Talk:Vice-county/Archive 1

Archive 1

[Untitled]

isnt there any way to put the list into 2 or 3 columns to avoid having to scroll all the way down Joevsimp 15:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Watsonian Vice-Counties

The Watsonian Vice-Counties divide Great Britain and Ireland, and does not include the Channel Islands. Hence the 112 vice-counties of Great Britain and the 40 in Ireland, giving a total of 152. The reference provided states that Watson's invention was the division of Britain (and included the Isle of Man) into biogeographical recording units, and subsequently Ireland was divided into a widely accepted scheme on a par with that devised for Britain. The Map shown on page 51 is labelled "Vice-county boundaries of the British Isles" and it does indeed show a map of the British Isles (including the Channel Islands), but clearly excludes the Channel Islands from being a vice-county. J.E. Dandy's report and recommendations on the Watsonian Vice-County system to the BSBI in 1950 also reiterates that there are 112 vice-counties of Britain and Ireland. Regarding the Channel Islands, I've seen some studies include the Channel Islands as an "extra" vice-county, but nowhere have I seen the Channel Islands officially listed as a "Watsonian" vice-county. Can I suggest that the simplest solution is to make a separate point, stating that when studies are done of the complete British Isles, the Channel Islands is sometimes reported as a vice-county. Or something similar. --HighKing (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The Channel Islands inclusion in the British Isles is indeed a moot point, but how do you account for your ommission of the Isle of Man? There is no justification. If you think this exchange is covered by BRD, then you have misunderstood the intention of that page. My edits were not "bold"; they were edits that any reasonable person would condone. You know that there is no consensus for your edits, and you know that there is consensus for mine. Please stop making these edits that merely waste everyone's time. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Stemonitis - there is no omission. The Isle of Man was included by Watson himself as a vice-county. When people refer to the vice-counties of Britain (or vice-counties of Great Britain, or vice-counties of England, Scotland and Wales), they don't exclude the Isle of Man as this is numbered as vice-county 71 - check the diagram on the article. The inclusion of the Channel Islands as part of the British Isles comes up in a number of topics, but not in this case. Where articles refer to the 152 vice-counties, it excludes the Channel Islands, and refers solely to the vice-counties of Great Britain and Ireland. --HighKing (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

From the report by Dandy, it states The result was a system of 112 vice-counties, numbered consecutively from 1 (West Cornwall) in the south-west to 112 (Zetland) in the extreme north and further on states By dividing Britain into unit areas of suitable size, we can conveniently record, or index, our information about the horizontal distribution of plants and animals within the country

The British Bryological Society shows a map labelled "Vice-county map of Britain and Ireland" but describes it as "the boundaries of the Watsonian Vice-counties for the British Isles". Note though, that the map itself does not provide a designation for the Channel Islands, but that the "Channel Islands" is assigned a letter "C".

The Biological Records Centre takes a different approach though, and often assigns the Channel Islands with a vice-county number 113. --HighKing (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The ODNB entry for Hewett Watson does not mention counties of any description. This map (press bottom but one)shows that The "Watsonian" sytem only covers Britain - Wherever the Irish Category comes from they are not "Watsonian". Were these subdivisions created by Watson or subsequently named after him? MacStep (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No, that's because that site is run by a UK-specific organisation. It says nothing about whether or not Watsonian vice-counties cover Ireland, merely that they present UK data categorised by Watsonian vice-counties. The Gateway's "About" page states "This is the National Biodiversity Network's Gateway. Use it to explore UK biodiversity data, as contributed by participating data providers." You would not expect it to cover the Republic of Ireland, and it does not. There are good references that discuss Watsonian vice-counties, and they are unanimous in including Ireland. Misreading a website cannot alter that. I would also draw your attention to this text.

How does the answer to your final question matter? Watson created the first definition, and they were subsequently named after him, even after the system was expanded to cover a greater area than originally envisaged. There is no dispute among biogeographers as to the meaning of the term, or what area it covers. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

If you were correct H40 Londonderry would be included in present UK data categorised by Watsonian vice-counties - It isn't. Your Reference points to 112 counties - surely it is a British Sytem and does not cover Ireland - where are the WP:V references to support the inclusion of Ireland? MacStep (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's an interesting point. That's because chorological data is still collected across the British Isles in geographical areas, which means that both the Irish counties and the British counties actually transcend national boundaries. The most significant difference is the use of the Irish grid reference system and Ordnance Survey National Grid, although those are not directly related to vice-counties. The political boundaries are entirely irrelevant to the whole process. Thus, arguing about national boundaries on this talk page is similarly irrelevant. The system of vice-counties, which are generally referred to as "Watsonian vice-counties", covers the whole of the British Isles (often including the Channel Islands), and that area is referred to as "the British Isles". It would not matter if the Isle of Wight seceded from the union; data would still be recorded according to the boundaries of the Watsonian vice-counties, and it would still be VC10. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This edit by User:MacStep is disingenuous. To pretend that the British Bryological Society, a group which has as one of its primary aims the mapping of the British bryophyta flora, is not authoritative on the use of vice-counties is simply absurd. Please leave this article to people who are qualified to edit it. You are damaging Wikipedia and gaining nothing. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

We have D. A. Webb, M.R.I.A., School of Botany, Trinity College, Dublin stating The Biological Vice-Counties of Ireland against the British Bryological Society? MacStep (talk) 08:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? There is no disagreement between the two. This edit of yours was also particularly inappropriate. Your edit summary stated "add ref", which is not what you did. You are not helping, and I suggest you leave the article alone until competent biologists have had a chance to improve it. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Map for all VCs

We really need a map showing ALL of the VCs, not just Great Britain. There are some around but their copyright is unclear. Anyone know about this? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Question (break)

A question has popped up on the other article Talk page. What do you think of this statement: "Most biogeographers do not include them (the Channel Islands) in the British Isles". --HighKing (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there is a reliable source for the statement "Most biogeographers do not include them (the Channel Islands) in the British Isles"? My impression is to the contrary, but I really don't know how you would measure and thus justify "most". Looking at some checklists, those I've used at various times mostly seem to include the Channel Islands:

• Stace's New Flora of the British Isles has been the definitive reference for recording the flora (at least in the UK), and he includes the Channel Islands.
• The Provisional Atlas of the Insects of the British Isles includes the Channel Islands, and hence so do many of the checklists of specific groups of insects.
• However, the Checklist of Beetles of the British Isles says "British Isles is here taken to include Great Britain and Ireland, including the Isle of Man but not [my emphasis] the Channel Islands."
• The British Bryological Society includes the Channel Islands in their map and recording scheme.
• The Natural History Museum Checklist of British Mammals specifically mentions individual Channel Islands.
• The Avibase checklist of Birds of the British Isles says it includes "United Kingdom, Ireland, Jersey, Shetland, Isle of Man" (odd list, but it does seem to be maintained by a North American).

So for checklists I suspect that the majority of sources include the Channel Islands. But are the maintainers of checklists "biogeographers"? Peter coxhead (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Peter. --HighKing (talk) 11:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Article name

The article is somewhat mis-named in my view. "Watsonian", I would say, applies properly only to the VCs of Great Britain. It's not used in my sources for the VCs of Ireland. Pending discussion of changing the name, I am trying to separate out the naming of the two sets of VCs, GB and Ireland by some re-writing. All changes can be sourced. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Before people get too carried away with hasty page moves, would you care to suggest a new title, Peter? --Stemonitis (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

All the sources I can find to hand call the entire system "Vice-counties of the British Isles". One such source is the reference I added to the article for Stace (2010) [I see I've left a "b" in from my personal list which I need to remove]. Of course, this is even more annoying to those who don't like the term "British Isles" to be used for "Great Britain and Ireland", but like it or not, it's what the literature uses (e.g. Stace's book has always been the flora of the "British Isles"). (It's irrelevant, but in the spirit of openness I should say that politically I prefer "Great Britain and Ireland" to "British Isles", but of course it should be determined by what the sources use, not by my or User:MacStep's preferences.) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Addendum Actually I've just seen that the British Bryological Society web page has "Vice-county map of Britain and Ireland". I think that there needs to be a bit more time for checking sources and usages before a decision is made here. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that title would exclude the Isle of Man, which is neither Britain nor Ireland. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment Why not simply rename the current article to Vice-counties? If there is a need to separate out Vice-counties of Britain from Vice-counties of Ireland, that can surely be done later. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting separating them out – what would be the point? I didn't suggest this title because it seemed rather imprecise, and I wasn't sure that some other country might not have "vice-counties", perhaps as administrative units. But it's an idea worth considering. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That [shorter title] might be possible, although it seems that vice-counties have also been used in other countries. I have seen mention of Paris, Cousserans, Aubusson and Béziers-Carcassonne as vice-counties in mediaeval times. It may be that the British Isles biological recording sense is now the primary usage, but that is not certain to be the case. As to you latter suggestion, I can see no reason for separating the two. They form a single coherent system; the advantages of using vice-counties over political boundaries extends across the whole area. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If there is any evidence of other uses of the term "vice-county", please bring it here. The SOED gives just one definition of "vice-county": "A division of a large county treated as a county-area with regard to the distribution of species of plants, etc." That is clearly the primary, if not the only, meaning of the term, and so I suggest that the article be renamed accordingly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

According to the full OED, "vice-county" is also an obsolete synonym for viscounty—the territory of a viscount. That may explain where Stemonitis saw the term. Ucucha (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll

Support move to "Vice-counties of the British Isles", in line with the available sources. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Support, with reservations. I agree that just "Britain and Ireland" has problems with the Isle of Man (which is VC71), and Manx residents could rightly object. "British Isles" is probably both the best attested in the sources and the most inclusive. It's just a pity there is no more politically neutral term, given that this subject has nothing to do with politics. (The Guardian once championed "IONA" – Islands of the North Atlantic – but that would have been even more inappropriate geographically.) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, with reservations. I disagree with the argument that the "Isle of Man" causes problems, primarily because this is part of the original definitions of Watsonian vice-counties of Great Britain (or Britain). It's also commonly used in other areas dealing with distribution. For example, Flora Europaea classify Britain with the two letter code Br, and describe it as Great Britain, including Orkney, Zetland and Isle of Man; excluding Channel Islands and Northern Ireland. Ireland is Hb, and the Channel Islands are regarded as part of Ga France (Gallia), with the Channel Islands (Îles Normandes) and Monaco; excluding Corse (Corsica). My main objection for this title is that I can't find anywhere a definitive description of exactly what constitutes vice-counties of the British Isles - the Channel Islands are given different a different assignation depending on the organization or publication. So far, I've seen 3 different designations given to the Channel Islands, depending on the organization or study. I would support a simpler title of "Vice-counties" for the article, with a section dealing with vice-counties of the British Isles within the article and the treatment of the Channel Islands. I also believe an article focused solely on Watsonian vice-counties is merited, covering the original vice-counties of Great Britain, so this article would include the history and subsequent refinements over time, perhaps mentioning how it influenced the Irish system. I would also redirect Vice counties of England and Vice counties of wales to this (new) article. In addition, an article on the original vice-counties of Ireland may have merit. --HighKing (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the situation is actually quite clear. There is a 112 vice-county system, the original system of Watson, and a 40 vice-county system, after Praeger, explicitly modelled on the 112 vice-county system.

• The Channel Islands were not and are not included in the 112 vice-county system, as the article says. Different sources have added them under different codes, but never (so far as I can discover) as an additional number. The Isle of Man is part of the 112 vice-county system.
• I'm not quite sure why you've put "original" in front of "vice-counties of Great Britain" or "vice-counties of Ireland". So far as I am aware there are no changes in the substantive definitions of either set of vice-counties – as Webb (1980) says "A moment's reflection will show that for the effective operation of the vice-county system the boundaries must be 'frozen' at the date on which the system came into operation" – although there have been some "mapping issues" where the precise boundaries were not entirely clear in the original publication (see e.g. the discussion on p. 182–183 in Webb).
• The only issue is, surely, what to call an article about the full 152 vice-county system. Both names are attested in reliable sources; both have advantages and disadvantages. "Britain and Ireland" has the advantage that it makes it clear that there are two different systems (albeit with strong connections); however if the two words are interpreted geographically, then there is uncertainty over which off-shore islands are included, particularly the Isle of Man and the Shetland and Orkney islands. (Note that this would still be an issue if there were two articles; for example the Ireland article is currently clear in the first two sentences that geographically "Ireland" is a single island; I'm sure it would be news to the inhabitants of Oileán Chléire that where they live is not geographically part of Ireland.) The "Isles" part of "British Isles" has the advantage that it is clearer that the systems include a large number of off-shore islands, and not just the two large islands of Britain and Ireland; on the other hand, "British" is the name of a nationality, and so is confusing to people outside the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Peter. I've put a number of references at Talk:Myrmica ruginodis, where a tangentially related discussion is taking place, and there's a number of references there showing how the Channel Islands is included (with various assignations from "C" to "153", as well as one that adds it as the 113th vice-county of Britain. I understand the point you're making about inclusion of outlying islands as part of a system for Britain or Ireland, but that's what they're named. The Watsonian system is called the Watsonian vice-counties of Britain, or Great Britain. It includes the Isle of Man and the outlying islands. That is also how it is referred to in numerous references. Similarly the Irish system is called the vice-counties of Ireland. I've seen some maps with "Vice-counties of the British Isles" as the title, yet then go on to list the vice-counties of Britain and the vice-counties of Ireland. I would be far more inclined to agree with an article entitled "Vice-counties of the British Isles" if we can find a good definition, but any time I seem to find one, I'll find another that is different, so for me, it appears that the simplest solution is to deal with the differences in the article, and to name the article as "Vice-counties", perhaps with a redirect from "Vice-counties of the British Isles". Over time, we can discover which search term people are using to look for the article, and perhaps we'll then have a case to rename as per WP:COMMON. --HighKing (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, but support move to Vice-counties, per SOED definition outlined in comment above, as the primary (and only sourced) meaning of the term. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's see what we can all agree, before finalizing on the name. Looking at the discussion here and at Talk:Myrmica ruginodis, I think the following points are not contentious (but I've written that in making summaries before and it's turned out that I was wrong):

1. There are 112 Watsonian vice-counties, based on the counties of England, Wales and Scotland as they were at the time the system was finalized plus the Isle of Man. Only these 112 should be called "Watsonian".
2. Sources call these 112 the "vice-counties of Britain", even though they include the Isle of Man, and other off-shore islands of England, Wales and Scotland. This is based on Watson's original use of the term "Britain".
3. There are objections to the use of the term "Britain" in this context now, regardless of Watson's original use, partly because it appears to exclude the Isle of Man (politically distinct), but also because it is unclear as to which other off-shore islands are included (e.g. the Orkneys which are geographically distant). However, regardless of these objections, sources clearly use "vice-counties of Britain".
4. The Channel Islands were not included in the 112 Watsonian vice-counties. They have been added by some sources, using either letters, such as "CI" or "C" or the number 113. Since reliable sources are not consistent, whenever the vice-counties of Britain are involved (under whatever title), it should be made clear as to whether the Channel Islands are included or not.
5. There are 40 Hibernian vice-counties, based on the counties of Ireland as they were when the system was finalized. All sources call these the "vice-counties of Ireland".
6. Although geographically "Ireland" can be taken to exclude its off-shore islands, there are no politically distinct or geographically distant islands, where there can be genuine doubt as to whether the islands are included or not when in fact they are.

The dispute is about what to call the entire set of 152 vice-counties (possibly +1) and hence what to call the article.

1. 'Merging' the two well-sourced terms "vice-counties of Britain" and "vice-counties of Ireland" gives "vice-counties of Britain and Ireland".
2. The geographical term for Britain plus Ireland plus their off-shore islands is "British Isles", so "vice-counties of the British Isles" is an alternative choice.
3. Since it seems that currently no other countries use "vice-counties" for biological recording, the term "vice-counties" is another alternative (given that the article will make the context clear).

I don't think there is any meeting of minds among those who have so far favoured (1) or (2). Arguments for and against both have been put forward.

So although I'm quite willing to keep arguing for my choice, it seems to me that the best course at present is to go for (3), with many redirects from "Vice-counties of ...". Peter coxhead (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent summary Peter, thank you. --HighKing (talk) 11:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus then to move the article to "Vice-counties"? We appear to have 3 editors happy with "Vice-counties", and one happy with "Vice-counties of the British Isles". Anyone else? --HighKing (talk) 11:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Done I've now made the move, and cleaned up the wikilinks. Interestingly, in view of the fact that only one meaning of "Watsonian vice-county" applies to those of Ireland, the largest number of links using "Watsonian" in the text was from the significant number of disambiguation pages like H35. The article now needs a bit of work. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

Can I suggest that people list here the sources to support the views they are expressing? There appears to be sources to support different phrasing and it might help to get an idea of WP:WEIGHT. --HighKing (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• A Google search is a little difficult to compare, because it's hard to be sure that the right phrase is being picked up, but the exact phrase "vice-counties of britain and ireland" gets 9 hits, "vice-counties of great britain and ireland" gets 7 hits, "vice-counties of the british isles" gets 8,200 hits. On this basis alone, "Vice-counties of the British Isles" seems the best title. (It's clear that this isn't a populist subject!)

• VCs of British Isles: Stace (2010), New Flora of the British Isles (full ref on article page);

• VCs of (Great) Britain and Ireland: British Bryological Society web page;

Vice-counties by county

The section actually only covered Great Britain, so I've re-named it. The table is not complete, because it does not contain the metropolitan counties, such as the West Midlands, which were created in 1974, then abolished later but without restoring the old county boundaries. I've added the West Midlands (which I know about!) but not the others.

Also, Counties of Ireland suggests that the relationship between administrative units and vice-counties in Ireland is also complex, north and south of the border, so a table for Ireland is needed (when the section title could be changed back). Peter coxhead (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Metropolitan county councils were abolished; the metropolitan counties still exist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, careless wording on my part – that's what I meant by "abolished later but without restoring the old county boundaries", i.e. the elected metropolitan authorities no longer exist, but the counties still do for some purposes so that the old counties were not restored.

What is needed is input from people who understand the situation in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, where the old counties and the current administrative units apparently don't match either. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've inserted a section for the Irish vice-counties just now. --HighKing (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Although I appreciate that a lot of work must have gone into this section, I'm not sure that it is useful, and not actively misleading. The whole point of vice-counties is that they are static and consequently do not necessarily closely relate to modern boundaries (even where the name of the modern county and the vc is the same). I would like to suggest deleting this whole section. --Japonicus (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree at all. The article is not complete; it needs more on the advantages and disadvantages of recording by VC rather than grid squares or modern boundaries, which will, I think, give more justification to these tables.

One of the problems, in England anyway, is that recording centres are often funded by current local authorities, typically for planning purposes, so knowing the relationship between these and the VCs they cover is important. Thus I have a website with checklists for Sutton Park, a National Nature Reserve in VC38, Warwickshire. EcoRecord is funded by the relevant unitary authorities to keep records for Birmingham and Black Country; Sutton Park is in Birmingham, so is covered by this records centre. Warwickshire County Council funds the Warwickshire Biological Records Centre which sensibly keeps records for VC38 as a whole, not just modern Warwickshire (although it's not clear why the council tax payers of Warwickshire should be expected to pay for keeping records for an area now in Birmingham). The relationship between these record centres and the VCs they cover is of considerable conservation importance. When the article is expanded, I expect issues like this to be covered.

So I think that naturalists interested in biological recording do need information on the spatial and other relationships between local authorities in the UK and the Republic of Ireland and the VCs.

More generally, surely the question "Which VCs are in the county/district/authority in which I live?" is worth answering? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)