Talk:Towns of the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What definition of "county" is being used for this article? Most appear to be real historic counties (e.g. Huntingdonshire), yet some are administrative "counties" (e.g. "Cumbria"). I suggest they are all standardised to historic counties (with which most people are most familiar) to avoid confusion. 80.255

And which historic counties would you prefer ? The historic counties of the 1960s? the 1860s?, the 1760s? Reform of the county boundaries and names has been going on for many, many years, so there is no canonical set unless you pick a specific date. -- Derek Ross

I used the current counties where possible, omitting city boroughs (e.g. City of Bristol) which will not contain any towns (and perhaps also omitting any counties which I forgot). Whoever did Scotland seems to have done the same. If you want to change to historic counties, I'm fine with that, but I'm not sure what will be gained. Warofdreams 15:28, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Consider also, that while eg. South Yorkshire has been replaced with metropolitan boroughs, it still exists in things like the SYorks police et al (in other words it is still used in formal reference to the area) while West Riding (at least as far as SYorks is concerned) only exists on old maps and in nostalgic reminiscences... -Nommo 15:37, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What makes something a town? No. of people? Decree by the Queen (or is that just for cities? Incidentally, I strongly support listing under the 'modern' counties, not boundaries of 30years+ ago. Pete 23:44, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think that all that happens really is that a parish declares itself a town instead of a parish. So if a settlement has a parish council it's not a town, and if it has a town council it is a town. -Nommo 23:53, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks,Nommo. Pete 08:24, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "modern counties". Administrative "counties" change every few years with government reorganisations, so listing them is absurd. Historic counties have changed extremely little in the past two cneturies - the only changes have been those to lord lieutenecies areas, which once they diverged from county boundaries ceased to be synonymous with historic counties. The most import point is, as I have mentioned elsewhere, that historic counties define all later boundaries. Thus administrative boundary changes were denfined in terms of historic boundaries, LL area changes were defined in terms of historic boundaries, etc., etc., whether you are talking about "changes" in 1802 or 2001.

The generally accepted boundaries of historic Counties can be found at http//www.abcounties.org.uk, and I strongly suggest that they are used, unless you want to have to change everything every few years to accommodate the governments latest boundary changes.

Watsonian vice counties are also defined using historic boundaries, and these form the basis of scientific monitoring within the country. 80.255 08:13, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think updating this page once every few years if necessary is a price worth paying in order to reflect the reality of the country as it is today. However if the majority opinion here were to be use the constant, but perhaps anachronistic, historic counties, I could live with that. Pete 08:24, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This page is merely a list; the current administrative status of towns is listed under the article for that town in question. There is no need to list changable administrative boundaries in an article like this, in my opinion.

We ought to be consistent across articles. We can't have Workington in Cumbria in its article and Cumberland in another.

The vast majority of people use historic counties in "real life" - it is only local government beaurocrats, etc. who tend to use administrative "counties", and so a list in which people will look for articles on town should really reflect the boundries that they use, particularly as the details articles will usually also details administrative changes for those who are interested. If you simply feflect the "administrative reality", you miss the real reality that people who live in these places actually use (and you also make a great deal more work for yourself keeping up with constant changes!).

I beg to differ. My opinion is that people my age will have barely heard of Westmorland (it ceasing to exist a couple of years before I was born), but everyone, young or old, is aware of Cumbria. It is not just bureaucrats!

Further I don't buy your point that it is a lot of work. At most it once every few years... and we have spent more time having this conversation than it would take to keep the table up-to-date!

But perhaps another point is this: the use of counties in this article is mainly geographical, not political/administrative. People will not look here to glean information on local goverment administration, but they will look to at the Counties for a rough idea of geographical proximity. For this reason as well, and for the sake of unchangability, administrative counties shouldn't be used. 80.255 08:48, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Again I suggest that most people do know where, for example, the West Midlands is. To suggest that using the actual name of today's counties would diminish the informational content of the article is, to my mind, a bit silly. But in the spirit of co-operation I re-iterate that if others support your view then we could go with it. I suspect that is not the case. Pete 09:13, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You suspect right. Counties or unitary authorities are administrative, and that is the information we should be giving. You can specify "historic" counties in articles for cities -- but where is the authoritative data on the boundaries of "historic" counties kept? -- Tarquin 09:29, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It isn't "kept", it is simply there, and as I have already said, administrative boundries are themselves defined from it. Historic boundaries are unchanged by leglislation, and they provide the basis whereby all administrative boundaries can be specified. to say "Counties are administrative" is simply rubbish, I'm afraid! Administrative "counties" are administrative, but Counties are not! It is lunacy to define the location of a city by a standard that is constantly changing - anyone can see that. Administrative "counties" can be specified in articles for the town in question. A list of towns, however, should contain county references which are fixed and universally understood, and only historic counties can provide these. 80.255 09:52, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

As I stated above, they are not universally understood. This is a fact.

Further it is clearly not lunacy to use (slowly) changing boundaries. E.g. countries change all the time. Dubliners for example might be a bit annoyed if you said "Dublin is in the historic country of Great Britain and Ireland", just because that used to be the case 100 years ago. They would say "Dublin is the Republic of Ireland"... even though that country is a youngster, shock horror!

However I am beginning to fear my perfectly reasonable points are a waste of time. You appear to have a pedagogic point to make, and an axe to grind, rather than a desire to improve the Wikipedia. The purpose of talk pages is to work towards consenus to make a better article. Please join in on that. Pete 10:38, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Your comparison with countries is specious. When Ireland become a soveriegn nation, Ireland as part of great britain ceased to exist. But when local government boundary changes were invoked, historic counties did not cease to exist. I do not have a "pedagogic point to make", I am simply trying to show that your arguments are flawed. I have the desire to ensure that wikipedia shows correct, consistent and accurate information. The use of administrative boundaries in this article is not congruent with this desire. I have several times suggested that a compromise be invoked whereby the towns are listed alphabetically, as Wik first suggested, by you are consistently ignored this. Instead, all you have done is make statements dismissing my point out of hand, without actually tackling them, to the extent that I have had to continually repeat myself with the hope that some of it will actually sink in, eventually. It is you who is not working towards a consensus on this issue, not I. Several other people have conceeded my points, whereas you remain stubbonly in your dismissive rutt. 80.255 13:38, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I don't know about the "lunacy" of constant change, that's how Poland worked for a lot of the last few centuries ;) You haven't answered my question. It isn't simply "there" -- where? Give me instructions for finding out my "historic" county. If you want to give the precise location of a city, give grid reference or latitude & longitude. As for "universally understood" -- really? I haven't a clue. But I do know what administrative area I live in. -- Tarquin 10:27, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC) (PS. If you really want to cause a fuss, I suggest you go read about Cornwall. Is it a county or something else?)

Poland is irrelevant and this matter, and you know that very well! Please don't obfuscate the real issue. Counties are "sinply there" - precise boundaries for historic counties do exist; I haven't memorised them, so asking me to specify them for every city is another example of pointless obfuscation! If you "haven't a clue" then that says more about your own ignorance in this area (and your unsuitability for deciding which boundaries should be used) than it does about the correctness of my statement. Most people use historic counties to define where they live, on postal addresses, and to name county-specific organisations. For example, compare the following google searches:

* [[1]]

* [[2]]

the former ("bexleyheath, kent") has 18,700 hits; the latter ("bexleyheath, london") has 640 hits! Bexleyheath has been administred as part of the "county" of greater london since the 60s, but huge majority of people are certainly in no doubt that it is "still" in Kent! (And in case you think I'm misrepresenting google information, the search for "bexleyheath, greater london" produces even fewer hits - only 166!)

This proves that historic Counties are far more commonly used than administrative areas, and I could produce many more examples if you wish.

On the subject of cornwall, it is a County. It's also an administrive "county" and lieutenency area. I certainly don't see any cause for "fuss". Yes, a few crackpots say it's a seperate country, but no-one gives this idea any credance. Incidentally, you might also be interested to know that the dutchy follows stricty the historic County, and not any administrive boundary. 80.255 11:39, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

P.s. Bexley heath is now technically in the UAA of "Bexley" (that tells you alot, doesn't it!). And the google search for "Bexleyheath, Bexley" gives only 318 results! (c.f. 18,700...):

[edit] Unitary doodads

Where do we put towns that are unitary thingies in the list, by the way? -- Tarquin 10:27, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This also proves why administrative "counties" should not be used. Technically, unitary authority areas are in NO administrative "county". Thus, the use of real historic Counties solves this problem. If you ask someone which county they live in they are not going to reply "I live in the Unitary Authory area of such and such"! They WILL however reply that they live in "the County of such-and-such-historic-County". UAAs can be mentioned in the main articles for the town in question, but they have no place on this list. 80.255 11:39, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Suggesting listing alphabetically

I think British local government is to complex too discuss in an article such as this. How about simply listing the towns alphabetically? I anyone wants to work out which county a particular town is in, write a paragraph in the town's own article (e.g., as was done for Peterborough - it's not easy). ( 11:53, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I could live with that, although I would suggest that it is easy enough to find a town's true historic county using such only references as the Gazetteer of British Place Names. But whatever is decided, I strongly urge that administrative "counties" with all their changability and irrelevance to most people, should not be used. Alphabetical listing would be better. 80.255 12:01, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I just took a look at the gazetteer. I quote from it, 'The Association of British Counties (ABC) is a society dedicated to promoting awareness of the continuing importance of the 86 historic (or traditional) Counties of Great Britain.' So it has an axe to grind, doesn't it. It's not impartial, is it. It has a POV. Quoting it in this contxt is a little misleading IMHO Chris Jefferies 00:46, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It is equally easy to find the modern correct information, rather than 30 years old information. This 'changeability' you speak of, implying that it would be all we could do to keep with the flow, is rubbish. My home town, Kenilworth, has not changed county in hundreds of years. My father's home county changed once, 30 years ago. The correct names are not 'irrelevant'. It may be so that many people know what historic county they live in. I am certain that many more what current county/admin area they live in. You argument does not stand up to reason, no matter how many times you make it. Pete 12:17, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Your father's County has not changed at all. All that changed is the Administrative "county". You obviously have a poor understanding of Counties if you think that they change with ever administrative boundary shift. Your use of the word "correct" when you actually mean "administrative" also does you no favours. Administrative boundaries are correct inasmuch as that they refer to the boundaries used in government administration; Historic boundaries are correct inasmuch as they refer to the unchanging boundaries with which administrative boundaries are defined, as well as what is commonly refered to when people speak of a County. Historic boundaries are not "30 years old", they are current, by definition, as they do not change. Please stop using silly phrases like "correct" and "old" - they hold no water, I'm afraid.

If you "are certain that many more what current county/admin area they live in" then I suggest that you are mistaken. How many more place names would you like me to demonstrate using google as being commonly and correctly perceived as being in an historic county?

Your last comment smacks of nothing less than a desperate attempt to ignore my argument when you have done nothing to disprove it. Please try and come up with something a little better than this...

However, if you intend to remain obdurate and impervious to reason, I suggest that the page be reorganised as per Wik's suggestion - alphabetically, with all County matter being mentioned only on the specific articles for each of the towns in question. 80.255 13:06, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

1. I do not have a poor understanding of poor C/counties. Please do not insult me.
2. I have repeatedly expressed my desire for co-operation on this article, as I have on dozens/hundreds of other articles in the Wikipedia. Never has it been so difficult to achieve as here. You, on the other hand, have been involved in edit wars and disputes on several of the pages you've edited in the short time you've been here. PLEASE do not insult me by calling me obdurate and impervious to reason.

If you wish to reduce to the informational content of the article by alphabetizing it, go ahead. My personal balance between wanting to make a decent article and not having to read your rants has been tipped quite far enough. Cheerio. Pete 13:47, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

1. You obviously do have a poor understanding of C/Counties as you have made a number of statements which have ranging from exceedingly ambiguous to downright incorrect. I have not insulted you, nor have I made any personal remarks against you; I have merely commented on the wide gulf between what you have written and what is true. If you have interpretted this as being deliberately insulting, then I apologise.
2. That I have been involved in "a number of edit wars", as you put it, shows that I am uncompromising when it comes to correct factual content, and too many people are far less discerning, particularly on the Counties issue.
3. Not alphabetizing the article will result in inconsistent and confusing information. This is obviously what you would like to see. Unfortunately, I lack the "quality" you have that wishes articles to be inconsistent and confusing, and I believe than an ancyclopaedia should be neither.
4. That you again dismiss my coherent and fact-ridden argument as a "rant" again emphasizies my prevous statement that you seem to be, in this instance at least, "obdurate and impervious to reason". The fact remains that you have yet to provide any coherent reasoning why my suggestion should not be invoked, nor have you made any better suggestions which aleviate the problems with admin "counties" that I have outlined. I'm afraid I can't see the "desire for co-operatation" from here. 80.255 14:17, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, where modern counties have been dissolved into unitary authorities or whatever, there's still a residue of that county in such things as emergency services et al. I can only speak from local experience, but listing Rotherham and Doncaster under the no-longer in use but post-'74 South Yorkshire would make a lot more sense to people than listing them under West and East Ridings respectively (as I believe would happen if we reverted to historic counties). South Yorkshire is still in formal use locally. The Ridings system isn't, and I'm certain that people born in the '70s and later wouldn't understand it. Like I say, I don't know what the system is in other areas, but I would imagine that similar residues of postal addresses and local organisations exist.

As far as listing under metropolitan boroughs and the like where they have taken over, I think that might confuse most people who don't really realise that their county no longer exists. If I lived in York, I'd look up North Yorks; living in Rotherham, I automatically look up South Yorks. -Nommo 12:42, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The trouble is that you cannot pick and choose which system to use. Either you use current government administration boundaries, or historic boundaries. To pick and choose town A as being in a historic County, town B in a pre 2001 administrative "county", and town C as being in a post-2001 UAA is downright inconsistent, not to mention confusing, and such use has no place in an excyclopaedia. Either use Historic Counties, or an aphabetical listing with no mention of "Counties" of any sort. 80.255 13:06, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Another problem as far as that is concerned would come with towns that are parts of other towns. The town of Dinnington, which is listed under South Yorkshire here, is in Sheffield postally, but is answerable to Rotherham borough council. If you dissolved SYorks into Sheffield, Rotherham, Doncaster and Barnsley, you've got to decide where to put the little towns that fall between the cracks. Would you go by postal or civic boundaries? I'd suggest the latter, but the point is it could get a little confusing either way. -Nommo 12:42, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Another example of confusion resulting from not using historic Counties!!!. How many times do I need to emphasize that the constant changing of administraive boundaries, council authorities and other matter of government makes is impossible to use as reference for towns, particularly while the historic boundary system is commonly accepted, current, and resolves all these problems. 80.255 13:06, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

My point is that the historic boundary system is not universally commonly accepted or current. My point is that as far as most people in Sheffield and Doncaster are concerned, they'd consider themselves to be in South Yorkshire. They might, if they are a certain age, pine for the days of the ridings, but they remember them going out in 1974. There has been no publicity of the dissolution of South Yorkshire at all. Far from it. To all intents and purposes, SYorks appears to exist. My suggestion is that if we are to have division by county (which is uselful as it breaks the page up and makes it look nice) it should be by the commonly accepted notion of that county. And I think that most people would understand that to be the counties as ingamously redrawn in the '70s (rightly or wrongly), or in subsequent reworkings such as that for the East Riding of Yorkshire. Because (at least in Yorkshire, which is my only sphere of experience) these counties tend to remain at some formal level or other, wheras the North and West Ridings are effectively just places on old maps. Someone in Rotherham under the age of 30 is unlikely to know what Riding they are in but they will know that they are in South Yorkshire (even if they aren't) because it's written all over the place. -Nommo 13:26, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I accept that in a small number of specific cases, post-1974 boundaries are more commonly used. However, as I have mentioned before, the article connot be inconsistent with listings. If however, as per my suggestion, the list were to be reworked to include only historic Counties, there is nothing to prevent a odd notice bein put at the top stating "For Towns in the former administrative county of "South Yorkshire", see "Yorkshire: West Riding", and so on. But inconsistent listing is to be avoided like the plague in an enclyclopeadia.

Incidentally, "Huntingdonshire" is also written all over the place in that county, if you ever go there.

80.255 13:38, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It boils down to this: using administrative boundaries will either be very confusing, or utterly inconsistent. 80.255 13:11, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That's true enough. But then, boundaries have a tendency to be utterly confusing and inconsistent, so in that sense they'd be consistent... -Nommo 13:26, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of Town?

Could someone please add a definition of what a town is in the United Kingdom to the top of the article? A town that is part of another town can't mean anything in the US. Rmhermen 13:16, Sep 30, 2003 (UTC)

I've added a brief definition. The situation you describe arises because Rotherham, which is a borough, is also town, but in that borough, you will find the small town of Dinnington. It's not a very common situation, although I'm sure there are a few other examples (the town of Stocksbridge is part of the city of Sheffield!). Warofdreams 16:40, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

So cities are not towns then. Different kind of charter, I suppose. The town within a town seems to be like a separate town within a consolidated city-county government in the U.S., also pretty unusual. Rmhermen 13:57, Oct 1, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's unusual in the UK. Harpenden is another example: a town within a city, since city status was given to a district, not a single urban area. Many areas in London are described as towns. ( 23:41, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It's actually very very common in the UK in this age of urban growth to have one kind of settlement within the confines of another, particularly in the case of hamlets within towns and villages, villages within towns and towns within cities. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 17:31, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Headings

I notice someone (User:Warofdreams) has removed all the second-level alphabetical headers. I agree that the TOC is less cluttered but this does make it more difficult to "spot-edit" a single letter's worth. I would suggest splitting the page in four, one for each top-level header, so we can use a compact alphabetical TOC for each. Phil 08:45, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)

I've split the page up, and Phil Boswell has added the compact TOCs. Warofdreams 16:34, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Anyone discussing these issues might also like to look at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(places) where a debate is going on with a view to formulating a standard convention. Chris Jefferies 00:50, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)