Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Counties of England

(Discussion copied from Village Pump)

There seem to be at least two groups of people, those who think 'county' means the current, administrative entity, and those who think it means a traditional or historical entitiy.

In itself this isn't a problem, but Wikipedia needs to have a policy on which county a particular place is in. Maybe such a policy has already been debated and agreed; if so I'd be grateful if someone could point me to it. There's no discussion about the article Counties of England, though the article itself mentions that the different meanings exist.

It's a problem because someone has gone through the article on St Neots and moved it from the current, administrative county of Cambridgeshire to the historical county of Huntingdonshire, which will confuse the reader. For now I've returned the article to its original form. And this is happening on a wide scale, articles on towns and villages are being modified wholesale.

Is there any guidance on this sort of thing, other than to kick off the talk page, debate the topic and see if we can come to a consensus view? Advice anyone? Chris Jefferies 10th December 2003

Common sense should prevail. The St Neots article should say it is in Cambridgeshire, but was formerly in Huntingdonshire, because the article is about the village both in the past and the present. An article about Junipero Serra should say he lived in Alta Mexico not the US state of California. The Romans invaded Gaul, not France, but Tabo M'Beki is the president of the Republic of South Africa, not of the Cape Colony. I can't for the life of me understand why this seems be be contentious in so many places (cf the enteral Danzig debate...). There can be few places that haven't been parts of many countries, or have had many names. -- Finlay McWalter 00:19, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Ah, yes. I've been trying to keep out of that mess apart from protecting Warwickshire overnight in one of the early outbreaks of the edit wars. It appears to me that the traditionalists, if I can name them that, are only one or two people, but they're very determined in their point of view! It'e even worse with the Welsh counties where the old names have mostly been reused to cover areas with little territorial commonality with the pre-1974 counties. My view is that all the county articles are currently untrustworthy, but for practical purposes the current administrative counties are the ones that an encyclopaedia ought to be concentrating on, with just a note on the former history such as e.g. "Stoke-on-Trent is now a unitary authority but was formerly in Staffordshire". In my view the only current relevance of the old traditional counties is to determine which cricket club covers the area! -- Arwel 00:27, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Thanks Finlay, and Arwel, I appreciate your input. I'm afraid the person who altered St Neots has changed it back again. I don't particularly want to have a 'change war' (how childish, what a waste of time) and I'm trying to discuss it on his/her Talk page. There's also been an exchange of views on the Godmanchester Talk page and I can't say I'm encouraged. Chris Jefferies 11th December 2003
Clearly Finlay stated it perfectly. The current, on the ground, designations are the proper ones, but reference to historical standings are important contributions to the articles. I'm preparing a "Style" page for Proper names at Wikipedia:Proper names and will use Finlay's sage advice there as well. - Marshman 01:09, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
The encyclopedia should definitely concentrate on the current administrative divisions of the United Kingdom (and everywhere else) -- not to the exclusion of historical data, but certainly with much greater prominence. Granted, the UK has been IMO way too obsessed with messing with administrative boundaries in the last 30 years or so (it's crazy that somewhere like the United States has it all MUCH more settled) but we must document what is not push what we wish was. --Morven 01:15, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Quite. I can't remember if Chigley is in Trumptonshire, or Trumpton is in the Chigley unitary authority :) -- Finlay McWalter 01:29, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
"The current, on the ground, designations are the proper ones". Well, I wasn't being quite as sweeping as that, for the encyclopedia as a whole. I really mean that the context of the article determines the correct usage of placenames, languages, social groups, etc. This article should mention both counties, as its scope spans the period where each prevailed. If Alfred the Great had done something interesting there, it would be perfectly reasonable to mention it was in Mercia, or Wessex, or whatever. Equally, if an article were about a battle in the english civil war, the prevailing county at that time should be the dominant one in the article's text. -- Finlay McWalter 01:29, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Yes, I understood what you were saying. That first sentence was really intended for the discussion of the counties situation, and the point next made by Morven. - Marshman 01:59, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

OK guys, thanks for all your comments. I think there's a great deal of common sense in what you say, especially about the historical county relevant to the article being the correct one to use in each case.

So what are we going to do about User:80.255 who is throwing his weight around, agressively changing dozens of articles without consideration for either other editors or indeed (and more importantly) for the poor readers. He is damaging the Wikipedia and will also damage its reputation with readers if he's allowed to continue.

I don't mind having a dialogue with him, but if (as I suspect) he proves resistant to both reason and the majority view, what then? If that happens, maybe we should consider having his IP address blocked, though it would probably have only a temporary effect. Chris Jefferies 11th December 2003

The "80.255 vs everyone else" battle has been going on for some time (the particular battleground for my tussle was Kent). 80.255 has a particular view point, and argues for it in a consistent and eloquent manner. This is rather different from childish vandalism and I wouldn't support banning him at this time (despite having gone through the same sense of frustration as you, Chris). It is time however to formulate a policy on the specific issue of county names. If this policy can be rolled into a more general policy of historic place names then so much the better. Once this policy is in place, if 80.255's sense of how Things Should Be is so strong that he flauts the policy (in addition to common sense and the majority view) over several articles and over a reasonable period of time, then we may have to say "sorry 80.255, but this just isn't the community project for you". Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:22, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I believe we should have a wide and open debate with the aim of formulating the policy on current and historic place names mentioned by Pete above. And I think we should begin sooner rather than later to minimise the damage to Wikipedia.
I know there are correct procedures for doing this, but I'm going to need help from someone wiser and more experienced in the world of Wikipedia. What's the first step? Where should the discussion take place? Chris Jefferies 11th December 2003
Seconded. I've been trying to reason with some people over Oder/Odra for a last few days, and some just don't seem to give up. A clear policy on names, their use in text generally as well as in historical contexts, is definitely needed. Zocky 20:54, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Counties of England

(Discussion copied from User talk:Chrisjj)

Chris, just so you know, the counties issue is a real hot potato. 80.255 is a contibutor I've clashed with more than once: he's fought on this before and the current usage (as exemplified at Godmanchester) though awkward and desperately unclear to the average reader, is the furthest compromise he will allow. I personally feel that 80.255 is probably not willing to discuss this, but I wish you the best of luck. Frankly, I think that 80.255's insistence on this issue is harmful to WP, because it leaves us with a multitude of confusing articles that desperately try to keep afloat a county scheme that is long forgotten, something like converting all prices into the old system in a London cafe--"that'll be 10 of the traditional shillings (or just 50p from the coins in your purse)". And I say this as an Anglophile who loves the old counties and old English pound as much as anyone...possibly even 80.255. I'll keep an eye on the discussion, and we'll both hope for the best, eh? Jwrosenzweig 00:49, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Firstly, I have never refused to discuss this matter - on the contrary, in fact; I have many times requested that it be discussed, to no avail. I've noticed an increasing number of allegations floating around that I'm "not prepared to discuss" this matter - none of which have any basis whatsoever in fact, as far as I can see...
Secondly, the C/county system is inherently confusing, and this confusion is expedated by inexact references to and lack of deliniation between traditional Counties and administrative counties. More to the point, however, ask yourself this: what is more important in an encyclopaedia - avoiding "confusion" at all costs, or providing correct and factual information? No doubt all articles would be far less "confusing" if the latter weren't abided by!
Thirdly: you comparison with 'old money' is false. The £/s/d system was abolished; this is not debatable. The Government issued no official, categorical statement that it was not abolished - whereas exactly such a statement was made with regard to the traditional Counties. As I have said many times before, this is a point of fact and not an opinion.
My apologies to Chrisjj for posting what is in effect a third-party discuession on this talk page; there seems to be a lot of whispering going on against me 'behind closed doors' and I'm not prepared to allow such whisperings to go unchallenged! 80.255 03:03, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for your note about the hot potato. To give 80.255 due credit, he seems to me to be discussing the subject in a perfectly sensible and civilised way. And also, he's responded to my request to stop changing county articles - I'm grateful to him for leaving alone the articles I was working on and have changed back.
Until proved wrong I shall assume he means well and is prepared to join the debate and abide by whatever policy may be agreed on at the end of the process. Thanks 80.255! BTW, I hate to refer to you by half an IP address, would you like to share your given name, or do you prefer anonymity? Chris Jefferies 12 Dec 2003
I am, as I have evidenced several times, quite prepared to abide by a reasonable compromise whereby true and factual information prevails. I'm not prepared to allow misimformation, however, which is what some people seem to want (nor will I submit to tyranny of the majority view if this view is plainly at odds with the facts). However, the question seems mainly concerned with how information is systematically organised, rather than the facts themselves (although some people have a tendency to ignore facts when it suits them!). It is clear that unnecessary confusion can result when a single article attempt to deal with 3 or more different entities all known (in some form or another) as 'counties'; the only solution I can see to this is the creation of separate articles covering each distinct meaning (as occurs in virtually every other case in wikipedia), and as can be seen at Gloucestershire, and several of the Welsh Counties. I have consistently suggested that this obviously successful system be put in place for all other counties (see my talk page); unfortunately, some people have again opposed this without offering arguments against it nor agreeing to discuss the matter in a sensible manner.
I'm quite happy to make no edits to the articles that you've mentioned for the time being; you strike me as being a reasonable person, so I'll assume this isn't simply a stalling tactic! However, to resolve those matters in particular, I'd like to know your reasoning on reverting.
Thanks, 80.255 03:03, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Excuse me would you like to point out an instance where I have provided "misinformation". Also I have given my reasons for why I oppose you're counties malarkey on you're talk page, to which you have not responded to G-Man 19:07, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

To deal first with your last paragraph, you and I simply don't agree on what is correct. You claim that logical argument demonstrates a once and for all correctness which Wikipedia should adhere to. I claim that Wikipedia should take current common usage as its guide. We need to find a way to agree, or failing that a way to agree to disagree. Meanwhile we'd both be foolish if we indulged in an edit war.
On the more general points I think there may be some misunderstanding about the governance of Wikipedia. If there is to be a policy on placenames it will come through open discussion, possibly followed by some sort of vote. But first we need to agree that there should be a policy, otherwise no policy can ever be put in place!
So I'm worried when I read about the 'tyranny of the majority view'. Surely tyranny is when a minority view (or even the view of one person) is forced upon multitudes who disagree. That's what a tyrant is. The majority view, whether correct or incorrect, is not tyranny, it is democracy! A tyranny depends upon the one or the few having some kind of power which enables them to force their view (correct or incorrect) on the majority.
Best of all is full agreement. Everybody is happy. Sometimes no amount of discussion achieves this happy state and the best that can be managed is agreement by all to accept the majority view, which may include a record of the remaining points of difference.
If we don't begin by accepting that consensus is best, that the majority view is second best, and that tyranny is worst, we will get nowhere. And this is often the point at which the majority feel the best and only way is to block further contributions from tyrants. Surprisingly, the main objective with Wikipedia is not that it should be correct, but that it should be realistic and as correct as possible. Where we can't agree what is correct, we need articles that explain there are two or more points of view, say what they are, and set out the main arguments for and against. But this should be done once and in one place. Other articles can refer across when necessary.
So can we begin by agreeing that consensus and the majority view have priority over correctness whenever parties disagree over what is, in fact, correct? If we can't agree that point, we do have a bit of a problem. Chris Jefferies 10:01, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I have seen no meaningful rebuttal of the facts that my 'view' relies upon; merely posters saying "I disagree with those facts" but not substantiating their disagreement with details and facts. Of course I will accept factual corrections, and modify my stance in their light - but no such corrections have so far been forthcoming! The majority view should be the produce of debate, not simply the greater ability of the majority to shout down 'dissenters'. Nor should the articles of wikipedia reflect nothing more than idle beliefs when these are not the product of reasoned logic. If most contributors believed that the earth were flat, and this were reflected as fact in articles concerning the earth, not because it was a proven (or even reasonable) fact, but because it happened to be an idly-held beleif of 'the majority', I would feel no disinclination to change all such articles to state that the earth is round, and, when questioned about such changes by the flat-earth majority, I would challenge them to support their viewpoint with facts. This would result in the articles in question being a produt of factual debate, rather than simply a blindly-held majority view, and in such cases, I would indeed put the notion of correctness above the 'majority view'.
Similarly, in this case, I am open to reasoned debate. I invite anyone who disagrees with me to disprove my arguments. In the absence of such proof, however, I cannot simply abducate factual correctness simply because the majority can shout the loudest! 80.255 21:59, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Where is Godmanchester?

(Discussion copied from Talk:Godmanchester)

Surely 'Cambridgeshire' was correct? 'Huntingdonshire' is an historical county, but is now only a part of the modern county of Cambridgeshire. It's misleading to write 'Huntingdonshire' without explanation. Chris Jefferies, 10th December 2003.

There is no such thing as a "modern county" - there are adminitrative counties and traditional counties; they are separate entities and and both current. I have specified that Godmanchester lies within both. 80.255 00:16, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Is this a matter of opinion or can it be supported by evidence of some kind? I'm not willing to see these pages permanently changed without either evidence or a consensus view following open debate. Chris Jefferies, 11th December 2003.
1st April 1974, an official government spokesman said:

"The new county boundaries are solely for the purpose of defining areas of ... local government. They are administrative areas, and will not alter the traditional boundaries of Counties, nor is it intended that the loyalties of people living in them will change."

If the "traditional boundaries of Counties" were not altered, then by definition they are current.
Furthermore, administrative counties were created in 1888 - the act in question specifically states that the entities created were "administrative counties", and it was not the traditional boundaries that were changed. Since the government has only used these 1888 administrative counties since that time, the boundaries changed during the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s were not those of the traditional Counties.
If you would like to verify this, have a look at the 1974 local goverment act with regards to Ross and Cromarty - this was an administrative county created in 1888. The traditional counties, Ross-shire and Cromartyshire, were not changed, but a new entity whose area was equal to both of theirs combined was errected. You will not find that the Counties of Ross-shire or Cromartyshire were mentioned in 1974, since it was only the administrative county of Ross & Cromarty that underwent a boundary change.
This is fact, and not simply my opinion. 80.255 20:29, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ongoing debate

(Beginning 12 December 2003)

The material above, copied from several places, already outlines the arguments fairly well. I'm very sure in my own mind that we need to go forward on the basis of current, common usage being right for Wikipedia, even if it is in some arcane sense incorrect (though personally I'm not convinced by the arguments about the correctness of historical counties). Chris Jefferies 20:17, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

So, to clarify, you think wikipedia should be deliberately made to display incorrect information.
If you're "not convinced", what exactly do you dispute? 80.255 21:59, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Well, to clarify, I'm not convinced by the arguments (as I wrote just above). But I'm strongly suggesting that there may be something more important than pure 'correctness'. Much more important than pure correctness is clarity. In other words, when someone consults Wikipedia about, say, St Neots, they expect (with very few exceptions) to find it in Cambridgeshire, not Huntingdonshire.
Why is this? It's because the sign beside the road says, 'Welcome to Cambridgeshire' and the one going the other way says, 'Welcome to Bedfordshire'. OK, the road coming in from Bedfordshire might also say, 'and Huntingdonshire District Council', I'm not sure but I can check.
When they go to the local library the sign over the door reads, 'Cambridgeshire County Library, St Neots'. When they look at a map, the town appears in Cambridgeshire, even the 1:25 000 OS map says, 'Cambridgeshire County', 'Huntingdonshire District', 'St Neots CP'. Nowhere does it say, 'Huntingdonshire County'. Maybe the OS maps are wrong, I don't think so but perhaps you do; but that's not my point. If you insist on interpreting it in that way, then yes, I think Wikipedia should be deliberately made to display 'incorrect' information. It should display the same information as all the other sources in people's everday lives so that readers are not confused. I asked a group of people today (not enough to be valid statistically) which county they believed St Neots to be in. All of them said, 'Cambridgeshire'. I then asked them whether it might not instead be Huntingdonshire. All of them said it was definitely not in Huntingdonshire.
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Like all encyclopaedias, dictionaries, books on grammar and style, it must reflect the reality that is out there in the world. An encyclopaedia doesn't exist only to tell people facts, that's far too narrow a definition. It's role is to give people information - yes, about facts - but also about opinions, common perceptions, customary understandings by ordinary people. Chris Jefferies 00:13, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Regarding road signs that say 'Welcome to...'- On leaving York there is a sign that says 'Welcome to North Yorkshire' so by symmetry there should be similar signs on leaving Leicester, Derby, Nottingham etc. welcoming people to a different county! This is clearly non-sensical as these places are the relevant county towns! The current legislation regarding road signs is a complete mess. On a motorway (which is a trunk road) a sign referring to the local authorty is completely irrelevant as there is no way it can possibly have any effect on you. As a geographical reference (which is quite handy when travelling) it converys very little information. A sign referring to the historic county would be much more useful. User:Owain
Very well, append the text "it is a common perception that St. Neots is not in Huntingdonshire, according to a 'survey' in which User:Chrisjj asked 'a group of people' on the 14th of December, 2003."...
It is a common perception in the arab world that the state of Israel is involved in a global conspiricy to destroy the rest of mankind; the very existence of such "common perceptions" does not make them correct!
In answer to your comments: you will see "Cambridgeshire County Library" on the local library since it is administered by 'Cambridgeshire County Council' - the authority that has responsibility for the administrative county of Cambridgeshire, as defined in the 1888 local government act as distinct from the ancient County of the same name, and as re-defined in the 1974 local government act as superceding the similarly post-1888 administrative county of Huntingdonshire.
OS has taken it upon itself to show administrative county boundaries on certain maps - this doesn't imply that the historic Counties do not exist or are not current; OS also does not show ward boundaries on some maps, and parish boundaries on others - what OS does or does not show has little to do with the price of fish in Kettering! I have never said that OS maps are wrong - they show 1888 administrative county boundaries with the greatest accuracy. But the fact that they may not show historic boundaries is neither here nor there.
Similarly, the sign beside the road saying 'Welcome to Cambridgeshire' is welcoming you to the administrative county of Cambridgeshire, created in 1888 and expanded in 1974. You will see signs around the furness penisular saying "Welcome to the historic County of Lancashire", even though the area no longer falls within the juristiction of the administrative county of the same name.
Of course wikipedia exists to give information - and the information in this case is: St. Neots is in the ancient County of Huntingdonshire and also within the administrative county of Cambridgeshire. And if, as you say, the former fact is not written on any road signs you happen to have passed recently, or over the doors of your local library, then this encyclopaedia will have been doing exactly what it it here for - providing information that the average person may well have not know before! 80.255 01:29, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
This isn't what I'd like to see. By all means mention historical counties but surely not as the very first county information the user sees. Far better for the average reader, to begin with, 'St Neots is in south-west Cambridgeshire'. Wikipedia policy is that the first paragraph of each article should be brief and only mention the key points. Detailed information such as historic county, district council etc should always be presented in the main body of the article.
80.255, am I curious. Do you feel that any of the people you have discussed these issues here with on Wikipedia are out to deliberately write false statements or to exclude true ones? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 01:45, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I would like to think that this is not the case, although sometimes I wonder... 80.255 01:48, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I've no problem with mention of historic counties in an article about a place. In fact, I'm all for it. It's valuable information about a place's history, and necessary information for researching that place in certain archives. But when defining a place - giving its address if you like - at the start of an article, it seems sensible to give the administrative county; the county of local government, and of maps and road atlases. In short, historic counties have historic uses and administrative counties have administrative, practical uses. When we say Place X is in County Y, that information should be useful to someone who is looking for Place X. Modern map books give the administrative counties, and so should we. But it doesn't hurt us to specify that a county is administrative, and to subsequently mention a historic county. That's my view anyway. (By the way, there's also some extensive discussion of this at Talk:Towns of the United Kingdom) -Nommo 02:17, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Since you mention addresses, it might interest you to know that Royal Mail does not accept many administrative counties/UAAs in postal addresses, since they clash with the relevant Post Town. In contrast, royal mail accepts historic Counties in all cases. Postal 'counties' are yet another kettle of fish, and naming articles to orrespond with them introduces yet more confusion into the matter.
This is false. The reason that Royal Mail accepts mail with pretty much any county (administrative or otherwise) or UAA you care to write is that nowadays (since 1996) all sorting is done by postcode. Please see the word from the horse's mouth here: http://www.royalmail.com/docContent/other/Downloadable_Files/General_PAF_Product_Info.pdf - a PDF document describing the Royal Mail's PAF standard for address databases. See in particular section 3.11 on flexible addressing. Pete/Pcb21 (talk)
To quote from page 8 of the very link you posted:
3.3 Address Details
An address is composed of the following address elements. Not all are present for every address, as addresses on PAF may be composed of different subsets of the elements. Postcode and Post Town are the only elements that are mandatory, i.e. they will be present for each address.
I.e. if the Post Town is also the name of an "administrative county" (i.e. a UAA), but the location in this UAA does not correspond to the post town area (which is mandatory), then royal mail will not accept the address if the post town is ommitted, postcode notwithstanding. 80.255 01:48, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I've taken a close look at the PDF document mentioned by Pete. Nowhere does it state 'Royal Mail does not accept many administrative counties'. What it does state is (and I quote), 'The County is no longer required as part of a correct postal address, provided the Post Town and Postcode are quoted'. Chris Jefferies 15:20, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
"When we say Place X is in County Y, that information should be useful to someone who is looking for Place X" - and would that be County Y post 1974, post-1987, post-1992 or post-2001? The fact that administrative boundaries change so frequently often means that some looking for an article may well be uncertain as to exactly what the current administrative area is.
I suggest that the an article about a given place is based at its traditional county (i.e. Huntingdon, Huntingdonshire), with redirects from all other conceivable places (Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, Huntingdon, Huntingdon and Peterborough, Huntingdon, England, etc.). The base article can then expound all the various administrative and traditional county locations of the place in question. Thus, if someone wants to know the current administrative county, it will be clearly stated; and if they search for an article on the place in this county, they will find it.
Another option is the put the base article in a neutral place (e.g. Huntingdon, Central England or Huntingdon, East Anglia), and use the various redirects in the same way. 80.255 21:59, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Dispelling a myth

A number of posters here have said such words to the effect of "the old counties aren't used or understood", etc. I should like to ask all such people to have a lok at the modern map of the registration counties of scotland - administrative entities, I might add, that are currently used in law: have a look at the map on page 2 of this pdf file. These counties are post-1888 administrative entities, granted, but their modern use nonetheless rather contradicts those people who assert that they are "not understood nowadays", differing as the do only slightly from the traditional counties of Scotland. 80.255 23:35, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Calling something a myth doesn't make it one. I have no doubt that if you stopped 1000 people on the street in St Neots and asked them which county they were in, the bulk would say 'Cambridgeshire'. If you asked them where they expected the old County of Huntingdonshire to be used they would tell you, 'Oh, that's no longer used, you'll only see it in history books, but they kept the old name for the District Council you know'. Chris Jefferies 00:24, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
The myth in question was the one that asserted that because both historic counties and the very similar pre-1974 administrative counties were not currently being used for administrative purposes, they are somehow "not understood". The pdf file to which a link I posted proves that, in the case of scottish post-1888 administrative counties, they are in current use for administrative purposes. Thus, "people do not understand them" is rather at odds with the facts!
Regarding your "St. Neots thought experiment", whether you have "no doubt" or not, such 'examples' are unprovable and of little use in arguments. Notwithstanding the fact that if 1000 people were wrong, that does not miraculously make them right. In any case, that is besides the point. What is your objection to stating in the article: "St. Neots is a town in the traditional County of Huntingdonshire. It also lies within the administrative county of Cambridgeshire", and to which both St Neots, Huntingdonshire and St Neots, Cambridgeshire can point?
Out of interest, what will be your reaction if, as is quite likely, the current district of Huntingdonshire is made a Unitary Authority? 80.255 00:57, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
My objection to wording the article as you suggest is that it's unclear to ordinary readers. We should not begin by writing that a town is in a traditional county of little relevance to people in 2003. By all means mention this later as part of the town's history. We should begin with something more familiar and much, much more relevant - the current administrative county, but leaving out the word 'administrative' which is uneccesary in the introductory paragraph and is also best explained later.
If the district becomes a unitary authority that should be reflected in the article but probably not in the introduction. If, after a period of time, it becomes clear that ordinary people think of 'St Neots, Huntingdon UA', then we can consider introducing it in that way.
And concerning my little survey, it wasn't a 'thought experiment' and it's not 'unprovable' either. A larger survey, properly designed and statistically analysed would demonstrate whether my assumption is correct. Personally I don't think it's worth the effort, but if you wish to do the survey I'll be interested to see the results. Chris Jefferies 18:11, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wrapping this discussion up

Well, the discussion traffic has died down now to very low levels and has stayed low for a couple of weeks. I suggest that we think seriously about moving to a conclusion, maybe by the end of January 2004. What do others think?

It seems likely that we'll be unable to come to a unamimous agreement on a Wikipedia convention, though I for one would still like to try. Flexible wording and generosity of spirit on all sides may win through.

Failing that, we will have to think in terms of accepting the (currently) 80% majority view, perhaps including a record of the minority view.

Meanwhile, season's greetings to everyone, and very best wishes for 2004! Chris Jefferies 12:55, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Discussion from the main page moved here. See there for edit history

Counties of England

Capitalization not treated here

Approach 1

One way to state which county a place is in is to use the current (administrative) county. E.g. Eton is in Berkshire, not Buckinghamshire. This approach is consistent with most [1] local and national government literature, some private sector literature, will be familar to most readers and writers, and indeed the approach will apply even if boundaries change again.

Supporters of this approach: Pete/Pcb21 (talk), Chris Jefferies, Morwen, Arwel, G-Man, SecretlondonWarofdreams, Tarquin, Francs2000, Angela, silsor, Trainspotter

Implementational details: In which articles do we need to mention historic counties? Obviously articles of the county itself e.g. Warwickshire, and ex-county towns such as Huntingdon should mention Huntingdonshire Coventry is likely to mention that Coventry has only been in West Midlands since 1974. But the Lady Godiva article wouldn't need to mention a county at all?

Cons:

  • Does not recognise the fact that traditional and administrative counties are separate entities.
    • IMO, they are sufficiently similar that the reader would be best served by describing all the meanings over history of a particular county name in one article. The current surplus of articles is a bit of a minefield, e.g. the two Denbighshire articles would seem contradictory to an uninitiated reader. Best to spell out in one place. Pete/Pcb21 (talk)
  • Produces a number of confusing anomalies: e.g. 'South Gloucestershire' not being part of 'Gloucestershire'.
    • The best place to dispel this confusions would be a single article named Gloucestershire, with a redirect from South Gloucestershire. Pete/Pcb21 (talk)
      • I think it would be far easier to have one Gloucestershire article which mentions the status of South Gloucestershire as part of the traditional and administrative counties, but a separate administrative district, and to have an article on it (e.g. see Somerset) Warofdreams 02:50, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Fails to recognise that historic counties are used rather more than some "anti-traditionalists" would like to admit: e.g. compare google results for Bexleyheath Kent and Bexleyheath London.
    • Funnily enough a Google search for Bexleyheath London and Bexleyheath Kent without the quotes gets more hits for the London rather than Kent version. Bexleyheath also seems very poor represented on the web. Most hits seem to be link farm hits for hotels all produced from the same source... but that's drifting off the point a little. Is the best wording for the Bexleyheath article - Bexleyheath is a town in the London Borough of Bexley.... Prior to the county boundary changes of 1974 Bexleyheath was in the county of Kent.
      • Try comparing Sheffield West Riding (about 3500) with Sheffield South Yorkshire (about 187000) and even Sheffield Hallamshire (about 11000). And if we are to use traditional counties, why use the West Riding rather than Hallamshire: not an administrative area for the last 950 years, and yet still more Google hits. Warofdreams 02:50, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • The concept that just because more people claim one thing over another somehow makes it right is laughable. A lot of Americans refer to Britain as 'England' (probably more people worldwide than refer to it correctly). Does this make their point-of-view right? Of course not. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to inform people of the truth. You can include popular opinion by all means, but state that it is just that, and not the truth. User:Owain
          • So I'm confused as to why you might support "traditional" counties. Their only use at present is from people remembering the old counties. In the case of some places (in particular on the edge of Greater London) this may be a majority, but if that's not why you support the usage, surely we should adopt the administrative or ceremonial counties primarily with a mention of traditional counties where they are for some reason significant. User:Warofdreams
            • Why do the Royal Mail have traditional counties on file for every address in Britain then? Surely by your logic that's no use to anyone under 50. The problem with so-called ceremonial counties is that they are still fixed to local government areas, and therefore will change with further administrative reorganisation. Also they perpetuate some unloved areas like Merseyside. Who in the Wirral wants to live in Merseyside? The fact that traditional counties have nothing to do with local government makes them ideal as unchanging geographical areas. User:Owain
  • With the rise of Unitary Authority Areas and the scraping of administrative metrolpolitan counties as administrative units, many places carry a 'county' name that divulges very little useful information: e.g. Darlington is in the 'county' of Darlington; the same applies to croyden,dudley, poole, oldham, gateshead, luton, wrexham and countless others. "Wrexham is a town in Wrexham" is not a terribly informative statement!
    • Agreed that that statement would not be informative. How best then to start such articles? (listed in order of becoming more like approach 2)
      1. Wrexham is a town and Unitary Authority in Wales. Prior to the Local Government (Wales) act of 19xx it was located in the county of Denbighshire. (+ Denbighshire articles contains details about its pre+post 1994 boundaries)
      2. Wrexham is a town and Unitary Authority in Wales. It is located within the traditional boundaries of Denbighshire but became a Unitary Authority in 1994]
      3. How about this which I personally would prefer: Wrexham is a town and unitary authority in Wales and traditionally a part of Denbighshire (+ Denbighshire articles contains details about its pre+post 1994 boundaries). G-Man
      4. Wrexham is a town and Unitary Authority in Wales. It is located in the tradional county of Denbighshire....
      5. Wrexham is a town in the traditional county of Denbighshire. It also the name of the Unitary Authority which includes Wrexham town and the surrounding area.
      6. Wrexham is a town in the County of Denbighshire. It is also the name of a Unitary Authority which includes the town and surrounding area.
      • (1) is downright incorrect and should not be considered on the grounds of accuracy. I would support (5) but am willing to compromise to (4). 80.255 00:18, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • More accurately:
Wrexham is a town and Unitary Authority in Wales. Prior to 1974 it was located in the county of Denbighshire, while between 1974 and 1996 it formed the Borough of Wrexham Maelor within the County of Clwyd. Arwel
Wrexham has never ceased to be in the traditional county of Denbighshire; is it not currently in the administrative county of the same name, however. A genuinely accurate statement would be:
Wrexham is a town and Welsh Principal Area in Wales. The town is in the traditional county of Denbighshire. Prior to 1974 the town also lay within the administrative county of Denbighshire, while between 1974 and 1996 it formed part of the the Borough of Wrexham Maelor within the administrative county of Clwyd.
80.255 03:59, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
And as has been repeated ad nauseam, your 'traditional' county of Denbighshire has no practical current existence whatsoever. People in Wrexham still sometimes put "Clwyd" when they address letters, they do not put "Denbighshire" on them. The former existence of the old county should be noted but very much in a subsidiary position in the article. The prominence you are seeking to give to the old counties is absolutely unjustifiable and only spreads confusion among readers who are not familiar with the true situation. Arwel 16:19, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Well said Arwell. It seems to me that stating that the "Traditional County" of XXXXXXX exists but has no administrative functions is a contradiction in terms. Being an administrative unit is the entire reason for a county's existance. If it does not exist as an administrative unit then what exactly does it exist as ?. The historic counties are certainly rarely used as geographic terms these days. As far as I'm concerned if it looks like duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is reasonable to assume that it is a duck. If a "county" has no administrative functions, and most people who live within it have no affinity towards it or even realise it exists, then it is reasonable to assume that for all practical purposes it does not exist. G-Man 18:56, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
How can the existence of a geographical area that's different from an administrative area be a contradiction? Take Northern Ireland. The six counties there haven't been used as administrative areas since 1974, just as in the rest of the UK, but they appear on maps, people talk about them, they exist. What about the laughable concept of 'ceremonial counties'. How can they exist if they have no local government function? Because people don't think it exists it doesn't exist? What a preposterous statement! Hey, if I stick my head in the sand I can pretend the world doesn't exist.. and so on. User:Owain
But the "traditional counties" are in most cases not used to describe geographic areas any more. Take for example Birmingham, the geographic term used to describe the location of Birmingham is always the West Midlands and never Warwickshire. The same applies to Manchester and Liverpool, when was the last time you heard anyone refering to those cities as being in Lancashire?, like it or not people now use the modern county boundaries as geographic references not the historic ones, life has moved on since 1974 you know. And before you say it about the metropolitan counties not being administrative units, I would like to point out to you that in all of the metropolitan counties, policing, emergency services, public transport etc are still organised on a metropolitan county wide basis, and they are also still used for statistical purposes, so they do still have some "real world" existance and an identity, unlike you're precious historic counties. G-Man 23:59, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • If the current administrative county is to be used, then former administrative metrolpolitan counties cannot be mentioned - for example, terms such as "West Midlands", since these are not current (now split into smaller, administrative units). This is likely to be met with opposition from some quarters.
    • As has been pointed out before, the metropolitan counties were never abolished in law. You can find examples of legislation well past 1986 mentioning them.
      • And of course they could've been mentioned even if they had become matters of history. The most helpful presentation on Dudley would say something like ' Dudley is a town and in the metropolitan county of the West Midlands conurbation.... From 1974 to 1986 Dudley was governed by the West Midlands county council though since then most local services have been administered by Dudley District Council.... Prior to the county boundary reorganisation of 1974, Dudley was located within Worcestershire.... The zoo there is on a hill...'
        • Dudley has never ceased to be in the historic County of Worcestershire. A better text would read:' Dudley is a town in the traditional County of Worcestershire [link to Worcestershire (traditional) when it exists], in the west midlands of England. It is also a Metropolitan district Unitary Authority Area. From 1974 to 1986 Dudley was governed by the West Midlands county council although since then most local services have been administered by Dudley District Council.... Prior to the administrative county boundary reorganisation of 1974, Dudley was located within the administrative county of Worcestershire...' 80.255 00:27, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Boy that's complicated G-Man 17:31, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • :). In the actual articles on such towns the admin/county information might be spread throughout the article rather put one after another as in these examples... depends on how much other history there is write about. So that would spread the complexity out a bit. Pete/Pcb21 (talk)

Approach 2

We should state that the county that a place is in is its historic county. The idea is that these historic counties are timeless standards with little cause for confusion. We also won't have to update Wikipedia every time the boundaries change. Such an approach also results in sensible outcomes whereby York and Leeds are in Yorkshire, Leicester is in Leicestershire, the isle of Bute is in Buteshire, etc. This approach clearly deliniates between traditional and administrative counties, eachoing the similarly clear deliniation made by successive acts of law and government statements, from 1888 onwards.

Supporters of this approach: User:80.255, User:Owain, User:Trilobite (long after the debate concluded, but I object to the policy).

Cons:

  • The approach can cause confusion. The historic and administrative lineages split further and significantly in 1974. Thus some claim that the use of historic names has little resonance for those under the age of 35, although supporters of this approach would argue that this facts is disputed . For these people the historic county names and locations are interesting snippets of historical information, to be mentioned in relevant articles - but no more than that.
    • I don't see how mentioning traditional counties could cause confusion - the Royal Mail for example have the correct traditional county on file for every postcode in the country so they can and should be used in addresses. The administrative areas on the other hand are just going to get less useful as more and more unitary authorities are introduced. Where is Tredegar? In Caerphilly? No it isn't, that's a completely different town 10-plus miles away. Where is Derby, Leicester, Blackpool, etc? Administrative areas are useless for this purpose, but a single well-defined county name that is independednt of local government is a perfect solution. The fact that it's different from local government boundaries is a strength not a weakness. User:Owain
  • The boundaries do not change frequently. In fact once a decade is a reasonable average. Compare that on average a Prime Minister is in office for about five years. We obviously keep the Prime Minister and related articles up to date! This 'advantage' is phantom.
    • Why should people have to re-learn where they live just because of a current political trend? Local government areas are supposed to be for efficient delivery of certain services, not as a general identifier of where a place is. The fact that unitary authories exist now that aren't descriptive is reason enough not to use them even if there were no further boundary changes for a thousand years! User:Owain
  • The "timeless standard" is also somewhat dubious - see the Counties of England paragraph to appreciate how difficult it is define exactly which counties where are the historic ones - after all historic counties are just administrative counties from 800 years ago. - this article was created by Morwen using generally unrepresentative snippets from replies of 80.255 that were not intended to stuck together in such a way. Thus, it is unnecessary confusing. For the purposes of this debate, I suggest that the 'timeless standard' is taken to be that of 1887, a year before the creation of administrative counties, User:80.255.
    • Wouldn't that timeless standard then include Bristol? Morwen 12:13, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)
      • I don't see why not as long as it's pointed out where Bristol is geographically (i.e. straddling the Gloucestershire/Somerset border) User:Owain
        • 1887 is hardly "timeless". -- Tarquin 17:26, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • This approach goes against common usage and perception in daily life. Maps, directories, 'Welcome to' roadsigns, signs on official buildings, businesses etc normally use the modern county names. Chris Jefferies
    • Just because people repeat the same inaccuracies doesn't make them right. There is no such thing as 'modern county names'. Local government areas are not counties - at most they are 'administrative counties'. Welcome to signs and official buildings are owned by the local council, hence them using their names and boundaries! You are right though that central government needs to erect county boundary signs that are independent of local government boundaries. User:Owain
  • Because of this approach, the article on Huntingdonshire, for example, focusses attention on the historical county rather than the current district council of the same name. Wikipedia articles should begin with current information and deal with history in the body of the text (except for purely historical topics). Chris Jefferies
    • Huntingdonshire IS a traditional county. A local government area borrows its name because it borrowed its area. As we all know local government areas can be changed on a whim. Perhaps the page for the district council should state so. The current 'county name (traditional)' and 'county name (administrative)' distinction works, so what's wrong with that? User:Owain
      • I think having two articles for each county name is a dogs dinner. It is just plain common sense that we should have a single article on, for example, Warwickshire that spells out its historical boundaries over the years and most recently the 1974 change which significantly reduced the size of the county. Having two articles each telling half the story with a bit of overlapping just makes no sense.
        • The 1974 change was a change to an administrative area, NOT a change to the county itself. This has been spelled out many times. The original LGA 1888 was clear to make the distinction that the new areas just happened to have the same names and roughly the same areas. The government made a similar clarification in 1974 although they made the mistake in the LGA 1972 of using the word 'county' instead of the phrase 'administrative county'. The end result is the same though - the administrative areas have changed, NOT the counties they were originally based on. The fact that people don't make the distinction is the root of all this confusion in the first place.
  • Approach 2 makes it impossible to write short, clear introductory paragraphs on cities, towns and villages which have changed hands historically from one county to another. Chris Jefferies
    • Not at all. How many places really moved from county to county? If you exclude detached parts I'd say relatively few. A short introduction to a place can say where it is located geographically (i.e. what traditional county it's in) and if they want to go on to say how it is governed administratively then that's an entirely different point and can easily be in a distinct paragraph. User:Owain
      • say where it is located geographically (i.e. what traditional county it's in)
      • This is a non-sequitur. If a traditional country (i.e. an administrative county from a long time ago) can be used for pinpointing location then so can today's administrative counties. Traditional counties are not more "real" in any sense than today's counties, just older and much less used today.
        • Really? Where is Leicester? Derby? Blackpool? Tredegar? Where will they be in 20 years time? The concept of using administrative areas that can be changed by a Statutory Instrument is madness! Britain needs a stable geography that CAN'T be changed by the government of the day to suit their political aims. I know where I come from - I don't want successive governments telling me I come from somewhere else... User:Owain
  • This approach is not used by any other encyclopedia (even the in many ways archaic 1911 Encyclopedia uses the 1889 counties.) - for example Cromarty, formerly a county in the north of Scotland, was incorporated with Ross-shire in 1889 under the designaton of the county of Ross and Cromarty. [2]
    • Not true at all. To use the Wrexham example again, the Encyclopaedia Britannica says "Wrexham county borough, historic county of Denbighshire" Online version User:Owain
      • And the entry on Denbighshire says 'Welsh Sir Ddinbych county of northern Wales extending inland from the Irish Sea coast. The present county of Denbighshire includes the Vale of Clwyd along the River Clwyd and an inland area between the Clwydian Range in the east and the Clocaenog Forest in the west that ascends to the Berwyn mountains in the south. The lower Vale of Clywd and the seacoast are part of the historic county…'. Note use of 'present county'.

Possible convention

  • Develop an article on the subject 'county' that covers both points of view.
  • Explain specific historical changes in the article on each individual county, referring back to the article above for the principles involved.
  • To avoid clumsiness, use whichever approach (1 or 2 but not both) is finally agreed in city, town, village etc articles, always linking to the relevant county article.

Further suggestions (80.255):

  • A standard boilerplate for stating the traditional county and administrative county in a clear, correct and unconfusing manner.
  • Redirects from both (for example), Huntingdon, Huntingdonshire and Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire to a more neutrally named article (e.g. Huntingdon, East Anglia, in which can appear the agreed boilerplate text stating the county situation.
  • Separate articles on counties themselves, all appended with either (administrative) or (traditional). This allows the relevant maps, etc. to be shown in the correct article without causing confusion. For an example of this method, see Gloucestershire.

"Electoral fraud"

It has come to my notice the several points put on the Naming conventions (places) page as "policy" by User:Morwen in fact formed no part of the motion that was put to the vote. It is wikipedia policy to vote on such matter and, if Morwen thinks they should become policy, then separate votes should be errected for them; however, as it stands, no such vote has been taken. I have removed a paragraphs pertaining to disambiguation pages that had no part in the motion put before a vote, and having checked the page in question, I shall remove any other sneekily added lines of "policy" that did not form part of the motion, unless Morwen should decide that adding things as policy that were not decided by the correct mechanism is both contrary to the convention and spirit of Wikipedia and removes them in any case. 80.255 22:31, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You are the one who removed people's names from the vote, and you dare accuse me of electoral fraud? I wish I could say I was shocked. Morwen 22:33, Jan 1, 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to know why you are bringing up issues of electoral fraud after deleting my vote. silsor 22:35, Jan 1, 2004 (UTC)
Although it's a trifling matter, I'll explain why those names were deleted if you wish. At present I have no working mouse, and thus cannot select text to cut/paste; having added various responses to the discussion, I came upon an edite conflict with those naming having been added, so over-wrote them with my most recent version. After doing this, I returned to add these changes manually, but then came upon another edit conflict since Morwen had declared the result, etc. - it would have been rather academic to both replacing them at that point, so I saw little point in it, assuming (correctly) that they would have been noticed in any case, and even had they not recognising that it would have made no difference to the outcome of the vote.
Now, morwen, perhaps you'd like to explain why you like adding all sorts of "policies" that were neither voted on nor discussed on the page? 80.255 22:49, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Contrary to your delusions, it is not the convention to vote on every proposed word of a policy. The policy is all a logical conclusion of the original statement. I showed a draft to User:Angela and was agreed with. Re-running the vote would just be a delaying tactic, and the result would be an inevitable victory in favour of it, I am sure you are aware.
Btw, were you the IP who made changes to County Durham earlier today? I left a message on their talk page to try and engage them in this discussion. Morwen 22:59, Jan 1, 2004 (UTC)


Nice job on the policy write-up, Morwen :) -- Tarquin 23:33, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks you. Obviously I am interested in taking into account people who think their views have been misrepresented, and if anyone objects who _was_ part of the consensus, then fine. But I don't see why someone who opposed the consensus should try to speak on behalf of people - they can speak for themselves. Morwen 10:36, Jan 2, 2004 (UTC)

I, too, would like to say, 'Thanks, Morwen', for the current version, and, 'Thanks everyone', for the debate. I've been out of circulation for a few days, and I arrive back and find everything done and dusted. Fantastic! Chris Jefferies 22:48, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Just one small problem, if we are to use pre 1847 boundaries when refering to historic counties. Then Coventry cannot be mentioned as being in Warwickshire, as prior to 1847 it was a county in it's own right. G-Man 01:13, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, but if we use the dates after that, that means Islandshire wasn't part of County Durham, which is exactly the sort of interesting anomaly we are after. I suppose what would be 'ideal' from the traditionalist point of view would be to use some county boundaries that have never actually been used, except maybe some time in the 14th century (although of course, boundary revisions must have happened without anyone even noticing, since then). They are sort of a chimera. Morwen 11:15, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)

"Why stick to any fixed format?"

Having read the above discussion with interest, I would make the following observation which I hope - given the strength of feeling this subject provokes - will not be taken the wrong way. I think much of the 'problem' here is people getting too close to see the wood for the trees; the main purpose of the 'pedia is to inform (?) Information should be accurate, timely, relevant and usable. Without going into a dissertation here (available on request) it is accurate to say "this town is in this admin. county, this traditional county and was until this date in this historical county" Nobody would dispute this surely? This covers accuracy and timeliness. Relevance and usability depend on your target audience - unfortunately nobody knows who the target audience of the Wikipedia is (or at least described it to my satisfaction) - so you surely have to present ALL information but sort it out to be usable to as many different types of audience as possible.

To end with a question: Is there any reason why each Wikipedia article has to be presented (i.e. laid out) in one fixed format? This is like a traditional printed encyclopedia but online. Can't an article be led by the audience instead of by the preferences of the editor(s)? If I'm looking for towns in Huntingdonshire then I would expect to find Huntingdon but also if I look for towns in Cambridgeshire. Where counties are used to subdivide lists - can't I choose from a menu of county types and have the list presented in that one?

The answer, I suspect, is one of mechanics (i.e. code and time) rather than policy. But if the Wikipedia is to be useful to as wide range of audience as possible then it is going to become necessary. Btljs

Amen to that. As we've found out in this discussion, sticking to one format creates too many arguments and would probably create too much confusion in the potential target audience. As long as we stick to the facts that places are in one administrative county and one traditional county then what's the harm? User:Owain
I for one don't care which comes first, the administrative county or the traditional county. Given that some Acts of Parliament use "county" to mean administrative county should mean this is the default, but a) the traditional counties have never been abolished and b) the wording "traditional county" or doesn't imply statutory sanction in any case. But at the end of the day to leave one or the other out would be completely wrong.
By the way, has anyone noticed that Eton is now within Windsor and Maidenhead and not "Berkshire"? Andrew Yong 14:02, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Berkshire has not been abolished as an administrative county, though. (Whereas, Avon, Humberside, and Cleveland have). Morwen 14:40, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)
Poor old Eton. In the traditional county of Buckinghamshire, but bizarrely also in this quantum world of simultaneously being in the unitary authority of Windsor and Maidenhead and 'administrative county' of Berkshire. Quite how an unitary authority, which by it's very nature is the sole administrative authority in a given area can be 'in' another local government area is beyond me - but it just goes to show how messed-up successive governments have made the situation. User:Owain
If Berkshire is an Administrative county, the articles Administrative counties of England and Subdivisions of England need correcting (and why isn't it in ISO 3166-2:GB)? Anyway, I contend that the current Ceremonial counties of England (including Berkshire) should be the primary reference - not one of the two options that was put to the vote. Who in Runcorn would ever say they come from "Halton"? Andy G 20:08, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Re: Berkshire. The confusion here is one introduced by the propagandists of the ABC. They equate 'county councils' and 'administrative counties' and pretend that the latter cannot exist without the other. Berkshire is not in ISO 3166:GB because ISO 3166:GB makes no pretense at representing counties. It represents top-level local authority areas, and Berkshire is certainly not one of these, nor are Greater Manchester or Tyne and Wear, as their county councils have been abolished. This is not the same however as abolishing the county. The article Administrative counties of England I have clarified - the map was already correct. You will note that the link you found on the talk page when you originally questioned whether say, Milton Keynes was in law a county, refers to the 'County of Berkshire' in the present tense. Morwen 20:20, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
Nonsense. How can something be an administrative area if it has no administration? Regardless of what various local government orders try to make you think, if there is no corporate entity to administer an area then ergo it is not an administrative area. The real pretence here is that you can somehow dispense with an administrative body but still claim that the area it used to cover is an administrative area. ISO 3166:GB is a list of administrative areas; If Berkshire is not on there then it is not an administrative area. Of course the real county continues to exist with it's real borders, blissfully unaware of all this administrative nonsense. Owain 16:30, Mar 16, 2004

Owain, why does a county need a council? Tyne and Wear happily exists. Otherwise, the good citizens of the City of Sunderland are paying me a lot of money to administer something, which does not exist. --garryq 14:14, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

A county doesn't need a council - they didn't prior to 1889 after all. The point is there are the traditional counties which existed before county councils were formed; Then there were county council changes in 1974, and county council abolitions in 1986. Why perpetuate the name and area of something that was merely the result of an administrative change when the administrative body no longer exists? After all that was the entire raison d'êtré for it existing in the first place. Incidentally, why are the citizens of Sunderland paying you money? Owain 14:39, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
I don't think Wikipedia is interested in what should be the case. Wikipedia is just interested in what is the case. And if you believe google, then people do still use Tyne and Wear as a geographical reference, more often than they use the former counties. I think its time to accept this gracefully, and move onto more productive things. Morwen 14:55, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not disputing the fact that people still use Tyne and Wear as a geographical reference. As a name for a conurbation it's perfectly OK. As you so eloquently put it 'Wikipedia is just interested in what is the case', not just what some people use. Some people use traditional (not former!) counties, some people use names of conurbations. Fine by me. Owain 09:36, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(places)/Archive_1&oldid=63421562"