Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 33

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

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Addition of Shire county to UK place infoboxes

User:ImprovedWikiImprovment has been adding Shire county fields to UK place infoboxes in the West Midlands county. See for example Bickenhill and Bordesley, Birmingham. I've questioned whether these additions are 'justified' on their Talk page as the Shire county definition in the Cambridge Dictionary definition here: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/shire-county suggests they may not be. I'd value other editors' opinions. Rupples (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Despite my suggestion to check and seek consensus on this User:ImprovedWikiImprovment has continued and appears to be on a mission to systematically include the Shire county on most places in the West Midlands county. The historic counties stated do look correct so I guess it's a useful addition. Rupples (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Rupples: I have now stopped, but perhaps “historic county” would be more appropriate then? Per BOLD I do not initially require consensus to these kinds of edits, but anyone can revert them. --IWI (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

which of the many historic countries do you have in mind? Pre 1974? Pre 1894? (sic?). On what basis do you choose?

Btw, if you plan on doing a campaign of potentially controversial changes, it is always a good idea to consult first as it is depressing to spend all that time only to have it all undone.--𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Historic counties were previously added to articles, and this was rejected, the field removed from the infobox template and all of the article additions removed. Keith D (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The additions are technically shire counties, where the parameter remains in the template. Dank Jae 18:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Parameters |shire_county= & |metropolitan_county= should not both be used in {{Infobox UK place}}, it should be one or other. It should refer to the current status of the place. Keith D (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that does make sense — it's consistent with the other infobox fields containing current information (as near as can be reliably sourced). Rupples (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

County templates

There is a discussion going about the inclusion criteria for settlements in Template:County. The discussion is at Template talk:County#Inclusion criteria for Major settlements section. The Banner talk 12:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Counties and counties in West Midlands infoboxes

I am not an expert on counties, but I know a lot of people here have it as a specialist subject, so I ask: Is it correct for places such as Wylde Green to have an infobox which lists both a "Shire County" and a "Metropolitan county" (both now being West Midlands, although the former was previously listed as Warwickshire)? And is it ever correct for West Midlands County to appear, as if we are in the USA? Pinging @DragonofBatley: who has made these recent edits (see also Erdington, Aston, Walmley). PamD 15:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@PamD is this related to the discussion a couple of sections above #Addition of Shire county to UK place infoboxes? Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Thryduulf Thanks, yes indeed. Keith D's post of 10:38 pm, 22 August 2023 , which no-one has contradicted, clearly states that "shire county" and "metropolitan county" should not appear in the same infobox.

Whether we should ever write West Midlands County is a second question. PamD 23:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I think West Midlands county is OK, but we'd never write West Midlands County with a capital C. County of West Midlands might be a better way to put it. Bazonka (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Wylde Green currently has

Shire county	West Midlands County
Metropolitan county	West Midlands
Region	West Midlands

That has to perplex the reader (what point is Wikipedia making?) and I fear that change would leave it equally perplexing:

Shire county	County of West Midlands
Metropolitan county	West Midlands
Region	West Midlands

NebY (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

As already explained, either Metropolitan county or Shire county. Not both. So Wylde Green is wrong, so just correct it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

This sort of confusion is why I suggested changing the name of the 'shire' parameter to 'non-metropolitan county' or similar on the template talk, but unfortunately the discussion didn't go anywhere. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

North Yorkshire infobox images

Hello! Last month there was a discussion at North Yorkshire about which images to include in its infobox. This has not yet produced a result, and as a result the infobox is still unstable. I've restarted the discussion in an attempt to reach a conclusion, and any contributions are appreciated. Thank you. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

City status guideline update — added to full guidelines

It took me longer than a week, but I have now added a guideline covering how to handle city status to the 'Managing ambiguity and uncertainty' section of the 'How to write about settlements' guidelines. It includes the amendment to state that the exact area awarded city status must be included in the article, and I tweaked the wording of the third paragraph (disambiguation) to tighten it up a little — I hope the latter change is uncontroversial.

The exact location of the guideline may require further discussion, as this wasn't addressed in the original discussion. It could be a full section rather than a subsection, and it could also be referenced in the 'How to write about districts' guidelines. Let me know what you think.

@Kevin McE @Goom80, A.D.Hope (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Goom80 (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

New city status guideline (are settlements within city districts cities themselves?)

This is quite a big one, strap in!

For the past few days a discussion has been taking place at the 'How to write about settlements' guideline talk called What makes a city?. Its primary aim is to create a guideline for how to write about newly-created cities, particularly when city status is awarded to a district or similar local authority which is larger than its main settlement (e.g. the City of Winchester, which covers much of central Hampshire). We have come up with a guideline which has broad (but not unanimous) consensus:

In the United Kingdom city status can be granted to areas of varying size, from compact urban areas (e.g. Stirling) to large districts which include towns and villages outside their core urban area (e.g. City of Lancaster).

When city status has been granted to an area which includes multiple settlements we should be guided by reliable sources when deciding whether or not to refer to a particular settlement within that area as a city. For example, although Lancaster, Morecambe, and Carnforth are all in the City of Lancaster district only the former is referred to as a city in reliable sources. We should therefore refer to Lancaster as a city but Morecambe and Carnforth as towns. Reliable sources should be ignored where they predate the award of city status (see WP:AGEMATTERS)

When a local authority has been awarded city status and renamed itself 'City of [Settlement]' this name can act as a WP:NATURAL disambiguation between the articles about the settlement and local authority.

We would appreciate comments on the suitability of the above. I would particularly like to draw your attention toward the examples — Lancaster, Morecambe, and Carnforth — which are intented to show how to treat the primary settlement (Lancaster), a connected but distinct settlement (Morecambe and Lancaster form one urban area), and a distinct settlement within the city region (Carnforth). Do the examples achieve this.

Despite the above, some of the underlying issues have not been fully resolved and so we would again appreciate outside input.

First, there is a debate about whether the primary settlement in a district with city status should be referred to as a city, given the latter does not itself have separate city status (e.g. is Lancaster a town in the City of Lancaster District or a city itself).
Second, we need consensus about what constitutes 'reliable sources', particularly when it comes to defining the boundaries of an urban area within a city district. The example used in the original discussion is whether the peripheral Colchester village/suburb of Stanway should be considered part of the 'city of Colchester' urban area or not, and how that would be sourced.

Any contribution to the discussions is appreciated, whether all three or just one. Thank you, A.D.Hope (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Guideline discussion

This pre-supposes that reliable sources do identify the main settlement as a city in a way that the wider area is not: this is not necessarily the case, and a guideline should not be written with that assumption. It should also be made clear that describing the urban area as a city is a colloquialism, and not its legal status, although city status is legally defined. Kevin McE (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree that the guideline makes that presupposition. The relevant section is 'we should be guided by reliable sources when deciding whether or not to refer to a particular settlement within that area as a city', a statement which works both ways; reliable sources may not support referring to a place as a city.

I would support adding a clause such as 'The area which was granted city status should be noted in an appropriate place, such as the article body or a lead footnote.' I'm wary of encouraging complex explanations of city status in the lead prose. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Do remember city status is not just held by districts but also by parishes of which 7 of the 8 have similar boundaries to the settlement but Ely with the settlement being 5.457 km² but the parish 59.24 km² and covers places like Prickwillow. Charter trustees can also hold the status such as Bath which is the same as the unparished area but some like Chester aren't and is apparently the same as the 1974-2009 district even though the rest is parished. For most parishes and charter trustees because we almost always combine parishes and unparished areas with settlements of the same name and most unparished areas have similar boundaries to the settlements this rarely causes problems but with the likes of Ely and especially the likes of Chester and Durham this may cause confusion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Sources discussion

Regarding the Urban Area: as that term has pretty much been retired in favour of "Built-up area" by the ONS the choice seems clear: use "Built-up area" as a proxy (which is messy as well know how easy it is to exclude swathes of population traditionally associated with a town because of an algorithm) or stop using it as a proxy for the town / city and so on because we know it's a statistical method and not meant to represent anything apart from a measure of urban area. In short the question should be: what are we trying to use the "Built-up Area" or "Urban area" for in an article and is it appropriate to that end? Koncorde (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

One authoritative source for the specific question of Stanway is the City of Colchester Local Plan 2017-2033, adopted 2022, Section 2,[1] Table SG1 divides the urban area of Colchester into Central Colchester, and South, East, North and West Colchester, including Stanway and Myland and Braiswick, but excluding the Garden Community, Sustainable Settlements, Other Villages and Countryside. I haven't followed the discussions thoroughly - do we often refer to Local Plans? NebY (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

City status discussion

Hopefully we can get some more clarification from others. I'm not going to go round in circles as we've had enough of that and its getting nowhere. My point all along is that Wikipedia articles have, for many years, always referred to the main named settlement as a city, which makes sense in terms of perception and historical context. I am aware of the legal definition that a) city status is granted to the wider district, and that b) Wikipedia relies on published reliable sources. Government guidelines clearly state that only local authorities can apply for, and be successful in attaining, city status. This means that even if the sole intention is for the main settlement to be regarded as a 'city', the status covers a much larger area that often includes other small towns, villages and large swathes of rural area. This is done for Government statistical reasons. Various sources (whether some find them reliable or not) have been referring to Colchester as a city, and in many of these articles the term 'town' was used to describe the area that is being pushed as the city. On the opposite side of the debate, there are no reliable sources that explicitly states that the main named settlement cannot refer to themselves as a city. Yes we need to utilise reliable sources, but at the same time take a common sense approach. The definitive guideline for Wikipedia would be useful in hopefully putting this debate to rest. Goom80 (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

To state that there would ever have been an intention for only the main settlement to be a city is pure supposition, and is unsupported by the application documents.

The dismissal of this as being purely for statistical reasons is at best misleading: there is no authority that can provide a whole gamut of statutory services for the central unparished area that does not provide for the whole (former) borough. There is no recognised boundary that has claimed to be that of the city that is not the border of the borough.

A source that says a town was given city status is materially wrong, and so cannot be taken as reliable in that instance. Kevin McE (talk) 10:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree with above, apart from the bit about "statistical reasons" as not sure what that is referring to. It seems remarkably uncontroversial to describe the main settlement of a borough awarded city status as a city when reliable sources do not differentiate. If for some reason reliable sources started to explicitly omit or use arcane wording there'd be a case to consider what was intended.

On the subject of historical context, I am sure I don't need to point out that most cities no longer cover the same area as when they were elevated (image of Liverpool seems relevant). Those newly gained regions of (largely) pastoral lands for development. On that basis it is neither uncontroversial to consider Liverpool "City" to be the original primary settlement (otherwise known as the town centre or city centre) AND also the subsequently accreted areas around it without impacting on the articles of other settlements that initially maintained independence before being folded into the new District / Council. To treat new cities different because they are using Borough areas or similar seems to ignore the fact that many such cities also did very much the same thing in acquiring townships, parish councils and similar as part of centralisation of power. Koncorde (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I should clarify that also the reverse argument exists: if a historic area was awarded city status a century ago and still refers to its main settlement as a town now, or in other reliable sources, that that is equally valid position and not mutually exclusive (in short, if the usage of "city" is associated with the wider borough only, and sources continue to refer to Colchester town in the City of Colchester that would obviously be valid - I'm struggling to think of such a historic example but I am sure there will be one). Koncorde (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The only example which springs to mind is Stoke-on-Trent and its federated towns, but that's a unique example. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

That'll do. I knew it must have happened, and Colchester may be our second example (subject to reliable sources). Koncorde (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no proposal to use the word 'town' in the article Colchester. Unless and until there is a clear designation, an incontrovertible phrase that avoids any legal definition, such as 'main settlement within the city', is the suggestion. Kevin McE (talk) 10:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I never said there was, but until there's a source that sufficiently satisfies people you accept that it is a possible outcome? If we don't accept it's a possible outcome, why are we bothering hiding behind "main settlement" and just be WP:BOLD and assert it is a city based on the the fact that it is habitual to describe the main settlement as such? Koncorde (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

In the case of Colchester, it is not (yet, at least) habitual to do so. That fact does not really exist. There will not be sources saying decisively that it is still a town, hence the more generalised term. Kevin McE (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Our article on another place that failed to win City status remarks it "would be a purely honorific change of title, making no practical difference to the borough's governance." The people of Hackney and Camden are city-dwellers, but live outside the Cities of London and Westminster. Calling the people of Colchester city-dwellers would be legally true but misleading. The City of Colchester's Local Plan refers to its town centre. If we take the long view, or an international view, the award of city status to a borough is at best one consideration in whether we describe a settlement as a city, and a minor one at that. NebY (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

The Colchester Local Plan was written prior to Colchester becoming a city. A plan from 2023 is titled Colchester City Centre Masterplan. Rupples (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

and precisely because of that kind of example, the proposed guidance explicitly states that otherwise-reliable sources that predate the award are not valid citations on the town/city question. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Update

There have been no comments on this discussion in a few days, so the debate has clearly died down. Reading the above I can't see any significant hurdles to adopting the guideline, though it would be helpful to know if Kevin McE agrees with the addition I suggested on the 27th regarding mentioning the area granted city status.

The Colchester issue does not affect the wider guideline and is simply a case of waiting for sources to emerge which confirm whether or not the urban area can be referred to as a city.

As ever, if I've missed anything please let me know (steering these discussion can be bit of a job). If there are no further objections I will add the proposed guideline, with the proposed addition, to the actual guidelines in one week. Thank you, A.D.Hope (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not agree that, in the UK, somewhere that has not been declared to be a city should be described as such in Wikipedia, even if it is eponymous with the area that has been granted that status. But consensus seems to be to ignore legal status, and go for some sort of undefined populist zoning.

Of course it should be clear what the legally defined city is, and that the urban area is not coterminous with it, and I would suggest that that anomaly should be made clear at the outset. Opening sentence: Newcester is a city^[a] in Oldshire.... and footnote a should say something to the effect of "The area that is the subject of this article does not have legal city status of itself, but is widely regarded as a city since it is the main and nominate settlement in the City of Newcester local government area." Kevin McE (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kevin McE https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/20154063.colchesters-city-status-recognises-importance-roman-capital/

You are incorrect regarding what the intention was. Here is an article where Simon Taylor - Chairman of Destination Colchester (the group behind the 2011 and 2021 bids, whose information was largely borrowed from). He clearly states the intention was for 'city status to be restored to the historic town'. Goom80 (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to get into this again. @Kevin McE has been gracious in accepting the consensus despite disagreeing with it, and I'm quite happy to leave things there.

Kevin, I fully agree about making the legally-defined city boundaries clear, and I believe the proposed amendment achieves that. To repeat:

The area which was granted city status should be noted in an appropriate place, such as the article body or a lead footnote.

The wording could be more restrictive, but I prefer to give editors leeway where possible. Let me know what you think. Regards, A.D.Hope (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I was simply linking several articles and sources as requested. I've been away, so haven't had time to do so. I'm not here to give Kevin a hard time, he is more than entitled to his view. I'm just using the information available to support the case for its use. I have nothing more to add hereafter. Goom80 (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/23143961.colchester-town-railway-station-could-renamed-city/. Article regarding an ongoing campaign to rename 'Colchester Town' station to 'Colchester City'... another example of intention to refer to the urban core as a city.

And below, several articles with reference to the 'town' being the 'city'

HISTORIC ROMAN CITY TO GET OFFICIAL CITY STATUS: https://www.google.com/search?q=Essex+Live+Roman+city+of+Colchester&rlz=1C1GGGE_en-gbGB623GB673&oq=Essex+Live+Roman+city+of+Colchester&aqs=chrome..69i57.11730j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

https://www.colchestertouristguidesassociation.co.uk/

'Colchester was long classified as a town until 2022 when it was awarded official city status' https://www.visitcolchester.com/explore/britains-first-city

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-63716308 Goom80 (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

And many of them are simply wrong, stating with no legal justification that the town has been given (back) city status. Of course anything emanating from Colchester City Council and local tourism bodies is going to be strong on pushing the city identity: they are scarcely an unbiased source having put resources into the bid. They still will not say where the city starts though, other than at the boundary with another borough, despite several requests to them for that information.

Frankly, city status applied to a non urban area is no more than ridiculous political posturing, and simply gives rise to semantic nonsense. But if the local authority and those who have the right to attach royal names to such frivolous nonsense what to play such games, I guess its not surprising that a consensus of wikipedians will end up playing along rather than following encyclopaedic principles of accuracy and legal propriety. Kevin McE (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, maybe so. As you've kind of alluded to, its now the language of the council and tourism board, and the lines will blur as time goes on. I agree that city status being applied to a non urban arwa is ridiculous but we are where we are. I do not dispute your argument regarding the borough being granted city status, it is undisputable. My issue was that the Colchester article should be consistent with those similarly in Wiki, e.g those other districts granted city status whereby the main area described themselves as a city in the introduction, example Chelmsford, Preston, Lancaster, Wakefield, Sunderland and Doncaster etc. I'm sure if there had been consensus between those pages to refer to their main urban areas as such, rather than cities I'd take no issue with your logic. But Colchester would stand out like a sore thumb in its article. I can't see editors agreeing to change their articles as city status is seen as a symbol of pride. Again, this is not or was never personal, but even when Wikipedia is wrong, sometimes its easier to follow consensus. Goom80 (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Keeping on topic but moving away from Colchester. I was interested to learn that Wolverhampton Borough Council renamed themselves City of Wolverhampton Council. The Letters Patent states that thd 'Town of Wolverhampton' was made a city. So, it kinda begs the question, how can they do that without having to reapply to extend the status to the wider Borough, if in fact only thd town was awarded the status. It all adds even more confusion don't you think? Goom80 (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Usage of "local authority" for districts

In some articles like previously here we have used the term "local authority" to refer to districts. While it seems sources often use "local authority" to refer to districts as opposed to say parishes[2][3] I think the term is not generally appropriate for 2 reasons. Firstly (yes like saying unitary authority that many more of us probably do) the term would if saying Tewkesbury LA refer to the district's council namely Tewkesbury Borough Council, secondly the councils of counties and parishes are also local authorities namely the parish council Tewkesbury Town Council is also a local authority as is Gloucestershire County Council. I suggest we generally only use the term "local authority" when referring to a council not to a district its self. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I tend to add area to the end of …authority. It doesn’t help that local authority, unitary authority and combined authority have become fixed terms if we could use locality, unit or combination then we could get somewhere.

Use community authority for parishes since for example town parishes have town mayors and parish councils that can be classed together as the authority. Chocolateediter (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

To most people the local authority is the one that collects the council tax, ie the district council, usually referred to as "the council". Parish councils are not the local authority and have few powers. Community authority is nonsense. Esemgee (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm in favour of being as precise as is reasonably possible, which means referring to local authorities by type unless the context is clear. For example, rather than saying 'Hampshire is governed by three local authorities', its lead (which I wrote) says:

For administrative purposes Hampshire is divided into 13 non-metropolitan districts. Eleven are part of a two-tier metropolitan county governed by Hampshire County Council and eleven district councils, and the Portsmouth and Southampton districts are governed as unitary authorities by Portsmouth City Council and Southampton City Council.

It's a lot wordier, but a lot more accurate. I know that the term 'unitary authority' is itself a bit fuzzy, but it's preferable to 'non-metropolitan county council with the powers of a non-metropolitan district council' or similar. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd say that level of detail is too much for a lede. Like does anyone care, in the lede, more about the administrative tiers of a county to that degree? The actual article itself barely any further information across its entire length - and there's considerably more historical content and other information that might be considered more important to summarise the idea and concept of "Hampshire" rather than talking about how it's broken down into not-Hampshires.

A common issue throughout wikipedia by the way, and not a dig at you ADH. The ledes often tends to get bogged down into defining minutiae. Koncorde (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that the administrative arrangements of a county are minutiae. The language of local government is wordy and some counties have complex arrangements which take a couple of sentences to explain, which is unfortunate, but it's important information and belongs in the lead. A.D.Hope (talk) 01:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The "administrative arrangements" are: "For administrative purposes Hampshire is divided between Hampshire County Council and Portsmouth and Southampton City Councils". The actual politics section can then get into the detail of the exact splits, why or what they even are. I don't want to drag one article on an unrelated subject but the lede isn't doing lede things there. Koncorde (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

That's akin to saying 'Greater London is administered by the Greater London Authority'. It's not wrong, but it omits important information. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

It's probably worth pointing out that Hampshire is a complicated example, with a non-metropolitan county and two unitary authorities. Many counties are simpler, for example:

Northumberland: 'The county is governed by Northumberland County Council, a unitary authority.'
Staffordshire: 'Most of the county is governed by Staffordshire County Council and eight district councils, with the district of Stoke-on-Trent forming a separate unitary authority.'
Herefordshire: 'The county is governed by Herefordshire Council, a unitary authority.'
East Riding of Yorkshire: 'The county is governed by two unitary authorities, East Riding of Yorkshire Council and Hull City Council.'
Suffolk: 'For administrative purposes Suffolk is a two-tier non-metropolitan county governed by Suffolk County Council and six district councils.'

Some counties have straightforward local government, some don't. It's just one of those things really. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Koncorde, after all the lead is supposed to summarise the whole article, not set out the miniutiae of administration that should be done in a Governance section with appropriate references. If a county is just a county why does it need to be described as non-metropolitan? I don't think unitary is necessary in the lead either. The lead ought to draw people into the article not blind them with jargon. Who is the audience that needs such detail in the first sentence? Esemgee (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The ceremonial county leads don't go into the minutiae of administration, they typically mention how many districts the county is divided into and its top-tier councils. The minutiae would be things like district councils, parishes, parish councils, the administrative history, who controls the councils, and so on.

There's no such thing as 'just a county' in England. There are several types of county — ceremonial, metropolitan, non-metropolitan, and historic being the main ones — so it's important to be clear about which one is being referred to. Similarly, the type of council is mentioned because there are several, each with different powers to the others. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

But not in the lead. Esemgee (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

It's especially important to be clear in the lead. For example, imagine if Cumbria read:

Cumbria is a county in England. It contains the counties of Cumberland and Westmorland and Furness, and was formed from of the counties of Lancashire, Cumberland, and Westmorland

I've obviously condensed the information, but referring the three types of county in that paragraph as simply 'counties' is little help to readers. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Writing such an awful sentence to illustrate your point isn't at all helpful. I've looked at the article it has a perfectly acceptable opening sentence. Esemgee (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I condensed the three parts of Cumbria's lead which mention counties into one paragraph to demonstrate the why referring to a 'county' without qualification causes issues. It seemed better than quoting the entire lead.

The opening sentence of Cumbria states that it's a ceremonial county. Isn't your point that such differentiation is unnecessary? A.D.Hope (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry ceremonial didn't register, I'd get rid of it. Lord Lieutenants aren't the most interesting thing about counties. Esemgee (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The term isn't included because Lord Lieutenants are particularly interesting, but because the ceremonial counties are used as the basis for the county articles. It's perhaps not ideal, but they're very stable. Many ceremonial counties also share their name with a non-metropolitan county (e.g. County Durham and County Durham), so it's necessary to differentiate the two. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Well then start the article with "County Durham is a county" or "County Durham is a district" and go into details in Governance. It's not so difficult, give the reader some credit. Esemgee (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Both articles mention other types of county, so it's helpful to clarify which one is being referred to in a particular passage. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced. Esemgee (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

For administrative purposes, Hampshire is governed by a mixture of city, county and district councils. We'll go into more detail later if you're interested but honestly, most of you aren't. NebY (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

What NebY said. Cramming long-winded pedantic niceties that are of concern to a tiny minority of readers into the first sentence [inserted: or two] of an article is not a sensible or proportionate way to introduce any topic. Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

There are no 'pedantic niceties' in the first sentences. They practically all begin '[County] is a ceremonial county in [region].' A.D.Hope (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Thirded [Dave.Dunford's seconding]. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC) clarified due to edit conflict.--𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Flag Usage

If we wish to maintain having the same page for both historical and ceremonial counties, it doesn't make sense to remove flags for the ceremonial counties for those reasons, it makes as much sense to do so as per say removing all US state flags! these Ceremonial Counties do have their own councils and are legal entities, such as Essex County Council and Cornwall County Council, whom hold elections such as 2021 Suffolk County Council election, we want to be an encyclopedia, we want to ultimately keep as much information as possible. we can't achieve this by removing information. 82.14.227.184 (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for starting a discussion here. I see you've been adding flags to infoboxes but have been reverted. My understanding is that the infobox is used for 'at-a-glance' current information. The county infoboxes are headed "Ceremonial county" not "Ceremonial and historic county". If a flag is not an official ceremonial county flag, it won't be included in the infobox, but may be included elsewhere in the article, perhaps in the history section. Rupples (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

What if a flag is neither an officially adopted flag nor historical, but is a modern creation whose standing is only with the Flag Institute? NebY (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

It makes no sense though, as alot of these pages are joint pages for both the historical and ceremonial counties, excluding ones like yorkshire and middlesex, and obviously greater london which was not a historic county 82.14.227.184 (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Each English "county" has its own flag, many of which are modern; most county flags have a separate article, but the county articles in most cases are not wikilinked to the flag articles. Scanning through a number of the "shire" counties they all have a flag image, but inconsistent placement (though most in History section) and no comment in the text, just an image caption. Derbyshire has a County emblems heading with an image of the flag and link to the county flag article, which does seem better.

Note to the IP editor. You could make a proposal here that a county flag is added to the infobox and see what support is forthcoming. Even if there has been a previous discussion on the subject and the consensus was not to include, consensus may have changed. Rupples (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)