14:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I want to try and help to resolve this difficult situation. I live in Cardiff, watch the page and a bit saddened about the number of edits which do not actually improve the article, but just flip between opposing views as to whether “in the traditional county of Glamorgan” (or somesuch) should appear in the introduction.

We need some way of stopping the attrition of edits and reverts so we can all get on with life. The only way of doing this is having policies. We have one on the use of county names but it clearly can be read more than one way. The “put Glamorgan in the introduction” camp point to the acceptable Coventry example in the policy: Coventry is in the West Midlands, and within the traditional borders of Warwickshire. The “leave Glamorgan out” camp point to the only as an afternote comment in the policy proper.

There seems to way out but to refine the policy to be explicit about the use of traditional county names in article introductions.

If there was to be such a proposal, we would need to consider the relative value added by referencing current administrative boundaries compared to traditional counties. The current boundaries tell us about the governance of the place, and put it in the context of regional political and service delivery frameworks. The traditional boundaries tell us where it is, with reference to a spatial framework that to all intents and purposes has no current relevance. And people know where it is anyway, because there is a map. --Dave63 11:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

While I disagree with you that that the traditional boudaries have no current relevance, I do see that it seems sensible at a first glance to do everything according to administrative counties. If I lived in another country and came across this dispute I would think why don't they just follow the administrative boundaries, because as you say, they "tell us about the governance of the place, and put it in the context of regional political and service delivery frameworks." But it's not as simple as that, because "Cardiff is a city in Cardiff" is not a very useful statement. I haven't followed the dispute in this particular article, and don't much feel like getting involved, but I see from the introduction at the moment it says "it is now administered as a unitary authority" and leaves it at that. Now this is a useful piece of information and a much more sensible way of wording it, and it probably deserves to go in the introduction (although I can't understand why it is considered contrary to the policy or an irrelevant piece of information to say that it's in Glamorgan). However, as I keep trying to point out, the main thing I am concerned about is not the policy on how to word individual articles on towns and cities, but the way we organise our county articles. Cardiff will have to go in the List of places in Cardiff article under the present plan over at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/tasks, becuase these are the "principal areas" that popped up in 1996. Doesn't this seem a bit silly? — Trilobite (Talk) 16:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

So are you seriously suggesting that we use as a geographic reference, county boundaries which do not appear on any modern maps?. Would you like to show me a modern atlas which shows Birmingham in Warwickshire for example, or Liverpool in Lancashire. All of the modern maps and atlases I've seen either use ceremonial county boundaries or purely administrative boundaries. Absolutely none of them use the traditional county boundaries. With regards to the West Midlands it is still a perfectly legitimate county, the policy is quite clear about the metropolitan counties: we should treat the metropolitan counties as real counties the fact that their county councils have been abolished does not change their legal status. Berkshire no longer has a county council but is still a perfectly legitimate county.

Ordnance Survey maps (which most other maps are derived from) only show administrative boundaries. This means that yes, traditional boundaries are not shown, but neither are 'ceremonial' boundaries. Can you show me a modern map that shows Reading in Berkshire, or Blackpool in Lancashire? Ordnance survey maps don't show a lot of things - government regions, health authority boundaries, police areas, fire service areas, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Oh yes, and I know that Berkshire is still a perfectly legitimate county - so is Huntingdonshire! Owain 14:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Also it is perfectly alright to have a History of Huntingdonshire article, I dont know where you have gotten the idea that it isn't. G-Man 18:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

"Cardiff is a city in Wales. Traditionally, it was in the county of Glamorgan; today, it is a unitary authority." What's the problem? Grace Note 05:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Not bad, but it uses the past tense for the traditional county. Owain 08:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Does the "Past Historic" tense still exist in modern English? --Concrete Cowboy 23:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Where now?

I've visited the RfC page and can't see any reference to counties. Is the discussion going on here or should I look elsewhere?

My initial thought is that the current coverage of historic / traditional counties in Wikipedia is way over the top. There are 800 odd pages linked to Traditional counties of England. While there will a few places where the historic county is of interest, I can't believe it is anywhere near 800. Often the first line of an article will say the place is in Xshire. Do we really then need to say it is in Xshire ceremonial county and Xshire traditional county? --Cavrdg 18:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The discussion is going on here. Items drop off the RfC page after a short time, it's really an alerting system and an invitation to join in, not a place for discussion. I agree with your comments on traditional counties, and so do the policies as I understand them. The real problem, even if we rewrite the county names policy, is that people won't abide by it.

I stated clearly that I will abide by (ie write articles according to) the policy no matter whether I agree with it or not - even if it changes. So far nobody else on either side of the argument has joined me in doing so. There lies the real difficulty. A reworded policy will still be ignored by a minority. What a tragedy for Wikipedia. :-( Chris Jefferies 18:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

People shouldn't be denied knowledge of what county a place is in by unrelated local government changes. Local government is important if one happens to live in a given local government area; but which organisation someone happens to pay their council tax to is not the only important factor when describing a place. If the first line of an article says the place is in Xshire which is the same as the ceremonial and traditional county then they need not be mentioned. The problem is when an article says a place is in Xshire, and the traditional county happens to be Yshire. Both pieces of information are relevant and with the policy suggesting that there shouldn't be disambiguation pages they should both be mentioned in the one article. I am abiding by the policy regarding the wording to use, but my edits are routinely reverted with no explanation. The fact that there are 800+ articles referring to traditional counties should show the depth of feeling about them. There are different types of area that could be legitimately called 'counties'. The 'traditional county advocates' have got used to this fact, but it seems the 'administrative/ceremonial advocates' have not - despite the fact that they themselves ackowledge that at least two types of 'county' exist! There is no conflict stating all three in articles about places or the county articles themselves - the real problems are going to come with the 'List of places in...' articles. Owain 19:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I will abide by (ie write articles according to) the policy no matter whether I agree with it or not - even if it changes. This is what I've already been doing as consistently as possible, although the policy seems fairly weak and ambiguous so I cannot promise that I have the same interpretation of it as everyone else. I still would like to see the policy revised. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The policy is weak and is in need of revision. I had wondered about putting up a proposal to amend it. Getting back to the argument; Wikipedia is about facts. Places are still in historical counties, and these historical counties still exist - FACT. I prefer to state locations in terms of their current, transient, administrative county/borough/unitary authority AND their permanent historic county location. I'm not that bothered which comes first, but what I really object to are edits which state "...was formerly in the Historic county of Lancashire....", or something similar. Such descriptions are erroneous and I edit them accordingly (when I get round to it). Arcturus 19:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Thats a matter of opinion and argument as to whether historic counties still exist or not in any meaningful sense, I dont see it as ironclad 'fact'. Now In my experience 99% of people use a great deal of common sense and discretion when it comes to writing about counties. However there are a few people who dont, and are quite fanatical. And unfortunately we need a relatively prescriptive policy to stop them from wreaking havoc, which is why it was created in the first place. Now if anybody would like to propose revisions of the policy I wouldnt mind discussing them. Otherwise I'm not sure what these discussions are achieving. Thirdly the 'places in' problem could be solved by having a 'Places historically part of X county' section. G-Man 19:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation that this is the place and the outline of the arguments. Most people seem to have some sense of balance but I still think the historic counties are being given too much prominence. Take a couple of articles I've looked at today. The first fact mentioned in Presteigne is its role in the former Radnorshire. Is that the most important thing to be said about the town? Beedon is a very short article but out of some 530 characters of information, 54 are in six occurrences of Berkshire. --Cavrdg 20:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if we might at least agree that it's neither necessary nor desirable to use counties to inform readers where towns or villages are. Most Wikipedia users are not British and won't be familiar with our counties; articles about places can and perhaps should use the automatic map template which is more precise than the county and cannot be misinterpreted.

I am not going to rework the policy while there is still so much disagreement. Others are welcome to do so if they wish and I will take part in the discussion and cast my vote if we reach that point. The vote last time was 13 to 2 in favour of the current policy, Wikipedia has grown since then so the number of voters may increase.

I'd like to thank Trilobite for supporting me in agreeing to abide by the current or future policy. Will anyone else join us in that declaration before any changes are made? In my view if we cannot get a good majority in favour of accepting agreed policy we might just as well give up now. In particular it would be good to hear a clear statement from Owain on this. Chris Jefferies 20:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I have stuck to the exact wording defined by the policy, even to the extent of using markup such as "X is in Y, and within the [[traditional county|traditional borders]] of Z". The problem is that the policy is inflexible, contradictory, has been edited after it was voted on, is not what people are actually applying, and leaves very little room for common sense. It is not possible to arrive at statements of fact by consensus, but it should be possible to arrive at a solution that allows all the facts to be presented without causing anyone offence! Owain 11:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

No your not, your using a very highly selective interpretation of the policy which suits you. Yes the policy has been ammended, but the ammendment was approved by all the people who originally voted for it. And thirdy, yes I'm quite happy to obide by the policy. G-Man 20:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Like I've already pointed out, the 'policy' is ambiguous. You have your interpretation, and I have mine. So long as artclies respect both, what is the problem? They are not incompatible, they can both live happily on the same page. Any policy that favours exclusion of one set of facts over the other is clearly not in the interests of common sense. Regarding the policy amendment, Concrete Cowboy made these changes which were never discussed or voted on. Owain 09:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Do they still exist or not? Here's what Britannica has to say about it. Well, the start of the article anyway. If anyone subscribes to this no-so-free online encyclopaedia it might be worth letting the rest of see the contents of the full article. Arcturus 22:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Despite its name, the Encyclopedia Brittanica is written in America by Americans, so it doesn't surprise me that they're so out of touch. As far as I know the EB is the only encyclopedia which still refers to traditional counties. Look at this entry about Middlesex from encyclopedia.com [1] for example. G-Man 20:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

They disagree with you, therefore they must be "out of touch"? Are the government out of touch when they continually issue re-assurances that traditional counties are not affected by local government re-organisation? encyclopedia.com contradicts itself as well as you here [2]: It uses the phrase "former metropolitan counties", yet you insist they still exist. It also claims Berkshire isn't a administrative county, yet you claim it is. It also mentions "The 39 so-called ancient or geographical counties of England typically differ in area". That sentence is in the present tense — yet it uses the word "former" elsewhere. Just like British Isles (terminology), it is obviously a complicated situation that few people understand fully. This is where Wikipedia can help — we can create articles that explain it all fully, without hiding behind overly-restrictive policies that just create ambiguities and confusion. Owain 09:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, there are now three people here who agree to follow policy in present or future form. In other words, three people who are prepared to say, up front, that they will stick to the decision of the majority in the event of a vote - even if they, personally, voted with the minority.

Once again I must ask you, Owain, will you also pledge to follow Wikipedia policy come what may? Your failure to commit yourself is becoming noticeable. Chris Jefferies 20:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I have already stated that I am already following the policy and will continue to do so in the interests of article consistency (as long as the policy doesn't contradict facts or common sense). That's all anyone can say. Owain 09:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

That sounds ambiguous to me. G-Man 20:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It certainly isn't the sort of statement I'd hope to see from a Wikipedia contributor. To me it says, very clearly indeed, 'I'll follow the policy if I agree with it, otherwise I won't'. And it is most certainly not 'all anyone can say'. Three of us have already said more, that we'll follow the policy even if we disagree with it. Chris Jefferies 22:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem here is that I already am following the policy, and you think I'm not. The policy shouldn't be about pushing one person's PoV over another, it should allow all the facts to be presented in a way that is acceptable to all parties. Obviously I will continue to follow the policy, but work to get it changed where it is deficient. I really can't be any more specific than that can I?! Owain 18:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, that sounds good. And if it's possible to understand the policy in more than one way, at the very least it must lack clarity and will require tweaking. Thanks Owain, this feels like progress. Chris Jefferies 22:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree that maybe any kind of county information isn't necessarily the best way to describe where places are to non-British readers in the opening paragraph. Perhaps something generic (eastern England, southern Wales, &c) with a picture would be good for the opening sentence, followed by explanations of the various traditional, administrative and ceremonial boundaries later... Owain 06:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

If we are going to tweak the policy, is the example given of County of York correct? If it refers to the city, surely it doesn't meet the are significantly larger than the town they are centred upon, or have no such centring criterion. Also on that section, I'm not convinced about the special use of Borough. I think it's a status much the same as City so it may be needed in a few cases for clarity but generally not. --Cavrdg 07:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

More discussion copied from User talk:G-Man

While Owain may know what you are referring to in your answer at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography, I unfortunately am left somewhat in the dark. As the original creator of those pages can you enlighten me please? -- Francs2000 | Talk 2 July 2005 18:53 (UTC)

Well the policy is quite clear that we should use administrative or ceremonial counties as Owain well knows. If Owains idea was followed it would result in absurdities like having Birmingham in the List of places in Warwickshire article. Or Manchester in Lancashire. G-Man 2 July 2005 18:59 (UTC)

So that means I did the right thing when I created those lists then? That's a weight off my mind, I was having fears of having to re-write the lot... -- Francs2000 | Talk 2 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)

Wait a sec, why is having Birmingham in a list of places in Warwickshire, or Machchester in a list of places in Lancashire 'absurd'? That is the geographical frame of reference that has been used for centuries. I'm sure people in the Wirral would also rather be listed with the rest of Cheshire rather than lumped together with Liverpool and Southport. The list of places is Scottish defuct regions is still an anomaly as well. Owain 3 July 2005 10:49 (UTC)

Yes Owain, as I suspected you really are out of touch with reality. It may well have been the "geographic reference frame that has been used for centuries" but it isn't the reference frame which is used any more. G-Man 3 July 2005 11:26 (UTC)

You don't have to be quite so hostile. I am merely pointing out that it is not absurd to say Manchester is in Lancashire. It would be absurd to say Manchester is in Hampshire, but NOT Lancashire. The Royal Mail think Manchester is in Lancashire. Freinds of Real Lancashire think Manchester is in Lancashire. Lancashire County Cricket Club think Manchester is in Lancashire, and so on. I don't know what geographic reference frame you're thinking of, but I can't think of any that have replaced traditional counties. The government themselves have said that administrative changes don't change 'where' places are. Administrative counties define areas for administration, Ceremonial counties define areas for certain ceremonial functions, and traditional counties define areas for geographic purposes. I haven't lost touch with reality, I just happen to know that there is more to 'reality' than certain people would have us believe! Owain 3 July 2005 15:53 (UTC)

Ever heard of Greater Manchester? which is what most people seem to use. "traditional counties define areas for geographic purposes" - used by whom exactly, would you like to tell me where I can buy a modern atlas which shows Manchester in Lancashire, no I thought not. The fact that the freids of real Lancashire think that Manchester is in lancashire is hardly a major surprise. G-Man 3 July 2005 16:35 (UTC)

When you say 'most people seem to use', what set of people are you referring to and in what context? People from towns with a separate identity to Manchester are hardly likely to use it, especially when the Royal Mail don't. "Traditional counties define areas for geographic purposes" is true regardless of who use them, it is a fact. Owain 12:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Is this the right place to continue this discussion? I don't know, but anyway... I think it is worth placing a note on the places in Lancashire list that there are areas that used to be in Lancashire that are now considered to be within other administrative boundaries, and then going on to say what those places/boundaries are... This is what I have done when I have created other places lists in the past. -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Owain wonders why G-Man needs to be so 'hostile'? The first thing I'd say is that G-Man is not hostile, he is probably just exasperated. So am I, so are others.

It seems clear to me that Owain is prepared to twist and misrepresent anything in order to bolster his view that traditional or historic counties should have priority in all Wikipedia articles about British places. He will say in reply, 'Give me evidence, where have I misrepresented anything?' To be honest I cannot be bothered, it's a waste of time. I've spent far too much time discussing this ad nauseam, 18 months is enough for anyone. Owain does not want a rational discussion. The evidence is plastered all over Wikipedia, on articles about British places, on their talk pages, on user talk pages like this one, on the policy talk page, on the UK Geography project talk page.

Owain rarely takes the trouble to point back to previous discussions, always preferring to start yet again at the beginning. For example, the position of the Royal Mail was investigated and discussed in detail in the policy discussion. The consensus was that Owain's view of it is incorrect.

Francs2000 is right, this is not the best place for this discussion. Frankly, there is nowhere on Wikipedia that is the right place. This discussion should not be taking place at all! It is high time Owain accepted the policy vote and stopped trying to wriggle around it. As far as I can tell Owain is not interested in Wikipedia policy if it gets in the way of his opinion. He is not interested in co-operation. He will be content only when everyone else agrees to do it his way. Chris Jefferies 12:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Quite right whenever anything relating to UK geography is being discussed, I am forever seeing Owain popping up and saying "I think we should use traditional counties" when he knows perfectly well we already have a policy about the matter, which I usually have to point out. Its as if we've never been through this before. G-Man 18:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of how exasperated you are there is no justification for ad hominem attacks, at just cheapens any argument you may have. Owain 12:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not asking for priority, I am asking for parity. It's not too much to ask. Of course I want a rational discussion, it's just that I never seem to get one, just thinly-veiled attacks and excuses. Owain 12:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

My view of it? What do you think my view is? The facts are that the Royal Mail has no county information listed in the main Postal Address File at all anymore. They have an 'Alias' file that contains former postal, administrative and traditional counties listed for every address. It is interesting to note that the Royal Mail's view of administrative counties DOES NOT include Greater Manchester, Merseyside, &c. Owain 12:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

There's little point sticking to a policy if it gets in the way of useful information. For the record I have stuck to the policy wording and never removed any administrative county information. The debate now seems to revolve around where in the article the wording can be used. This is not actually defined by the policy. Owain 12:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I assume your view of the Royal Mail's position is what you say it is - 'The Royal Mail think Manchester is in Lancashire'. This is incorrect, the Royal Mail require only the street address and the post code, anything else is optional. They do not 'think' Manchester is in Lancashire. Please scroll to the top of this page and use your browser's search function to find 'Royal Mail'. You can read the discussion there, we don't need to go over it again. Chris Jefferies 13:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I have a further point to make in reply to Owain who writes 'There's little point sticking to a policy if it gets in the way of useful information'.

Actually there is every point. The reason for following policy has nothing to do with the usefulness or otherwise of information. The reason for following policy is to avoid anarchy. If Wikipedians were to do their own thing regardless of policy, Wikipedia would die. It would be a free-for-all. If the policy is ineffective or inefficient or incorrect, we should continue to follow it but meanwhile work on getting it changed. Chris Jefferies 10:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The Royal Mail only require the street address and the post code to deliver mail, but they do have county information in their PAF Alias file for every single postcode. The three fields are Former Postal county, Traditional county, and Administrative county. In the case of Manchester they are 'Lancashire', 'Lancashire' and 'Manchester'. In the case of Salford they are 'Lancashire', 'Lancashire' and 'Salford'. No mention of 'Greater Manchester' whatsoever.

We are hardly dealing with anarchy here, we are dealing with things that are very well defined. Ill thought-out policies lead to edit wars that no-one is happy with. Nobody is proposing anything that would lead to anarchy, just a policy that would allow all facts to be presented in a consistent way. Owain 12:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The PAF Alias File is designed to spot things added to the address by the user that need not be there. It isn't a comment on what county a place is or was in. [3] Mrsteviec 13:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The very link you posted states: "The County record - holds traditional, administrative and postal county information". Therefore for every postcode in the UK, the PAF Alias File will tell you the traditional, administrative and postal county. It can be used in whatever way you want. Postcodes were originally designed to speed up delivery of mail, but the database nowadays is used for all sorts of geodemographic purposes. If you want only the pieces of information that are required in a postal address, that is usually just the house number and postcode. You don't need to provide a street address or a locality, but that doesn't mean that the information held in the PAF is unnecessary or wrong! The extra fields in the alias file give you information regarding that postcode, not to tell you what can be ignored! Owain 19:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that this postal county debate is an irrelevance. Everyone, so far as I can see, agrees that the Post Office has a variety of different definitions of counties on file, but has no single official standard and does not require them in order to process letters. The real contentious issues are whether traditional counties can be regarded as still existing, and whether traditional counties should be mentioned as prominently, less prominently or more prominently than administrative counties or unitary authorities in articles. My view is that the traditional counties do appear to still have some form of continuing existence, but that it is unclear which which boundaries this refers, and that they are not used for any official purposes (official as in legal or governmental, rather than by certain sporting bodies, or in being kept on record somewhere). Given this, and that a growing number of people are totally unfamiliar with traditional counties (for instance, the "West Riding" is almost never used around Sheffield), I have always believe it is clearer to describe a location in an introduction as lying in the administrative county, and then discuss the traditional arrangements (where they differ) in a history section - without necessarily taking any particular view on their continued existence; unless the traditional arrangements are particularly notable (e.g. Welsh Bicknor). Would this be satisfactory? Warofdreams 13:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The Royal Mail used to have one official standard - their own postal counties. Due to popular demand (general dissatisfaction with their postal counties) they added the administrative and traditional information to the PAF. None of them are needed for addressing purposes, as we've already discussed, but the fact that for any given UK postcode they can be determined is certainly useful. I don't favour any type of county having any more prominence than any other; although administrative county information is becoming less and less useful as an indicator of where a place is: due to continual boundary and structure changes, and the overall uselessness of untary boroughs being administrative counties in their own right. A degree of flexibility needs to be taken on a per-article basis due to the differing circumstances in different places. For exmaple, I've been updating all the English county infoboxes to the new look 'n' feel, but have been unable to make a consistent template for them, due to the different local government situations. So long as each article explains the differences between the types of county in a clear way, then none of us should have any problems! Owain 13:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion between what the PAF file and the Alias file are and what they contain.

The Alias File, which is separate entity to the PAF, is a list of entries commonly found in each field of address data in error. It is not an attempt to create a list of "acceptable alternatives" and came about not "due to popular demand" but because people get postal addresses wrong and add extra bits that need to be cleaned and converted to the correct postal address.

In the PAF the Royal Mail still hold their postal counties as they were in 1996. The field had been renamed "Former Postal County". Each Post Town that existed in 1996 is linked to a "Former Postal County" and that is the only county information held on the PAF. The data will never be updated again and should new Post Towns be added the "Former Postal County" field will not be populated. There is another field called "County Flag" and for every entry this is set to "0" which means "do not use". In December 2000 the former postal county data was removed from the PAF and added to the Alias file.

This doesn't really have much to do with if traditional counties still exist but hopefully clears that up. Mrsteviec 15:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Mrsteviec, that was a helpful and illuminating comment on the postal county. Much needed, like a refreshing, cool drink on a hot day!

I wish we could also get away from the argument that historic counties are necessary as a means of describing where a place is. Counties are not really well suited to locating places, a simple map is better. It's more precise, and there's a really easy Wikipedia mechanism for adding an outline map of the UK with any chosen place marked by a dot.

May we therefore strike off (a) postal county and (b) describing a place's location as reasons for mentioning traditional counties in article lead sections? No objections? Good! Unless of course someone wishes to disagree... Chris Jefferies 17:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Mrsteviec writes ' The Alias File, which is separate entity to the PAF, is a list of entries commonly found in each field of address data in error '. As the county field is no longer required, then surely everything is in error? So why bother listing a few possibilities? The Royal Mail never had this information before, they just told everyone to use their postal counties. ' It is not an attempt to create a list of "acceptable alternatives" '. It clearly is though, because if any one of the three is used it can be cross-referenced to the correct postcode, and hence the correct postal address. In any case, as I've mentioned before, these databases may have been intended for one purpose but they are always used for purposes they were never intended for. See http://www.capscan.co.uk/mcd5demo.htm and try PE191AA or NP204UR, or a postcode of your choice — this particular piece of software will return the correct traditional, administrative and former postal county. This functionality was not available before — the addition of these fields was by customer demand. Owain 18:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

"Town, Region" form

I'd like to open a whole new can of worms if I may... The standard form for a place-name in the US is "Town, Region", eg "Chicago, Illinois" -- almost as if that's the full name of the place. Howver, this is quite alien-sounding when applied to places outside North America. We simply don't say "Perthshire, Scotland". We say (and write) "Perthshire in Scotland". -- Tarquin 09:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's an interesting point. At present I think the first occurrence of a name 'Townville' results in an article called just 'Townville', further occurrences are distinguished with a comma and additional text. That's Wikipedia convention and is fine for the URL, but can seem a bit odd as the article title on the page.

Personally I feel inclined to live with it. It works, it's simple, and different conventions for different countries might be a bit confusing. But in principle I'd not object if this convention was changed. It would read better. Chris Jefferies 10:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I always change this if I come across it in article text, as it stands out as an Americanism. However, I don't see too much wrong with having "Town, Region" as the article title if disambiguation is needed, since it's only like an address really. It just looks bad in prose. I suppose I would prefer "Town (Region)" as the article title in an ideal Wikipedia (this is how the German and lots of other Wikipedias do it) but I can cope with the status quo, just so long as we can keep changing things like "he came from Truro, Cornwall" to "he came from Truro in Cornwall" in articles themselves. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said -- I was thinking of text within articles. Which means this is a Manual of Style issue rather than Naming conventions, and I've started this discussion in the wrong place. Oops! -- Tarquin 14:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Is this in the MoS somewhere then? If it is it should definitely be changed. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't this mean moving hundreds of articles and then fixing thousands of links?. If you look at List of towns in England you'll see we would have our work cut out if we decided to change the naming convention. G-Man 18:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• "Chigago, Illinois" is equivalent to "Liverpool, England" (not "Liverpool, Lancashire" (!)). In the US, the same names are used in many states. They often duplicate names from the "old country" (famously, Paris, Texas (Wim Wenders)). So Plymouth should be the original one and Plymouth (disambiguation) give the others. BUT I notice that "town,county" notation is used within England to disambiguate. For example, see Wolverton. Conclusion: the "city, state" (or "village, county") notation should only be used where there is a significant ambiguity; the town of earliest foundation should have precedence. --Concrete Cowboy 10:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

""Chigago, Illinois" is equivalent to "Liverpool, England" (not "Liverpool, Lancashire" (!))" How did you come to this conclusion? Proteus (Talk) 18:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The fully qualified name (city, county, state) equivalence is "Chicago, Cook County, Illinois" :: "Liverpool, Lancashire, England". What other conclusion could I come to? --Concrete Cowboy 23:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be under the misguided impression that a "county" is the same thing in the US and the UK. US counties are much more like UK boroughs or districts. Equating Cook County with Lancashire is just stupid. Proteus (Talk) 21:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be under the even more misguided impression that a UK county and a US State are the same. The state of California alone is about the same size as Great Britain, the population is a little less and the GDP is substantially more. Yes, there are small states in the US, like Rhode Island - but there are small states in Europe too - Luxembourg or Malta for example. Matching Cook County to Lancashire is far more accurate than matching Illinois to Lancashire. --Concrete Cowboy 11:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

These are both correct, but unnecessarily long-winded. That's why for any given policy there will always need to be flexibility for common sense. Owain 08:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

But if, as has been said, this is about text within articles, and not naming conventions, there's no moving to be done. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia convention is that the first article written gets the bare name (not necessarily the oldest town/city), subsequent articles for other places with the same name get the comma and modifier. Or so I understand. Chris Jefferies 10:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Is this really true? I can see that most of the time if there is a city that stands out above the others its article will probably have been written first, but I thought it was decided on a case-by-case basis. A lot of the time (often where they are bigger than the others, but not by much) British towns and cities get primary topic status where there are lots of American places with the same name, on the grounds that they're older, the original source of the name, and in some way stand out (such as their age meaning they will be mentioned more in historical articles, or something). Even sometimes where the population of an American city is twice that of a British one (as is the case with Durham, North Carolina) the British one gets its name undisambiguated on these grounds. There are exceptions though, such as Boston. I for one wouldn't try and argue that Boston in Lincolnshire deserves primary topic status or even equal disambiguation with Boston in Massachusetts on the grounds that it was founded earlier. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I remember reading that it was based simply on the order the articles were created, but I don't remember where I read that and I know my memory is not always accurate :-) Chris Jefferies 22:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

We also need to take account of the fact that there is no administrative county of Berkshire any more, though it would be hard to argue that Berkshire does not exist. Mind you, it would be more clearly arguable that Middlesex no longer exists. (I'm not sure where this leaves us...) Mark O'Sullivan 13:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Both the traditional counties of Berkshire and Middlesex still exist. Owain 14:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

They exist only in memory and in historic texts. They don't exist legally, any more than Wessex does. --Concrete Cowboy 23:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

False. They have unequivocable legal existence. They were legally created and have never been legally abolished. Thus, they exist in the eyes of the law whatever some fantasists would have you believe. Legislation has been very explicit in creating new entities to serve an updated administrative function, and in not abolishing the old ones. Furthermore, in the case the Lancashire, complicating factors relating the Dutchy also use only its historic boundaries. In 1974 some thought was given to these factors, which resulted in the LGA legislation being altered to ensure that new 'non-metropolitan' "county" unequivocably left the dutchy intact; the dutchy of Lancaster covers the whole of the county; just as Dutchy of Cornwall covers the whole county of Cornwall, and was completely unaffected by the Counties (detchted parts) Act of 1843.

A second reason for this deliberate leaving alone of the ancient counties in law stems from the fact that many could not be legally abolished by parliament anyway; counties that existed by repute since prehistory enjoy a Common Law existence; the current power of the monarch (and the government) does not extend to abolishing entities not created by the same power. The Anglosaxons adopted pre-existing entities in many cases; the Normans adopted Aglo-saxon entities; neither created most of them anew. Trying to abolish something like Sussex would be like trying to abolish Scotland; it couldn't be done de jure! 80.255 15:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Yesterday I drove from Nelson in Lancashire to Gisburn in Yorkshire. On the way I passed a sign on the Lancashire/West Riding boundary welcoming me to the 'Historic County of the West Riding of Yorkshire'. Later, I arrived in the town of Yarm. As I drove over the Tees I passed a sign proclaiming Yorkshire, North Riding. These entities DO exist. They were not abolished in 1974. Only the administrative equivalents of them were. Our historic counties are still with us. The problem is that many people have been brainwashed by local authorities into thinking that they have been abolished. The local authorities now stick up signs teling us that we're entering their 'territory'. Well I don't want to know that! I don't want to know that I'm entering the administrative borough of Stockton on Tees. As far as I'm concerned Stockton on Tees borough is the organisation that empties my dustbins! However, I do want to know in which historic part of the country I'm in. In several articles that I've commenced in Wikipedia (see articles categorised under Islands of Furness for example) I state the location in terms of both historic and administrative counties. I mention the historic county first, due to its permanency. I wish other contributors would stop removing references to the historic counties from these and other articles. Like it or not, the historic counties are still with us. They do not "exist only in memory and in historic texts". Does Furness exist? Yes. But it doesn't exist "legally", whatever that might mean. Arcturus 20:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I have absolutely no desire to have this argument again, see the long discussions above. If your mentioning the historic county first then that is in clear violation of policy, and anyone is entitled to remove it. G-Man 21:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

G-Man, if you have "absolutely no desire to have this argument again", then don't! Go and find some other topic to occupy your mind. For me, it's new, and I reserve the right to discuss the matter, as do plenty of other contributors, it would seem. I've had a look at the policy, which you and others of like mind seem to have been instrumental in formulating. I don't like it. It's not a particularly well-written policy and in many respects it's too restrictive and prescriptive. I'll shortly be putting forward a proposal for a major revision of it. Arcturus 21:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

G-Man will accuse you of "breaking policy" any time he doesn't get his own way. Please be assured that such accusations have absolutely nothing to do with the actual policy, and everything to do with G-Man's personal opinions, which he likes to pretend are reflected perfectly by the mess of a policy currently in existence, when they clearly aren't. Until there is a policy to unequivocably show his oppinionisations to be false, G-Man will containue to manipulate it and attempt to insinuate that anyone who doesn't share his views is 'breaking' it.

If your forthcoming major revision comprises a more sensible and accurate reflection of the continued legal existence of the ancient and enduring Counties, and recognises that organsing articles by way of an unchanging, static set of popularly understood geographical entities is far more sensible than using constantly changing administrative dog's dinner which is primarily designed to facilitate council services rather than provide any sort of useful geographical frame of reference, then you can count on my support. 80.255 15:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

G-Man will accuse you of "breaking policy" any time he doesn't get his own way. Please be assured that such accusations have absolutely nothing to do with the actual policy, and everything to do with G-Man's personal opinions

Funny, I could have written exactly the same thing about you. G-Man 16:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

You've been "interpretting" this policy to suit your own agenda much more than I have. It boils down to the fact that any policy that enables such diverse interpretations, from whomever, is simply a bad policy to begin with. 80.255 16:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)