Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements/Archive 4

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

Welsh place-names

Forgive me if this has been discussed earlier - I did trawl through the archived discussions - but there is no mention of Welsh place-names in the guidance section on an article's lead section. A bullet point in the 'History' guidance section currently says (my italics): If a settlement has a name in another recognised regional or national language, this can be presented here. At the risk of kicking off an old debate once again, I'd have thought it appropriate that, for settlements in Wales only, this guidance ought to recommend the inclusion in an article's lead section of the Welsh version of a name, immediately after the English version. Currently the guidance says of material for the lead section (again, my italics): Name of settlement, type of settlement (e.g. suburb, town, city, civil parish), its present local government district / council area, present/ceremonial county (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places), for the use of counties), and constituent country. Inclusion of the Welsh name in articles seems to be standard practice anyway eg articles on Wrexham, Cardiff, Welshpool and a nod to that in the guidance would confirm the approach. cheers Geopersona (talk) 06:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I would strongly support this suggestion. I would also suggest that the guidance should be worded to include not only places technically within Wales, but also those places on the English side of the border which have experienced significant Welsh cultural influence (e.g. Ross-on-Wye) – while clearly excluding places such as Oxford and London for which Welsh forms of the names exist, but which are firmly English in their culture. Equivalent guidance should also be formulated for places with Scots and Irish Gaelic names, but I leave it to others to discuss the detail of that. GrindtXX (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
This was discussed here - and in later threads on the same page - a few years ago. I think the consensus then was broadly in line with what Geopersona is suggesting, and I would be disappointed if there were to be any further argument over including the Welsh names of Welsh settlements (or indeed Welsh topics more generally) in the lead. There have been issues over the degree of prominence to be given in these articles to the Welsh names of those towns close to the border which are signed in Welsh from the Welsh side of the border - such as Chester (Caer), Oswestry (Croesoswallt), Hereford (Henffordd) and Bristol (Bryste). I don't personally think that there's a need for any new guidance on this that would lead to disruption of the current state of general calm on those articles. We also have an article on Welsh exonyms, which gives the wider picture. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that pointer, Ghmyrtle. The issue is relevant to Cornwall too. After skimming those old discussions, I think the guidance in the nutshell of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) is sufficient: "Historical names or names in other languages can be used in the lead if they are frequently used and important enough to be valuable to readers, and should be used in articles with caution." Maybe a link to that would be appropriate?  —SMALLJIM  13:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Condensing sections

When faced with shortish place articles that don't deserve a multitude of sections through dearth of info, I do not section and arrange body text broadly sequenced per guidelines: History/Gov/Geog/Culture/Community and so on. In many articles there is quite a bit of History – which does deserve a History section, which I add and needs to be top promoted – and other snippets of disparate stuff that would look silly with one-line sections. I have been in the habit of adding these fragments under a heading "Community" as this seems to be the most innocuous useful catch-all. This may not be ideal. But there are no guidelines to suggest how an article should be structured when there is an overbalance in one area of information. Advice please on the way I am dealing with this quandary, and if the Project should provide guidelines on this. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I edit a lot of village articles and encounter this all the time. I tend to take the approach of waiting until there's enough info about at least a couple of topics before creating sections, and I use the lead as the area for the other disparate info. This goes against the recommendation to use the lead as a summary of the main body of text, but I find it the best solution in practice. I also use this problem to spur me into digging for extra info so that such articles become more balanced. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Weather box

Discussion started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities#Weather_box on the use of Template:Weather box in articles. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Montages and lead images

I've been doing a bit of tidying up in settlement infoboxes and have noticed that this guideline specifies that infoboxes should contain "a suitable single image, for example a townscape, cityscape, town/city halls" (my emphasis), but most articles for cities and larger settlements have a montage. Montages are well-established on other city articles outside the UK and can look good and convey a useful representation of a settlement when done well, but can also look messy, murky and indistinct when done badly. The only guideline I can find for them is the very brief mention here Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy/Archive_14#Are_montages_OK_in_city_infoboxes.3F so I've been bold and added some guidelines to this article, on the basis that anything is better than the current chaos and inconsistency. Are these guidelines helpful? Should anything be added, changed or taken away? JimmyGuano (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Title of this subpage

To avoid confusion, at the cost of slight duplication, I suggest that this subpage would be better as WikiProject UK geography/How to write about UK settlements. The current title encourages messaages such as the one left on User_talk:SkateTier#Demography, which refers confusingly to " The guideline for how to write about settlements", which suggests it's a guideline for all settlements, not just UK. I considered moving the page, then a formal RM, then came down between the two options with this suggestion. PamD 15:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, Pam.  —SMALLJIM  09:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Yup, go for it Pam! Atlas-maker (talk) 08:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Distances

A discussion is ongoing at Talk:Ludlow#Distances about whether distances between places should be measured in a straight line ("as the crow flies"), or by road, or some other way. Editors may wish to contribute, or give pointers to any clear guidance that exists. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Defining a town: Croydon

I have opened a discussion on Talk:Croydon about how to define the town for purposes of population statistics. Any input from editors with experience of similar problems elsewhere would be welcome. GrindtXX (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Political representation tables- undue prominence

Looking at Borough of Scarborough I was struck that the ordering of the table could be manipulated to give undue prominence to minority and defunct parties.

  • By making one column wider than another- some parties have ridiculously long names
  • Ordering columns so a minor party appears to the left of the major party
  • If position is chosen by number of councillors- which is the reference year- by choosing a historical year a blip can promote a minor party

Is there a "wikitable fair-representation" Is there a policy? -- Clem Rutter (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. For the length of names, you could perhaps force the width of the columns. What are your thought on the approach used at Tameside#Council? Nev1 (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I am in two minds it is pretty- but look at the code- unless this can be worked up into a template that can auto-update I think it is non-viable
  • looks bad on the smart-phone- it only displays 2007, 2008, 2010- the rest one needs to scroll. To use the date order needs to be reversed.
  • it would be better if the table was sortable
  • I like the col for year, row for party approach.
  • Its 3 years out of date- could the wikidata guys take a digital election result feed and use a bot to autoupdate the table- we should be able to find a sponsor willing to pay our programmers, maybe a newspaper group? Ask a Westminster insider?
  • This is crying out for a template to make it sustainable.
But back to my question- should we write a few guidelines? I am known to hold a party card- so would prefer someone else to take the lead.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Not keen on the coloured cells on that one as you have to scroll the page to see them, but better for seeing the years, though 2011, 2014 & 2015 are missing. Keith D (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Village or town?

The following (up to 16:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)) has been copied from this version of User talk:Necrothesp as it may be of general interest. Any further discussion should take place here.  —SMALLJIM  16:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:Towns in Surrey

Hi. Both Dorking and Reigate are already in Category:Market towns in Surrey which is a child of the category you added them to. Surely the additional category is superfluous? CalzGuy (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@CalzGuy: In every such category in England, market towns are in both categories. There's a good reason for this: some towns were once market towns, but no longer have town status, so they're in the market towns cat but not the general cat (which is for settlements which still have town status). "Town" is an official status for settlements with a town council; "market town" is unofficial. So in this case they should be in both cats. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
In which case the market towns cat should not be a child of the towns cat. Will you take it out or shall I?CalzGuy (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Probably shouldn't, but it is in almost every county category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

And Devon

I see you've been working through Devon as well. Two questions if I may. What is the source for current town status? And you added both Exeter and Plymouth to Category:Towns in Devon, so are cities towns too? Thanks,  —SMALLJIM  17:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

IMO cities should not be included. Also, if a place has parish council that calls itself a town council, that is a sufficient condition to make it a town, but that is not a necessary condition. In Devon, Moretonhampstead is a town. Further afield, Rochester and Chatham are two obvious towns that do not possess a town council.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd also add that edits like [1] replace one unsourced statement with another. No town council does not make a place a village. The OS OpenNames database is an ideal reliable source for town/village classification, and lists Moretonhampstead as a town.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The inclusion of cities in town categories is frankly inconsistent. Some include them. Some don't. But yes, cities are towns. They're merely towns with a slightly higher status. It's ludicrous and unhelpful not to include them in the towns categories. Source for whether something is a town or not? Its own website (or the district or country council's). If it has a town council then it's a town. If it has a parish council then it isn't. Simple. And yes, that is the technical definition of a town. I really don't think it's helpful to mix towns that are actually towns, villages that used to be towns, villages that are known as towns by their residents but have never actually been towns, and places that aren't towns by any definition (e.g. suburbs with no legal status whatsoever) as we are doing at the moment. In what way is that useful to anyone? What is the category actually for? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks both. Taking towns and cities first, I think most people would be surprised to see cities categorised as towns.
Regarding the village/town distinction, after some research I broadly agree with Necrothesp. Setting aside the various types of historical town, over which at least in Devon there shouldn't be much dispute, the crux is whether the parish council has resolved that the parish should have the status of a town, per s.245(6) of the Local Government Act 1972. None of the places that you have changed category from town to village appear to have taken this step. However Chagford, Chulmleigh, Modbury and Moretonhampstead have (semi-)official websites on which they refer to themselves as towns ([2], [3], [4], [5]), and for these, we should follow WP:V and "provide an inline citation for any material challenged or likely to be challenged". I suggest something like :

Fordleighburystead is a village,{{efn|On its website the parish council calls the settlement a town,<ref></ref> as does the Ordnance Survey,<ref></ref> but the parish council has not resolved that it should have the status of a town, as it could do under s.245(6) of the Local Government Act 1972.<ref></ref>}} ...

Do you both agree with this? I think a Government Act trumps the OS designation, Nilfanion. For completeness, I checked that all seven places that Necrothesp changed category from village to town do indeed have "town", not "parish" councils.  —SMALLJIM  13:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Fundamentally, Category:Towns in the United Kingdom (and the text of the relevant articles) should call a place as a town if reliable sources indicate that the place is a town. It does not necessarily matter what the law says, and our interpretation of the law is is irrelevant (as that is original research), its how reliable sources apply that law in how they describe the place.
I'd disagree here on two counts:
  1. The provisions of the Local Government Act are about creating new towns - merely the mechanism for creating new ones, and it is silent on whether existing towns are defunct. Saying a town is only a town if it meets the criteria of the LGA 1972, introduces complexities very much like that associated with counties.
  2. If something does not meet the criteria of that act, that doesn't mean it is a village either. In Devon, neither Torquay nor Paignton have town councils. But calling them villages is absurd. With smaller settlements (eg Modbury), what reliable source do we have that the place is a village? At best we have it is "not a town for the purposes of the LGA 1972", that's very different from "it is a village".
I'd suggest that tying a common English-language word to a strict legal meaning, when that meaning is not normally applied in society, is erroneous. It would be better to call "towns for the purposes of the LGA 1972" something other than just towns, as an analogy to how "counties for the purposes of the Lieutenancy Act 1997" are "ceremonial counties" - in other words do not attempt to tie the generic words to the specific legal meaning of the act. I'd also suggest this discussion needs to go to a broader venue than a user's talk page :)--Nilfanion (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Hmm thinking about this a bit I'd go for something like Fordleighburystead is an historic [[market town]]{{efn|<ref>For calling it a "town"</ref>, but the parish council has not declared it is a town per LGA 1972 etc.<ref></ref>}} .... That says what is true, notes the detailed legal status (plus a link to a potential article on town status in the United Kingdom), and does not say something that is NOT provided in the sources - as it avoids saying the place is a village.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
@Nilfanion: yes, it is more complex than I at first thought (even in Devon), and taking market town into account, changing the emphasis to something like your suggested note would be OK by me. The important thing is that since the position is complex, we need to forestall potential argument about what is "right", and we can only do that by adding such explanations. We should also explain the different ways in which towns came into being and their status today. I'd like to see this in the lead paras of List of towns in England (and in Town#England and Wales), with good references provided. Regarding categorisation, I think I'm right in saying that the set of problematical settlements is those that were towns prior to 1974 (the Online Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs in England and Wales to 1516 seems to be a useful ref for this), but were not successor parishes under the 1972 Act, and have not made a resolution under that Act to take up town status.  —SMALLJIM  18:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
My biggest concern here is we shouldn't say "X is a village" in the lead sentence, when it is universally known as a town. A few categories (there are probably others):
  1. Cities (Exeter)
  2. A place with a current town council (Newton Abbot)
  3. A large town which was an independent borough with no successor (Torquay)
  4. An historic market town with a civil parish, but has not exercised town rights under the LGA 1972 (Moreton)
  5. A place, covered by a current town council, but with a parish covering multiple places (Lynton and Lynmouth)
  6. An historic town that has been absorbed into a larger settlement (Devonport and Plymstock)
  7. A new town, whether formally designated as such (Milton Keynes) or not (Cranbrook)
My opinion is we should never call those in 1 or 6 towns, we should call those in 2, 3 and 4 towns. 5 and 7 could go either way depending on the situation. When its anything but case 1 or 2 (with a clear status), the body of the article should provide fuller information. However if it is a "town" in the first sentence, the place should be described as a town throughout the article (except its pre-town history).--Nilfanion (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I have to say, with all due respect, I'm past caring! I've emptied the categories of the suburbs and housing estates that their residents like to call towns but which clearly aren't by any definition, of the planned places that haven't actually been built yet that call themselves 'new towns', of the villages that their residents like to think should be towns but aren't and never have been, and of villages that people think must be towns because "well, they're pretty big". I'm sure they'll be readded by someone. Be my guest. Categorisation on Wikipedia is an ongoing nightmare that'll probably never be sorted out. As to places like Torquay, Paignton, Rochester and Chatham, that is true and they clearly are towns, but they were of course screwed with by the introduction of unitary authorities. The joys of British local government reorganisation! As to cities being included in the towns categories, I really don't agree that people would be surprised to see them there, and in fact at least half of cities were already included in those categories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Eh I'm used to categorisation from the Commons perspective, where its a thousand times worse :) For what its worth, OS's own definition of a town is little more than "well, it's pretty big"! I do wish local government had been done sensibly (at any level). In terms of categories it may be sensible to give "towns per the LGA 1972" their own category parallel to the existing "market towns", but below "towns". "Towns with mayoralties" perhaps? That avoids the situation above with regards to the Surrey market towns.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Well here's my 2p worth. First of all, local government in England is a chaotic mess, so there is little point trying to get too picky. Secondly, I would not expect to find cities in a category for towns (and least these do have some official classification). I would also favour an inclusive approach here, so I would agree with Nilfanion about including 2,3 and 4. It also seems odd to include places like Devonport and Plymstock, so I would generally leave those out (but not really get too worked up about it and if there is evidence that they are still commonly called towns, then leave them as towns). 5 and 7 are the hard ones, but I would generally say that if there is any verifiable evidence that they are commonly referred to as towns it would be confusing to leave them out. Where possible we should try and follow the Principle of least astonishment --NHSavage (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Moving on

@Nilfanion: No-one else seems to be interested, so I've edited Moretonhampstead as discussed above. Feel free to amend if you wish. I'll edit the other affected places (as listed above) per consensus after a decent pause.  —SMALLJIM  20:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll have a look at any tweaks I think are worthwhile this week. However, I think we should avoid putting stuff only in the footnote. Important information, such as the date of the market charter, should included in and referenced from the body of the article.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Agree. For M'h'stead the 1207 market is already mentioned in the History section, so I've ref'd it.  —SMALLJIM  23:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Decent pause over: I've edited Chagford, Modbury and Chulmleigh in accordance with the above.  —SMALLJIM  21:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

What's the consensus on defunct wards or districts?

Template:Liverpool is what I'm referring to. JerrySa1 (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Probably they should be there- in a navbox but most will point to an article of a different name where the discussion takes place.
The purpose of a navbox is to direct the reader from a location cited in their written research- to the article that discusses that reference. My ward Frindsbury, was combined with Rede to form Strood North. If you don't know Medway, there is no way of guessing, without that detail occurring in the navbox. It saves a lot of #redirects. -- ClemRutter (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
@ClemRutter Lemme get this straight, they stay in the navbox, and redirect to the district they merged with, right? Or have I got it wrong? JerrySa1 (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I have provided an example for Granby ward in the Liverpool navbox to show what I mean. That was fairly easy- Toxteth was divided among several wards- it is a harder call. My gut feeling there would be to redirect it to the major receiving ward- then in that article to write a subsection == Former wards== where I would add detail of the split, links to other receiving wards, and any other data that is on the former ward that needs to be recorded. I always imagine the 'reader' that will be accessing this text to be a BBC journalist who has a five minutes to put together a radio report, and needs data of a historic nature. Other may disagree, and move it all later.--ClemRutter (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Government or Governance?

This howto indicates Government as a preferred section heading, as used in the Newcastle article. However my straw poll visit to a number of other settlement articles including Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, [Reigate]], Cambridge and others seems to suggest indicate Governance is in widespread use and may be the generally preferred heading. I am minded to boldly propose Governance be adopted as an alternative or preferred heading. (I am minded this may have been discussed somewhere previously and a decision made but this is not obvious from the article). Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

You may wish to review previous discussions on this topic:
  • Current advice on sections (July 2007) which includes the statement "I named it GOVERNANCE rather than GOVERNMENT because most settlements don't have a government, they are governed." (and also included a suggestion that the section be called "politics").
  • Governance section (October 2012) which includes "Personally I do not think that Government would be appropriate when we are talking about parish council level of the structure" and includes the suggestion to use "Local Government".
Although I've contributed to both these discussions (and others I can't find at present) I don't have strong views on this but suspect many readers may associate "Government" with Westminster (and devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales & NI) rather than County, district (including unitary) and parish council functions. Is there a good term which can be applied to articles about all areas of the UK from big cities to tiny parishes for consistency, and will be understood by most readers (including those from around the world)?— Rod talk 07:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Governance to Government changed on 7th November 2010 in the middle of the discussion Governance section (October 2012) referred to above. For the actual change see: change of Governance to Government
    • There appeared to be no really firm concensus at the time.
    • Take up currently seems to be limited even 7 years later.
    • My concern is the examples tried were larger settlements and did not include the various level of district councils, Parish councils, electoral wards, etc etc and how this fits to local settlements
    • My bucket and shovel current personal view is Government makes me thinks of central Government; Politics and Local Politics are about Party Political arguments etc.; Local Government is too restrictive with regards to required section contents whereas Governance covers the field nicely and allows for explanation/exemptions when a Parish Council boundary making little sense in terms of a a village settlement boundary.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. Due to commitments I will not be taking any further part in this discussion for the near future. Thankyou. Others are welcome to continue this discussion/proposal or close it.Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I think that Governance would be a better term than Government as it deals better with all of the sizes of settlements and does not imply Westminster or Devolved Parliaments. Could use Administration at a pinch.
May be worth advertising discussion in the appropriate UK projects to get further input. Keith D (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

This discussion petered out, but FWIW I think governance is the more appropriate title. Settlements don't have a 'government' but are managed at various levels by overlapping tiers of government. In some cases there will be issues to discuss about demands for more self-government or relations with other parts of a council area/nation etc. Governance provides a broader and more appropriate heading for such material. Or, indeed, "Administration", as used in the London article that has passed GA. MapReader (talk) 04:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not think that anyone is advocating the use of Government here and everyone who has commented is in favour of a return to Governance. Keith D (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I think I stand by my proposal of Governance, though not opposed to Administration. Ideally I'd also like we keept consistent with European and World Wide practice if possible (which I cant remember). I can recall I added a Governance to an RoI settlement recently.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

'tis done. No contrary view in nearly a year on the talk page is good enough to justify the edit. MapReader (talk) 04:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Lead guidelines - county references

I suggest the word current (county) be change to ceremonial (county). This helps to avoid the problem of editors and readers thinking that historic counties do not exist. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

When forced into stating positions about the counties, Wikipedia does not take the minority position that the historical counties are extant. See WP:UKCOUNTIES.
When writing about places it is easy to avoid taking a position on this. Instead of writing "Erith is in Greater London and the historic county of Kent", write "Erith is in Greater London. Historically in Kent...". Don't say "it was In Kent until 1965". Say "it has been part of Greater London since 1965".
In short, its perfectly possible to reference the historic counties in such a way that you are not taking a position on whether they currently exist or not.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply, and I can see you have referred to one of my areas of interest. You have illustrated the very problem I hope we can try to mitigate. To call an historic county extant would only apply if it had been changed to something else. There is no evidence at all to show that historic counties have been changed to anything. The make up of local government and a few other things changed with the creation of the ceremonial counties, and the 1965 change for London, but that is all. The ceremonial counties run parallel with historic counties both of which are different. WP policy is to use ceremonial counties as the default, but that is all. It is also WP policy to refer to the historic county in the lead, but not as something that was and is no longer (a habit that causes so many problems). To say that Erith is in Greater London and in the historic county of Kent is no different from saying Birmingham is in England and in the UK. If there are contradictions within WP guidelines then I hope we can sort them out. One contradiction is this ceremonial/current problem. Skirting round the issue with the tactful use of words does not seem to be a practical option in my opinion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

No. Skirting around the issue by using appropriate, neutral language is precisely the correct thing per WP:NPOV (and unlike the guidance you refer to, NPOV is policy). Ultimately there are two views on the current status of the historical counties. One view is that they exist (which includes the extreme view that they are the only counties and everything else is "fake"). The other is that they don't and they have been subsumed by the present units. That second view is the consensus position on Wikipedia, in the pages and pages of discussion about this very issue.
With regards to Erith, saying "it is in Greater London and Kent" isn't too bad in itself. However, it gets much worse when talking about somewhere like Abingdon-on-Thames - to say "Abingdon is in Oxfordshire and Berkshire" is downright confusing. Its best to break those two facts into two separate sentences, as that makes it much easier to read. The same is true for Erith, the alternative phrasing is still clearer.
(By the way I think you misunderstood the word "extant", if they are extant then they exist today. If they are not extant, then they do not exist today.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Abingdon is in the ceremonial county of Oxfordshire and in the historic county of Berkshire. What is at all confusing about that? The use of two simple words, ceremonial and historic, has removed any confusion. This has nothing to do with wp:npov; it is about WP:RS (or lack thereof) and a lack of clarity as to the facts. The minority view that the historic counties are extant': (meaning, I assume, that the majority view is that they no longer exist). Where is the evidence WP:RS to support this? Perhaps the sentence should be reworded to say something like: The minority view that the historic counties should be the primary county level reference point. That is much clearer and much less open to challenge or to confusing people. This whole topic is really quite simple but it has been made into a monstrous mess. The starting point is to ascertain the facts based on evidence. Please do not confuse a POV with not understanding the evidence. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I would seriously say separating the two points into two different sentences makes life easier: Why try to do it in one, what benefit does it give? Two sentences gives it a bit more room and you can add a few extra words to add clarity. The lead sentence in particular is a bad place to try and do a double county reference. That sentence is meant to establish key facts beyond just the county (like the place is a town and is in England).
This is not about the sources themselves, but Wikipedia consensus on how to treat them, there has been a TON of discussion on this (see these for a few instances 1 2, 3, 4 and 5). It's not so much about the sources but community patience, and I'd be pretty confident yet another discussion would get disinterest unless it can present genuine new evidence.
My personal concern with the historical counties is not really their present status, but knowing what their boundaries are. The borders were never static and unchanging, but no changes to the historic units have happened since 1974 - that makes them feel like fossilised concepts not living, vibrant ones. And we need to be able to treat those difficult boundary cases (perhaps the Glos/Worcs border) in the same manner as easier ones.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I find the Wikipedia guidelines on Historic Counties quite confusing. On one hand, WP:UKCOUNTIES tells us that the consensus is that Historic Counties no longer exist. While on the other hand, Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements, says that we can cover the Historic County in the Lead section (I think that saying 'Historically' seems to refer to a time parameter, whereas 'Historic County' is more like a noun). Similarly, the Infoboxes on some city/town pages (such as Manchester and Birmingham) clearly state the Historic County. Also, county flags represent Historic Counties, not Ceremonial boundaries. There are many pages on county flags.

This creates much confusion for people who read Wikipedia pages. Do Historic Counties exist or not? There needs to be consistency on the site. If the consensus is that they don't exist, then having Infobox information about the Historic County could cause confusion about their current status. Also, county flags should then be removed, because they represent Historic Counties. If the consensus is that Historic Counties do exist, then there should be a change to the guidelines such as WP:UKCOUNTIES, to allow Historic County information to be included without any ambiguity. Acapital (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Simple advise- leave well alone. The situation on the ground is not tidy- so it is not in our gift to impose a tidy solution. In places it really doesn't matter but elsewhere it is crucial to understanding the historic funding or lack of it. It explains why my own mother had to leave school at 14 and was thus denied a university education. ( The location of her house reverted from one historic county to the previous one ).ClemRutter (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Acapital. You are correct in highlighting the problem that will not go away - unless the guidelines are changed. Much of the problem stems from the assumption that 'historic counties ' do not exist. This seems to have come from a simplistic view that administrative areas have removed the historic counties (simply because the administrative area is also called a county). Before I am corrected - there is more to it than that, but the generality is true. There is no evidence whatsoever that historic counties no longer exist. The term 'historic' is unfortunate for obvious reasons. Better IMO would be to use the term 'traditional', like the UK govt does. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Roger 8 Roger Thanks for your reply. Yes, this is how I understand the status of the historic counties too, because there are many sources which show that Historic Counties still continue to exist, hence the confusion. That's why when talking about historic counties, I find it inaccurate to say that "A TOWN" was ' historically ' in "A HISTORIC COUNTY". The wording of 'historically' seems to be referring to a time (i.e. the town has moved county in the past), whereas 'historic counties' refer to an actual name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acapital (talk • contribs) 13:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC) Acapital (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

In some cases it's clearly true that historically somewhere was in a county but is now in another county or other administrative area. We need to be really, really clear about this - and not to be overly legalistic about it. So [[Beckenham] was in Kent but is now in London. We can moan and whinge about that all we want, but it's true from a practical perspective. So we need to say something along the lines of:
Beckenham is an area in the London borough of Lewisham (or whatever). Historically it was part of the county of Kent until 19XX when, as a result of boundary reforms...
The distinction between historical and ceremonial counties is lost on most readers - especially casual readers. That's the audience we need to have in mind. Today, for all intents and practical purposes, Beckenham is in London - yes, some people still say they live in Kent and the cricket club still play there, but practically it's in London. That's what we need to emphasise.
The example given about regarding Abingdon is, I'm afraid to tell you, completely confusing to a non-specialist reader. Abingdon's in Oxfordshire. Historically it was part of Berkshire. That'll do - the current attempt at complex, almost legal, language in the lede is a disaster from the perspective of a reader based, say, in Abingdon, Virginia and serves only to confuse - as does the legalistic distinction being drawn between historical and ceremonial counties. If you really want to aim to confuse 95% of readers then maybe you're in the wrong place Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
It is obvious that the situation is complex even for the simplest cases. The ones people get the strong feelings are those "changed" in the 1960s and 1970s. What about the changes of 1845? Or 1889? Those are also important facts and should also be discussed.
If we can avoid taking a POV on the historic counties, that should be our first preference. "X was historically in Y" implies it is no longer in Y. "X is in the historic county of Y" implies Y exists. The problematic part of both sentences is the verb (was/is) not the adverb/adjective (historic/historically).
The best way to do this clearly is to break-up the facts into separate sentences. In particular the lead sentence should be easy to read and not attempt to deal with these nuances. Its task it to sum up the subject concisely. If you were to ask someone to describe their hometown, they would never say "its in this county and this county". They will probably give non-encylopedic info ("its the best/awful"), would pick ONE county, other aspects of the place (its population, its major industry, what river it is on, etc). We should do the same with the lead sentence, and our existing guidance makes it clear that the ONE county we should pick is the ceremonial one. Attempting to get two counties in in the first sentence makes that harder to read. If there is something worthwhile to talk about with alternative counties, they should be mentioned in the lead paragraph but not the first sentence.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree that we should be clear and that separating facts into ones which should go into the first sentence and ones which should go into the rest of the first paragraph is a useful way of doing this. Perhaps I ought to mention that there is a particular "fly-by" editor who enjoys cutting enormous amounts of information from first paragraphs so that any nuances we may like to establish again here get destroyed by his/her actions. This editor also can engage in slow-motion edit-wars and doesn't indulge in any significant discussion according to the BRD guidelines or any advice here about what to include in writing about settlements about such matters. Instead, we gets highly misleading edit-summaries such as "cut a few words" or similar comments, and a repeated comment that what is included in the text is in the infobox, so is not needed in the text (which goes against what I understand are the established conventions), despite having the relevant guidelines pointed out to them on a number of occasions. Can I suggest we are alert to any moves like this, and if you like, you can refer them to me, since I have tried to adopt a no nonsense policy with them when I have come across their actions? I don't think I need to mention who this editor is - you will know their behaviour when you see it. Alternatively, do people think this editor has a point about what is included and its apparent inclusion also in any infobox?  DDStretch  (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

A spate of edit wars has occurred on some SE London articles about Kent-London. I made a comment on the Bexleyheath talk page, which I thought might be relevant here, to Acapital and to other editors. Here is a copied version. "This comment applies to articles about the other nearby places and the edit wars that have just started -November 2017. This problem runs deeper and affects the whole of WP's treatment of the UK. Some facts would help. In context here 'Kent' refers to the historic county, not the ceremonial county. 'London' refers to the ceremonial county, whose correct name is Greater London. They are different things so there is no need to argue that a place is in one county so it cannot be in the other. WP policy is to refer to the ceremonial county as where a place 'is'. It is also WP policy, if relevant, to refer a place's historic county in the lead. For places in Bexley this is certainly relevant. The word 'historic' relates to the past (eg what has made Kent what it is today) but not necessarily to something that has ended (Canterbury Cathedral is an historic building). The word is unfortunate and some people choose to use 'traditional' instead, such as the government. There is no evidence that the HC of Kent has ever been abolished. It has lost its administrative role but that is all. The way local govt has developed and changed over time has been less than straightforward and one ambiguity has fed of another and we have ended up with the confusion we currently have. WP's approach seems to be reasonably well intended but it is not as clearly laid out as, in my opinion, it should be. This has caused the muddle that has developed in Bexley and in most other articles about UK counties. Perhaps we should all attempt to have WP policy and guidelines clarified rather than constantly edit warring." Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Roger 8 Roger Thank you for this context. I think the guidelines relevant to the topic of Historic Counties really does need to be reformed on Wikipedia. If you search Yorkshire, the page currently says it IS a historic county, implying it still exists. This conflicts with other pages on Wikipedia which say they used to exist. Do you know a page on the Wikipedia site where a proper discussion with other Wikipedia editors could take place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acapital (talk • contribs) 12:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC) Acapital (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I certainly support Roger 8 Roger when he talks about SE London. Contrast Erith and Greenwich. For a new editor, the situation is impossible- what is a Historic county, it is a disamb page. There is no text that relates to the very special WP editing page usage. If we look at Ceremonial county we hit further complications as we have no article on some of them. They can include Metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties of England but for example Kent includes Medway
It would help if we sorted out Welling or any town in Bexley and then used it as an example on the project page. Instead of the two examples we have got, we should have one that is easy and one that is hard (more typical of one that would cause difficulty).
May be we could write a Help:WP:Counties page, as the more I look into this the more confused I become, and the new editor must feel the same. ClemRutter (talk) 14:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Coming late to this bu about 10 years ago I was involved in drafting several guidelines (on Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography#Guidelines. The specifically relevant one here would be Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties, but doesn't seem to have been found and last edited in 2013.— Rod talk 18:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
@ClemRutter: "We have no article on some of them" (presumably them = ceremonial counties). If so, which? Surely we have them all?
IMO there are two problems here: The first is this page doesn't properly cross-reference that one about counties (linked by Rodw above). They are not inconsistent, but without the cross-referencing its hard to work out what the combined guidance is.
The second is a desire to give the historic and ceremonial counties equal weight. That can't happen (as we can only have one in the title, and one has to be first in an English sentence). What can, and should, happen is including information about both. Separately and clearly, written in a way that isn't quasi-legal mumbo-jumbo. This page should give clear guidance on how to do that.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

For those who have not seen it, a related matter has arisen on the Belvedere talk page. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem with linking clearly to the WP guidance page on 'counties' is that it is misleading and in part is simply wrong. That is what is causing so much of the problem. IMO the current guidelines page needs to be re-written, and to do this we will need one specific page to discuss the options in depth that everything links to (this page?). There must be hundreds of discussions about 'counties' locked away on numerous articles on WP. Having some form of centralising them would be very useful. I think ClemRutter has made a couple of useful suggestions about using a couple of towns as test cases. I do get exasperated at times when I see discussions falling into the same patterns that achieve nothing. We are making this into an unnecessarily complicated mess, and failing to follow the KISS principle. I do wonder if this problem is being approached from the wrong angle. Perhaps towns should be 'in' the area responsible for local govt? Chatham would therefore in headed Chatham, Medway; Welling would be, Welling, LB of Bexley. Reference to 'counties' would then be reduced in the lead without, IMO, it causing disputes. Reference to 'county' could then be easily handled lower down in the article. And before anyone says that the guidelines are clear and don't need changing, they are obviously not clear and so do need changing. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I hope this discussion can continue in a constructive manner. There certainly needs to be changes to the Wikipedia guidelines about this, with there being so many topic-page inconsistencies (e.g. Yorkshire). I agree with Roger 8 Roger that they are very confusing. However, I think the suggestion @Roger 8 Roger makes about using the local government as an area reference may cause confusion in the long run, because local government areas change all the time, requiring regular updating of topic pages; whereas (historic) counties are a static definition of location. This suggestion also won't work effectively for all settlements, such as in Berkshire, where 'Reading' would be 'Reading, Reading'. Counties are, and have been, very useful to define settlement locations, as long as it is done properly and accurately. There are plenty of clear sources, including from the Government themselves, to show that Historic Counties continue to exist and were not abolished in the relatively recent local government reorganisations. On the other hand, I also acknowledge the existence of the ceremonial counties, and the administrational areas. I hope that one day, Wikipedia guidelines will be updated to correct this and acknowledge the current existence of the Historic Counties.
And if the consensus is that nothing needs to be updated on the guidelines, then it's evident when you observe the inconsistencies currently on Wikipedia. Yorkshire's page currently says it is a historic county. County flags (registered with the Flag Institute) are being added to the county pages, whereas they represent historic counties. Furthermore, WP:UKCOUNTIES tells us that the consensus is that Historic Counties no longer exist. While on the other hand, Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements, says that we can cover the Historic County in the Lead section. Acapital (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't bother arguing any more about whether the HC's have been abolished or not. I prefer to discuss how they can properly be used when editing WP. Some people just 'don't get it', and arguing a point of fact is pointless. They will argue that black is white and you can never change their thinking.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

God save us, not again. Leave it alone. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Leaving it alone won't fix the inconsistencies mentioned above. Acapital (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
What inconsistency? Consider two scenarios: One in which the historic counties were definitively abolished, and that fact was universally accepted; and one where the historic counties had some minor, but practical, function today, while the admin county had most functions. What actual difference would there be between those scenarios on how we wrote the article on Abingdon?
In both cases, the admin county would be mentioned first as the one with the most significant role. In both cases, the fact the place was the county town of Berkshire should be mentioned. In other words, it doesn't matter if historic counties still exist or not.
We would still record the same facts. There is no inconsistency between preferring the ceremonial county, and giving appropriate mention to the historical ones. There is no inconsistency between saying the historic county doesn't exist, and giving mention to it when appropriate.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I truly do acknowledge the existence and current importance of the administrational council areas. But , as I mentioned above, unfortunately there is an inconsistency on Wikipedia as to whether the Historic Counties still exist or not today. The current Wikipedia WP:UKCOUNTIES guidelines tell us that the consensus is that Historic Counties no longer exist.

On the other hand, the current use of registered historic county flags on county pages seems to acknowledge their representation for the county: thus referring to the Historic county. This also may lead the audience to think that Historic county flags represent Ceremonial counties too, which they do not. I have tried to edit this on the current Berkshire page, to clarify that the flag represents the Historic county. Furthermore, the opening sentences of the county pages for Middlesex, Huntingdonshire and Yorkshire currently are written to infer historic counties still exist (e.g. "X" is a historic county). This clearly contradicts the writing in the WP:UKCOUNTIES guidelines.

The guidelines, and the content on some pages, cannot both be true at the same time.

And mentioning the case of Abingdon, it is within the ceremonial county of Oxfordshire, but also within the Historic county of Berkshire. Wording similar to this would clearly state the current existence of both ceremonial and historic counties. That is a massive difference compared to saying it is in Oxfordshire but was in Berkshire historically. The way I read it, using words such as was and historically (in Berkshire) seems to convey to the reader that Historic counties no longer exist today, which substantial external sources say otherwise. The same issue is seen on the Didcot page.

Either way, as an 'encyclopedia', Wikipedia should make it absolutely clear, without any discrepancy, whether or not Historic Counties exist. It does matter. Acapital (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

((Additional to my last response)): I mention the use of words such as was and historically because they appear in the current county topic pages. Acapital (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

From a practical, everyday point of view the area which administers the place is the important one to consider current/ Anything else is historical. We can live in a fantasy world where that isn't the case and Middlesex, as a functionally operating council rather than a name on a map, still exists if you want, but it'll only confuse the heck out of people. Keep it simple - Abingdon is in Oxfordshire and historically was part of Berkshire; Beckenham is in Bromley (or wherever) but used to be part of Kent. There's little point in getting so technical that people don't know what the hell has happened to a place. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Lead- description of settlement

I am looking at this from the POV of a new user- not particularly myself. We are examining counties in the section above, and how to describe the location of a settlement. Can we also give an algorithm to describe whether a settlement- is an area, a residential area, town, village, urban village, ward, parish and civil parish.This is not the same as describing its governance. Here are a few examples taken from the Kent, Bexley border.

Can we make a clear statement, and give examples. It will be claimed it has been done before but we need to have it spelled out for the newbie attempting to write a lead. Discuss. --ClemRutter (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, an attempt to simplify has the potential to make things worse, not better, and we do have reasonable guidance: The content of the main project page! The bit where that guidance is failing is a single aspect of the whole (how to handle counties). We don't need to re-invent the wheel, we just need to tweak the element that is causing problems.
With regards to the type of settlement, that needs to come from what reliable sources call the place. There isn't going to be a simple algorithm to do that, unless you want to give canonical weight to a single source (eg what does OS call it?).
For suitable examples, I would start by looking at high-quality (ie featured) articles). We should be able to find a suitable standard case with no complications around the county. Once that's done, then go looking for another high-quality article that has complications (ie ceremonial county is different to historical county).--Nilfanion (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
One thing I will say is Erith is almost a classic example of what not to do. The lead sentence of this old version was quite poorly written to begin with. It would have easier to read if it had been better split into two sentences. The current lead sentence in this version is truly awful. It brings in yet another fact to a sentence that was already creaking at the seams. That the new fact is relatively complicated too and the whole sentence has become almost unreadable. For instance it appears that Kent is NE of Bexleyheath and NW of Dartford.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

For an example of an article well done, see Glamorgan and compare it to Mid Glamorgan. Very clear separation of the HC and the CC with far fewer areas of confusion and far fewer errors of fact. A glaring difference with HC Kent and CC Kent compared to Glamorgan is that for Kent the name does not change. This has resulted in Glamorgan getting a distinct HC article as well as three CC articles: Kent has one article with the HC and the CC both put into it. The reason for the confusion is patently obvious. Surely this problem of county confusion cannot be put down to something so simple, as editors separating the HC and the CC if the name changes (Glamorgan, Yorkshire etc), but not if the name does not change (Kent, Hampshire, Lancashire etc). Why not agree to have separate articles for the HC and the CC, as with Glamorgan, and not just one article? Headings would say, for example, 'Kent (Ceremonial County)', and 'Kent (Historic County)'. The result would be articles like Glaorgan and Mid Glamorgan, with very little room for disagreement or for confusion.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a completely different issue. Having separate articles on historic or ceremonial counties when they share a name (something I oppose: As a content fork that will inevitable attract severe POV-pushing) is a totally different problem to how to refer to county info in an article about a typical town. Please stay on topic and discuss how we should be writing settlement articles.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
It is very much on topic and relevant to settlements. Settlements can not be put into a county in one article that deals with two different counties. The only way to do it would be to define what county you are refering to at each point in the article, which is clumsy and fraught with potential confusion. If we do not identify the cause of the problem we cannot fix it. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I would also disagree very strongly. I want one article called Kent please when I'm saying where someone was born. Given that I'm often working on 19th century cricketers, it's really useful to be able to write "...Beckenham in what was then Kent" or similar. We really don't need all this phaffing around with drawing an artificial and overly pedantic distinction between historical and ceremonial counties. Most people are just interested in which county it's in now and, perhaps, which ones it might have been in in the past. Sure, we can have a section in each county's article dealing with where it used to be etc..., but in most cases most users don't want to delve into the technicalities of whether or not historic counties still exist. Quite seriously, people need to start thinking about what most users will actually use county names for rather than techniwaffle Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
The reason I say this is off-topic is because this is how to write articles on settlements. When the text of Dover says "Dover is in Kent", it makes zero difference what is actually at the article Kent to the readability of that sentence. Introducing a fork like this will either force Dover to have clunky repetition (it only needs to mention Kent once), or force us to make a POV decision (which one version of Kent do we link?) Both of those make the article on Dover significantly worse. That's why this is a bad idea.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree that we are faced with making potentially clunky repetitions or introducing a POV, if we separate HC and CC. However, that is not a good enough reason for treating an HC and a CC as the same thing, which is what is happening, intentionally meant or not. Even in this discussion there have been a couple of illogical comments made above by experienced editors. I am not sure that Dover is the best example because there are no real trigger points. Settlements within Bexley and Bromley are better examples, I think. By not clearly separating the HC and CC, contradictions appear and the way this is being handled is by introducing POVs. I agree that it might be clumsy to separate the two counties, but I think this is being exaggerated and it is still better than the POV-contradiction situation we have now. For example, saying Erith is in London, not GL (the CC that would conform with county guidelines), we have had to create a consensus exception, which means that GL can be referred to as just London. This is a POV. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
It's not POV, it's common sense and keeps things simple and factually correct for the lead. There can be a section dealing with governance or history in which the arcana get discussed, but we really don't need another article on Kent that will only confuse the hell out of non-specialist readers (i.e. 99%+ of the people who will ever read the article). We already have an article History of Kent which I noticed was piped to from Kent in some article or other. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Its best to start by looking at a typical example such as Dover, rather than a case that changes. Those are the majority of place articles. When you add in the many other types of articles that also reference counties (eg Winston Churchill or AFC Bournemouth), the situation mushrooms. The cases where it does make a difference are the exception, not the rule. Any guidance has to work for those general cases. Once that's OK, then move onto the exception. Don't put the cart before the horse.
London is referred to as London, not Greater London. There is a specific exception there for good reasons, as the City of London is not part of Greater London - while all 33 of the local authority districts (the city plus the London Boroughs) are part of London.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I think you mean ' Greater London is referred to as London, not Greater London.' A good example of inserting a POV to make things easier but in reality making things more difficult. Policy is to use CCs so use them. The CC is Greater London, not London. The reason you give is curious. The city of London can very easily be distinguised from the CC of GL by calling it the city or the city of London, as is done in reality, see wp:commonname. There is no confusion, not even for foregn readers. But, by inserting a POV in outlying places like Belvedere, we are contradicting the common local name (which is Kent first and GL second) Nobody in Belvedere would object to being told they were in GL (as well as Kent), but they would to being told they are in London, because by common name usage they are not - London to them means the area closer in that they get to when they get on the train to go in/up to Town/London (not further in to London. This is not my POV. If I had the time I could supply countless citations.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Please read London to see what the concept "London" is actually all about. "London" typically means the conurbation that is roughly defined by the M25. If London is not the area covered by the London Boroughs (and the City) what the heck is it? Introducing the "Greater" is just not helpful. By the way, the opinion of the inhabitants of Belvedere is definitely not reliable. Its understandable that people will call their home area all sorts of things to make it sound more appealing, and grabbing the name of a neighbouring area is typical. It doesn't mean they are wrong, or right, but people's opinion, especially anecdotally is not worth considering. I'd put much more weight on something like this BBC news article describing an event in Belvedere.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Section order

Shoot me down if this has been done to death before, but is the order of sections listed in the guide intended to be rigid? I ask because for a place, personally I would expect to read about where it is before reading about what happened there. So I'd expect to see the physical geographical sections first, then the human history, then the modern (economy, culture) etc. It looks wrong to have a whole lot of history, governance, etc., and then to arrive at a section that says where the settlement actually is. MapReader (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, and have always disliked placing the history section, and especially the governance section, before geography, particularly on articles about small settlements where the surrounding landscape is important to the inherent nature of a place. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I am not convinced for a couple of reasons. First, history invariably comes before geography on all articles about places - regardless of whether that place is a village, a subnational unit, a country or a continent. That means this isn't a UK-specific convention but a global one, so this probably isn't the right venue. I'd feel very uneasy about switching the order on articles about settlements (which are almost exclusively human geography) while the broader regions that contain them (and to which physical geography is a more important topic) have the "standard" order.
Secondly, and more importantly, I think it makes more sense to put the history first. While I fully agree that the "where" of the place is probably the single most important fact, the "story" of a place starts with its origins. The important aspects of local physical geography are those that actually influence the human settlement (as opposed to merely being the backdrop it is placed over). Those influential aspects express themselves through the history.
Most of the topics covered within the geography section are relatively minor aspects of an article that is primarily about human activity: The climate of a city is likely of less interest than its economy to most readers. That also suggest the more secondary nature of the section.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
The location is usually at the top of the infobox, with coordinates and often a map reference, so that does come first. The rest of the physical geography detail is usually not so important and would, IMO, fit lower down. The human geography detail is dispersed throughout the article as appropriate, such as demographics, which also seems to be correct. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't believe that the matters in the geography section are "relatively minor" - in most cases the location, topography, climate and land use - have influenced why the settlement is where it is (on a river, near fertile farmland or mineral resources, good sea port, connections with the capital, etc.) and history is usually and clearly secondary to the geography. MapReader (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
IMO readers care more about what is in the city (buildings, sports clubs etc) than where that city is in the broader landscape. To a city, the chief importance of a physical attribute is its impact on human activity. eg Torquay is on the coast, and that location led to mass tourism. The tourism is intimately linked to the coastal location, but its status as a tourist destination is more significant than the fact its on the coast.
I think you would be better off looking at the broader geographical regions first (which are beyond the scope of this guidance). There is a stronger case for putting geography before history on Isle of Wight than there is for Ventnor.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Having contributed to more than a few settlement articles, I agree with Nilfanion and, having copyedited the Peak District I couldn't have put it better. J3Mrs (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Small village, village, small town, town

What are the rules for describing a settlement as a small village, a village, a small town or a town? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Those who like to have rules about these things go by the following historical model: if no church, then hamlet; if church [not chapel!] but not market charter then village, if market charter but not city status then town. In modern times: if parish council then village, if town council [decided unilaterally by council], then town. "Small" is subjective and therefore POV. Thems the rules and rules is rules. Or you could just wp:be bold and see if anyone cares enough to revert. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Small (or large) should be discouraged. The choice of town/village/hamlet should reflect usage in reliable sourcing, as should any other factoid presented on WP.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks both, for the advice. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Just as a p.s., there are also the options of coming at it by way of a fact (..is a town of X population or households) or comparison (..is the largest town in the county of.. or ..situated five miles from the larger town of..). These sorts of facts are easy to source and make the point without having to choose an adjective of your own. Alternatively a travel guide might contain a descriptive word that could then be cited as a source. MapReader (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hyphens, dashes and spaces

In this sub-section it says "Ampersands should not be used except in company/partnership names, e.g. Marks & Spencer". This is broadly common sense. However, as an example, I sometimes add trade stuff where a lack of an ampersand can cause confusion. If I write: at the time the village included "a butchers, bakers, and a post office and shop", this can be read as four separate establishments, whereas there might only be three entities, the shop being combined with the post office as one business or partnership. I can tend to write it as "a butchers, bakers, and a post office & shop". Now there are ways around this but the writing does get very over-wordy and clunky. A 'post office & shop' indicates a single combined business, just as 'Marks & Spencer' suggests such an a entity or a single business established by two partners. Is there any mileage in adjusting this sub-section. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Section name: - etymology or toponymy or name

Issues have occurred due replacement of etymology/name with toponymy on a couple of Irish settlement articles recently. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure#Etymology or toponymy or name for any interested. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Bot discussion

@Smalljim, Peter James, Mhockey, Rich Farmbrough, Adam37, Geopersona, Johnsoniensis, Noswall59, Ddstretch, Dsergeant, and Robert EA Harvey:@Martinevans123:@Nilfanion:@J3Mrs:

A discussion over the possibility of creating a bot to apply text to civil parishes that do not have articles is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_England/Parishes_RfC

If anyone cares to read the discussion and has views on the topic, you are welcome to contribute. Those pinged have edited this project page, or have been significant contributors to place articles. Acabashi (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Redundant words

I notice that 'located' in Common words and phrases to avoid, as "is located in", is stated as redundant. After seeing this and agreeing I began replacing it with "is situated in", but 'situated'—seen in many articles—I felt was just as redundant, so don't use either now. Is there any mileage in adding 'situated' as a word to avoid, as "is located/situated in", to suggest that just "in" is adequate enough. If there is no objection to this I could add it. Acabashi (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Acabashi. I’ve been thinking about located and situated for a couple of years and had actually intended to write something about their use (and the relevant How to write about settlements policy/guidance) on this talk page. Firstly I would agree with you that whatever is decided about located should also apply to situated. Secondly my feeling is that the policy is too strongly worded and/or strictly interpreted. The relevant item requires editors to avoid using located, but to my mind, this does not mean that the use of the word is completely forbidden. Sometimes its removal by an over-zealous editor results in a sentence or paragraph which sounds unnecessarily clunky. I suspect that the original intention was to prevent sentences such as this from appearing: The church is located in Church Street, the school is located in School Lane and the railway station is located in Station Road. I am obviously exaggerating for effect, but I think the original intention of the guidance was to prevent overuse and not all use of these words.
So for example I recently wrote in the history section of an article on a town:
It is unclear where in the town the Anglo-Saxon church was located, however its medieval replacement was constructed to the north of the High Street.
To my mind, it would be impossible to remove located from the above sentence without making it sound awkward, (but I realise that this is a rare example).
My proposal would be to replace the current policy item with a new clause which read:
In most contexts, the words located and situated are redundant and should therefore not be used.
Newmarket is located in Suffolk, approximately 63 miles north east of London. - not allowed
Newmarket, in Suffolk, is approximately 63 miles north east of London. - allowed
Occasionally however, the omission of one of these words may result in a lack of clarity and, in these rare cases only, they may be used.
How does this sound? Mertbiol (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
How about using "about" instead of "approximately"? It's eight letters shorter. (!!) Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Agree entirely with Mertbiol. In the wiki world certain words and phrases are sometimes used as buzz words that do not reflect the exact common usage meaning of that word. They then catch on and multiply rapidly throughout similar articles. 'Located in' is one such example. Common usage in both colloquial and formal or encyclopedic English would usually be the 'town is in xxxx', not 'located in'. Exceptions to this rule are rare and relate to specific examples in context. Even if it becomes a little clumsy to say 'the church is in Diss, in Norfolk, in East Anglia, in England' the first choice for an editor should be to rearrange the sentence to make it flow better rather than to throw in 'located/positioned'. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
This has irritated me for some years. As a geographer by training, there is absolutely nothing wrong, or redundant, about using the word "located". The location of a site (building, town, etc.) is a specific aspect of the site that is capable of being analysed and discussed in some detail. It is simply sloppy and clunky language to say that somewhere is "in" a wider area, rather than saying specifically where it is located (and indeed why it is located there). Unfortunately, many editors do not understand the degree to which the English language is capable of subtleties in the use of words. I oppose any blanket restriction on the use of "located" - let alone "situated" - though obviously in many cases the words can be used unnecessarily. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Do you think "Diss is located in Norfolk" is better than "Diss is in Norfolk", seeing as Norfolk is a large place and "Diss is located in Norfolk" does not show specifically where Diss is. Are you saying that there should not be a blanket ban on the use of 'located in', or that 'located in' should be used only when the context allows? Put another way, which is the default phrase, 'is located in' or 'is in'? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't think there is any need to be prescriptive over this - but it is certainly wrong to have a presumption against using the word "located". Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
There never was a presumption against the word ‘located’, and there is an example of its good usage above. The issue is the phrase ‘is located in’: “Madrid is located in Spain” means precisely the same as “Madrid is in Spain”. MapReader (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
But, "Exeter is located at the lowest bridging point of the River Exe" is far better than "Exeter is at the lowest bridging point...".... etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
That could be the cause of interminable discussion! Sidestepping, however – wouldn't something like "Exeter was founded at ..." or "Exeter developed at ..." be even better? More information in the same or fewer words.  —SMALLJIM  23:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
That's fine. The point is that it's incorrect to presume against using "located". Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not seeing it, to be honest. And "far better" is clearly nonsense. "The bridge is at the narrowest point of the river"; "the village is at the highest point of the pass" - such phrases don't improve from the insertion of padding. MapReader (talk) 08:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
So, you would prefer "The position of the town is determined by its being at the lowest bridging point of the river"...  ? Using "located" is not "padding" - it's specificity of language. Your suggested wordings are simply statements of fact - they do not offer any explanation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Again, you are missing the point that "located" isn't the problem, nor is your new "location", or indeed your newer "position". This discussion concerns "is located at". Your latest phrase looks wordy and convoluted, and if I needed to write such, I'd say something like "The town developed around the river crossing closest to the sea". Clear plain English is always better. MapReader (talk) 08:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
But why use the sledgehammer of seeking to prohibit one particular form of words, when the overall requirement of using "clear plain English" is already set out? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The formal answer is that it's a regularly occurring example of redundancy and the real answer is probably that it's someone's personal hobby horse. Possibly WP's biggest problem is that many low trafficked articles are full of such badly written stuff, and it's remarkable how many words you can take out of an article simply by going through and cutting out all the padding. But it's time consuming work, and people create content faster than those editors willing to copyedit can pull it into shape. My personal hobby horse is film articles with stuff like "After release, the film garnered widespread critical acclaim from critics and audiences alike, with major praise directed towards the storyline and the performances of the cast" when you can just say "Critics praised its storyline and the acting". It's the WP disease. MapReader (talk) 08:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that was the original intention, however the policy as it stands is not sufficiently clear and is interpreted by some over-zealous editors as meaning that any use of the word located is forbidden. Mertbiol (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
WP:TERSE cites Strunk. His advice is good: use the words only when necessary.  —SMALLJIM  22:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I kind of agree with everybody here. The heading Common words and phrases to avoid indicates clearly what it means: the examples are not proscribed but best avoided. Surely unless a word adds or clarifies meaning, it becomes waffle padding, which of course might be fine for creative writing. There are cases where 'located' cannot be avoided, but where it can, it should, and I thought 'situated' could be seen in the same light. Acabashi (talk) 12:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The problems arise when what some editors see as necessarily precise wording is seen by others as unnecessary waffle. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
True, and that will always be the case with much that is written about anything. But when I've changed lede stuff such as "Xxx is located/situated in Xxxx" to "Xxxx is in Xxxx", it has never become contentious, so far touch wood, and if it does so, it could be taken up in specific article Talk pages. I think the guideline as written isn't at all bad. I'm asking if the comparable situated could be included alongside located. Acabashi (talk) 13:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I fear you are very much in a minority when you say "the guideline as written isn't at all bad." Clearly there are a number of us that feel that the current wording may be read as a prohibition on any use of the word located (and is interpreted as such by over-zealous editors). My suggestion is that we get the policy right for located first and then we can add situated later. Mertbiol (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps true again. And this small addition proposal has effectively bled into a wider discussion on the whole Common words and phrases to avoid guideline. You, or someone else who thinks the guideline is flawed, might like to set up and propose here an example for a new "Avoid redundant words such as" in Common words and phrases to avoid for discussion... maybe it's the "redundant" bit that could be seen as a problem; perhaps it needs its own bullet point? Acabashi (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
"....when I've changed lede stuff such as "Xxx is located/situated in Xxxx" to "Xxxx is in Xxxx", it has never become contentious..." may simply mean that some editors just sigh, shrug their shoulders, want to avoid futile arguments over good vs. clunky style, and just walk away. Life is too short to get into "contention" over such matters - but, it's still irritating. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • As it seems this hound is set to run on endlessly in circles or fizzle out exhausted without resolution, I suggest we change the sub-head from 'Common words and phrases to avoid' to 'Common words and phrases to watch', as used in MOS:WORDS.
Also suggest removing "is located in" under bullet point 'Avoid redundant words such as', and to add (this wording up for grabs; other word examples could be added), under a new bullet point, either:
"Located" and "situated" are superfluous, unless unambiguously required to maintain sense [or]
Avoid superfluous words such as "located" and "situated", unless unambiguously required to maintain sense
Acabashi (talk) 12:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
At the end of a discussion much of which has concerned itself with the difference between discouraging “is located in” and the word “located”, your suggestion is to move the focus onto the word itself?? Very brave, minister.... MapReader (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
It seems in the discussion the phrase "is located in" has been meshed with the word "located". I don't mind the present guideline at all as I can cheerfully get rid of "is located in" by quoting the guideline. Others have a different perspective, so a compromise could be helpful, perhaps with what is suggested. But so far there has been no further comment; have I frightened the horses, Humphrey? Acabashi (talk) 13:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
It would just shift the argument onto whether the word resolves ambiguity or not. It's not ambiguity that's the issue - it's to do with precise meaning, and clunky vs. non-clunky style. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm generally with Ghmyrtle on this matter. There is a danger here of over-proscribing the usage of particular words. Clear writing does not necessitate always adhering to the inclusion or avoidance of particular words. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

There was no consensus to change and a new proposal is required. Mertbiol (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I would like to propose that the following item in the guidance:

  • Avoid redundant words such as "is located in", "the two are both", "they brought along", "they have plans to", "they were all part of", "the last ones to form", "both the towns", "outside of the town", "all of the towns", "received some donations", "still exists today", "it also includes others", "many different towns", "near to the town", "available records show", "to help limit the chance", "Christian church", "in order to", "first began", "joined together", "future plans" and "in the year 2007".

be replaced with:

  • Avoid redundant words such as "the two are both", "they brought along", "they have plans to", "they were all part of", "the last ones to form", "both the towns", "outside of the town", "all of the towns", "received some donations", "still exists today", "it also includes others", "many different towns", "near to the town", "available records show", "to help limit the chance", "Christian church", "in order to", "first began", "joined together", "future plans" and "in the year 2007".
  • Avoid the phrases "is located in", "is situated in" and "is positioned in". The use of the words located and situated outside of these phrases is not prohibited, but in many (but not all) cases they may be avoided by rephrasing.

Please indicate whether you support or oppose this proposal below. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Support... seems to cover it for me... others might like to tweak it a bit I suspect. 'Avoid the phrases' could be 'Avoid superfluous phrases such as', as a general guideline to cover other examples of superfluity that might occur, and giving a reason why the term/s should be avoided. Acabashi (talk) 12:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose the proposal doesn’t change discouragement of the listed phrases, makes the guidelines more complicated by introducing an apparent distinction between the redundant words within the phrases of the first bullet and those of the second - where none really exists - and perpetuates the grammatical inexactitude of the existing wording. The guidelines should lead off with “avoid adding redundant words such as those highlighted in bold within the following phrases:” MapReader (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry I don't understand the point(s) you are making here. Can you make an alternative proposal please? Mertbiol (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
It would be: “ Avoid redundant words such as those highlighted in bold within the following phrases (with the bolding as currently): "is located in", "the two are both", "they brought along", "they have plans to", "they were all part of", "the last ones to form", "both the towns", "outside of the town", "all of the towns", "received some donations", "still exists today", "it also includes others", "many different towns", "near to the town", "available records show", "to help limit the chance", "Christian church", "in order to", "first began", "joined together", "future plans" and "in the year 2007". MapReader (talk)
I'm afraid that, for me, this simply perpetuates the current confusion. Overzealous editors will still recognise located and situated as "redundant words" whenever they occur. It is not sufficiently clear in your proposal that the objection is confined to the phrases is located in and is situated in and that use of the words in other contexts is allowed. Mertbiol (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Then you are missing the key point, which is that the weakness of the existing wording is that it misuses “word” by following it with phrases. The key point is that the bolded words are redundant within the example phrases that follow. Correcting this error would resolve the issue IMHO MapReader (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
If I am missing it, then others will as well. Your proposal starts "Avoid redundant words such as those highlighted in bold" - you are not making it sufficiently clear that you are objecting to the phrase rather than the word. Mertbiol (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
And I should also add that the wording in my proposal does not "[misuse] “word” by following it with phrases." Mertbiol (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
But, it does, very clearly. The objection is not to the words, but to their redundancy within the example phrases as listed. Resolve this error, and the entire problem is resolved. MapReader (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

"The objection is not to the words" - yes we agree!!

-My proposal does not "[misuse] “word” by following it with phrases."
-But, it does, very clearly.

Huh? No my proposal very clearly objects to the phrases "is located in" and "is situated in", but then states that other other uses of the words "located" and situated" are permitted. What is wrong with that? How am I "misusing "word""? Mertbiol (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I oppose your proposal, and have given my reasons. End of. Wait for others’ views, or come up with something better. MapReader (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with the intent but the proposal as it stands is not clear enough. Roger 8 Roger (talk)

Second Proposal

I would like to propose that the following item in the guidance:

  • Avoid redundant words such as "is located in", "the two are both", "they brought along", "they have plans to", "they were all part of", "the last ones to form", "both the towns", "outside of the town", "all of the towns", "received some donations", "still exists today", "it also includes others", "many different towns", "near to the town", "available records show", "to help limit the chance", "Christian church", "in order to", "first began", "joined together", "future plans" and "in the year 2007".

be replaced with:

  • Avoid redundant words. For example - in the following phrases, the words in bold should be omitted: "is located in", "is situated in", "the two are both", "they brought along", "they have plans to", "they were all part of", "the last ones to form", "both the towns", "outside of the town", "all of the towns", "received some donations", "still exists today", "it also includes others", "many different towns", "near to the town", "available records show", "to help limit the chance", "Christian church", "in order to", "first began", "joined together", "future plans" and "in the year 2007".

Please indicate whether you support or oppose this proposal below. Thanks and best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you and I have corrected the proposal accordingly (i.e. word -> words) Mertbiol (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Acabashi (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Although I think this is fine, it is only part of a wider problem. The changes proposed are not harmful but not really necessary either. The previous guideline-wording is unacceptable because the phrases mentioned are not good encyclopedic English, and should be changed for that reason, not because the guidelines say they should be: ditto for the revised version here proposed. Guidelines can be dangerous because they give an impression of correctness and certainty to what is often no more than the opinion of a couple of editors who are keen to put into some sort of rule as many variables as possible, meaning into fixed templates and rules of style. This causes laziness in some editors who tend to fit everything into a box that might not suit for that given situation. Although not a guideline, but a 'box' created by constant use, the term "is situated in" is a good example of this, where so many editors use it because everybody else does, irrespective of its inappropriateness in most situations. Uniformity and consistency within related articles are of course important, but this can be overdone: the need to allow suitable variations as well should also be stressed, which it often is not. In this situation of redundant words, I think the new guidelines should begin with Be careful of using words unnecessarily, such as... This allows for use of those words where appropriate but also warns that they are usually not needed. It does not state it as a fixed rule, as the proposed wording does: Avoid redundant words. Many editors will not know when a word is redundant in any given phrase and will focus on the instruction not to use that word in all situations. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree.. that's why I suggested we change the sub-head from 'Common words and phrases to avoid' to 'Common words and phrases to watch', as used in MOS:WORDS. What is 'redundant' could be endlessly debatable, however, the addition of waffle and padding isn't: so 'Avoid redundant' could become 'Avoid superfluous', which would make it clear that the words identified are valid when unambiguously required to maintain sense. Acabashi (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Qualified support, but agree strongly with Roger 8 Roger and Acabashi that the phrasing should be "to watch" and "be careful of ..." (or similar), not a prescriptive "avoid". The bottom line is that verbosity is always to be discouraged; but that there will inevitably be cases in which, whether in the interests of precision or just fluent English, a slightly longer form of words is acceptable and preferable. I note that on this very guideline page (under "Depopulated settlements") we say "if a later city, town or village is located close to the centre of the old settlement and absorbs almost all of it ... (etc)". That sentence would be grammatically correct without the word "located", but it would force the reader to work harder to comprehend the point being made. GrindtXX (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I think we are moving towards a consensus, however for transparency, I think we will need a third proposal. I apologise for making everyone vote again, but (to prevent an outcry later), I think we need to do this by the book. Mertbiol (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Third Proposal

I would like to propose that the subheading in the guidance:

Common words and phrases to avoid

be changed to:

Common words and phrases to watch

and that the following item in the guidance:

  • Avoid redundant words such as "is located in", "the two are both", "they brought along", "they have plans to", "they were all part of", "the last ones to form", "both the towns", "outside of the town", "all of the towns", "received some donations", "still exists today", "it also includes others", "many different towns", "near to the town", "available records show", "to help limit the chance", "Christian church", "in order to", "first began", "joined together", "future plans" and "in the year 2007".

be replaced with:

  • Be wary of using superfluous words. For example - in the following phrases, the words in bold may be omitted: "is located in", "is situated in", "the two are both", "they brought along", "they have plans to", "they were all part of", "the last ones to form", "both the towns", "outside of the town", "all of the towns", "received some donations", "still exists today", "it also includes others", "many different towns", "near to the town", "available records show", "to help limit the chance", "Christian church", "in order to", "first began", "joined together", "future plans" and "in the year 2007".

Please indicate whether you support or oppose this proposal below. Thanks and best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The second proposal was fine. “Avoid” isn’t a blanket ban. “Be wary of” is a pitiful lead in to “superfluous words” - if the words are superfluous, they shouldn’t be used. Turn it around and what it says is “think before using superfluous words”, which is patently absurd. “Be wary of” is a warning for something that may or may not be dangerous or undesirable, such as “be wary of loose paving stones”. Following such an intro with something we obviously don’t want is weasel wording. We’d be better off saying nothing; if our guidelines spelled out everything we might be wise to be wary of, they would be five times as long already! MapReader (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have no objection to this suggested improvement, provided that all the examples are removed. The words highlighted are not necessarily either superfluous or redundant. Some, but not all, add meaning, while others are simply matters of style, and their use should be left to editors' discretion. Certainly, superfluous words should be avoided, but the inclusion of a list of purported examples simply provides opportunities for editors of a certain persuasion to say "Look, we should not use these words because they are in this list", and go searching for examples to be deleted. Editors should be allowed more discretion over matters of style. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per MapReader. By the way, if we are going to mention "it also includes others", we should also mention "Examples include", which is an even more irritating tautology. Also, "they are both" is probably a bit clearer than "the two are".---Ehrenkater (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Comment Would it be better if the examples used are full sentences rather than short phrases. That would show why given words are superfluous in context, something that a phrase cannot properly do. Eg, "In the sentence 'Deal is located in Kent' the word 'located' is superfluous and not necessary." Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Kudos for actually coming up with a sentence where the word ‘superfluous’ is not necessary (or vice versa) ;) MapReader (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The second proposal got three supports, one qualified support, and no opposition. I don’t really understand why the OP is making us flog this dead horse of a third proposal? MapReader (talk) 13:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree with that. The second proposal could have been recast to something a bit neater, but it did the job and got the votes. The proposal (within the third proposal) for a change to Common words and phrases to watch is new and I think valid. Acabashi (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Why? "to watch" is weak and implies no action whatsoever. MapReader (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
(e/c) It only "got the votes" from a very small number of people in a very short period of time!. By the time I'd noticed it, the discussion had already moved on so I didn't bother commenting on it. I have done now. Less rather than more prescription wins my !vote. And "located" is not necessarily redundant, though it often is. (Redundant: "Exeter is a city located in Devon." Not redundant: "Exeter is a city located at the lowest bridging point of the River Exe." Which is a much shorter way of saying "Exeter is a city whose location is determined by its being at the lowest bridging point of the River Exe.") Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Both examples are equally redundant, and for precisely the same reason. But my alternative wording for that sentence upthread is better, and clearer, anyhow. MapReader (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Your example - "The town developed around the river crossing closest to the sea" - is correct, and accurate... but different. And your comment in relation to my wordings, that "both examples are equally redundant", seems to be simply based on ignorance of what the word "located" actually can be used to mean. The two examples are making different points, one badly, and one perfectly well. There is no reason to prohibit both. Your wording is fine - so is mine. Unless you want to go through every sentence in the encyclopedia to come up with a "perfect" wording, some discretion should be left to editors. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Query. Is there, somewhere in the MOS or elsewhere, some general Wikipedia guideline promoting concision and discouraging verbosity? I feel there must be, but I can't find it anywhere. If there is something suitable, could we not link to that in the guidance here, in the same way as we currently do in the "Dos and don'ts" section, and with reference to peacock terms? GrindtXX (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Support (just) Be way of is fine and is better than Avoid. I would be happier though if example sentences were inserted, such as those given of Exeter by Ghmyrtle. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
The only way to rescue it is to return to the second proposal, which won some support and no outright opposition, and give editors some time to either support or oppose it? MapReader (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Support the first part of the proposal: to change the subheading to Common words and phrases to watch. Avoid on its own is strong and prescriptive. As for the second part of the proposal, I agree with Acabashis comment. I would also comment that if avoid were softened eg 'Common words and phrases to avoid where possible' then it would be not be as prescriptive. As a user who expands UK settlement pages, I look at this 'How to' quite often but I find this whole section a bit of a misdeed. While it does have some content that matches the GA criteria, a lot of it seems to be personal grammar perspectives rather than necessary matching what is outlined at Wikipedia:Manual of Style. I also agree with Mapreader's last comment as there needs to be more discussion on this avoid section before a decision is reached. LordHarris 09:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

New Year's resolution

In an attempt to breathe life into this expired donkey, I intend to change the wording in one week's time to that proposed by Mertbiol. This 'Second Proposal', with no objections, seems to be the least objectionable... such is often the way with consensus, i.e:

  • Avoid redundant words. For example - in the following phrases, the words in bold should be omitted: "is located in", "is situated in", "the two are both", "they brought along", "they have plans to", "they were all part of", "the last ones to form", "both the towns", "outside of the town", "all of the towns", "received some donations", "still exists today", "it also includes others", "many different towns", "near to the town", "available records show", "to help limit the chance", "Christian church", "in order to", "first began", "joined together", "future plans" and "in the year 2007". Acabashi (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose change. Too prescriptive. As mentioned before, the only reason I did not object previously was because the discussion had (I thought) moved on. Specifically, the preoccupation with removing, in all cases, the phrase "..is located in.." (or "...at".., etc.), is simply misguided, for reasons already explained. The current guidance, without the prescriptive words "should be omitted", is preferable. Just let it be. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
There is obvious contention with the wording as exists – this cannot by denied. It would be useful and very constructive if you could make your own proposal for a change which includes advice for weeding out instances of waffle shown in the phrases above. Acabashi (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I have already made several proposals, earlier in this discussion, which I had hoped would be considered useful and constructive. You want me to repeat them, unnecessarily?! My specific point is that while most of those words can always be omitted, some (in particular the word "located") should not always be omitted because in some circumstances it conveys additional meaning. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I concur with Ghmyrtle; the proposed change is too absolute and prescriptive. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons given – far too prescriptive. If you want an alternative proposal, we have one above in Proposal Three above: "... to watch" and "Be wary of ...". But avoid "avoid", because overzealous editors, with insufficient awareness of the subtleties of English, will take it as an absolute ban. Yes, verbosity should always be discouraged; and yes, phrases like "located in ..." are often superfluous; but in a significant minority of cases they are not. As I mentioned above, we have an example on this very project page, when we say "if a later city, town or village is located close to the centre of the old settlement and absorbs almost all of it ... (etc)". That is better and clearer English than any alternative, and has been in place without criticism for 7 years. GrindtXX (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I would Support, but I can see that the ship has now sailed. If the OP had implemented the edit after the earlier discussion it would probably have got done without objection, but there we are; the opportunity passed when we meandered off into option three. MapReader (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I would agree with Ghmyrtle and PaleCloudedWhite - let's not make a slightly unsatisfactory situation more unsatisfactory. thanks Geopersona (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Transferred - a further word to watch

Rather than take the previous section off course, I have started another section. Hopefully this word, 'transferred' can be added to the list. The following, (using relocated instead of transferred) from the Sydenham article is typical of the sort of nonsense phrase so prevalent in articles about UK local government. Historically, the area was very affluent, with The Crystal Palace being relocated to Sydenham Hill in 1854. A pretty massive undertaking I suppose? Here is a much better, and correct, use of the term in the Twydall article: In 1998 responsibility for local government was transferred from Kent County Council to the newly created Unitary Authority of Medway. This distinction is important because the first use of the term is often used to give a totally false view of what has happened with local government reforms. Eg, Town A was transferred from area B to area C. When what is meant is that local govt responsibility changed. Town A wasn't transferred anywhere! The consequences of this sloppy use of the word 'transferred' are many, adding significantly to the confusion that permeates so many articles about UK places. Can we also add something to the guidelines about this term, 'transferred' (and relocated)? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I am beginning to wonder whether you are really trying to subvert this discussion? The Crystal Palace was indeed physically moved from Hyde Park to what is, now, called Crystal Palace. What on earth has this to do with words that are superfluous? Or indeed not necessary? MapReader (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Both words 'transferred' and 'relocated' are not in themselves redundant or superfluous, and have different meaning in different context. I can't think of any common phrase where these words become superfluous... there could be some examples of course. There may or may not be mileage in this concern, but I think we should sort out the wording lead-in of the bullet point discussed in the section above before we complicate things farther. Acabashi (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
@Acabashi, I agree it is better not to pursue this line, even under a second heading, while the other 'superfluous' topic is worked through: it can cause confusion, as it already has. I think there is merit though in looking at certain terms such as "was transferred to", that are commonly used in place-name articles, because they are often misused, rather than being unnecessary. They are also regularly misused in certain sources which complicates matters further. But yes, superfluous words should be dealt with first. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Italics on pubs?

User:Bmcln1 and I are in dispute over whether the names of pubs (White Lion, George and Dragon, etc.) should be italicised. I see no reason why they should (we don't italicise other businesses) and I actively remove italics from pubs when I come across them, while Bmcln1 is adding them where they aren't present. Our discussion is on their talk page. They suggested I sought consensus, so here I am. Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Here's the discussion so far. Sorry, it got lost en route. Bmcln1 (talk) 13:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

"Re your revert at Llanrhystud‎, what logical or policy justification is there for italicising pub names? There's no support at MOS:ITALIC and I can see no good reason for italics. Pubs are not works of art, and we don't italicise the names of other buildings, schools, companies, etc. Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I can't see pubs mentioned. We are dealing with habits here, not reasons. Pub names are commonly italicised on Wikipedia pages to do with UK places. If it offends you, perhaps you could say so on a Talk page and gather people's thoughts on the subject. Bmcln1 (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion here. Your arguments fail to convince me, I'm afraid – the fact that MOS:ITALIC doesn't mention pubs is surely an argument that they should not be used, rather than that they should. "We are dealing with habits here, not reasons." is simply WP:ILIKEIT. Besides, habit doesn't imply correctness: people habitually italicise quotations, despite it being expressly discouraged by MOS:NOITALQUOTE. "Pub names are commonly italicised on Wikipedia pages to do with UK places." is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and without analysis I don't think that precedent or preference is established. There's no obvious justification for italics, so in the absence of positive guidance from MOS I think the onus is on you to provide justification for their use, rather than the other way round. Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

"...Pub names are commonly italicised on Wikipedia pages to do with UK places.." Not so far as I'm aware. If I see that italics have been added in error, I remove them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed – I see no good reason for italicising pub names: the only vaguely comparable name-type conventionally italicised is that of ships etc., which is a special and isolated instance. As institutional names, pub names are adequately distinguished by being capitalised. For what it's worth (and I accept that this is not a guideline we're obliged to follow) the Oxford Style Manual (2003 edn, sect 6.4) says that names of restaurants and hotels should not be italicised, but should be in roman without quotation marks: no explicit mention of pubs, but one of its examples is the Eagle and Child, which sounds like a pub to me. Where there's some possibility of confusion (e.g. between the Edinburgh Castle pub and the actual castle) I'd have thought quotation marks were preferable to italics. GrindtXX (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
If I can't find a rule on a question, I tend to look for a Featured Article and see how that has treated the question. The first UK place I spotted in the "Geography and places" FA list was Keswick, Cumbria. See the section Keswick,_Cumbria#Public_houses_and_hotels. Not an italic in sight. And to be on the safe side this is the version which passed FA in 2014, or thereabouts. PamD 17:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Dave.Dunford. There is no special significance for pubs that warrants italics for the names, and this is not mentioned as necessary in MOS:ITALIC. I suspect this is done to avoid some confusion, but this can be easily remedied by recast of sentences. In the example given above by GrindtXX, I would normally go with "Edinburgh Castle (pub)", as I often do with roads, adding (road), where there might be confusion. It might be worth taking this to the WP:MOSTEXT Talk to see if clarification can be added to MOS. Acabashi (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Distances in the lead

The guidelines currently state that the lead paragraphs should include the distance of the settlement from the county town or main settlement. However, many articles about UK settlements include several distance indicators in the lead. This information is often duplicated in the Geography section. A case in point is Lowestoft. I recently removed all distance information from the lead - given that it was precisely duplicated in the Geography section. Blue Square Thing restored it, pointing out the WP:UKCITIES guideline; see this, and subsequent, edits - [6]. If we are to have multiple distance indicators in the lead then the guideline needs updating. Alternatively, the plethora of such indicators throughtout UK settlement article lead paragraphs should be trimmed down. I would favour the latter approach, since the distance of a settlement to numerous other locations is not a defining feature of a settlement. It's fine to have a distance to the nearest major settlement, per the current guidelines, and of course to have other distance indicators in the Geography section, but I don't think we should have such detailed information in the lead. Thoughts on this please. Pikemaster (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Remember that we're locating places in the lead to help readers figure out where somewhere is. The way we do this will vary, depending on the place and where exactly it is. For Lowestoft, for example, it's certainly legitimate to locate it wrt Norwich and, I think, Ipswich. The London bit might go, although with large towns, like Lowestoft, I can see why we might opt to keep London in. Certainly Lowestoft is clearly much more closely related to Norwich than it is to Ipswich, the county town.
With smaller places - and in shorter articles - I can see sometimes having 2, 3 or even 4 distances, depending on the situation - if somewhere's pretty much equidistant between three market towns, for example. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Climate data at settlements - problematic sources

There has been some vigorous attempts to place climatic information from dubious sources on UK settlement articles in the past. I've just reverted a recent addition at Bognor Regis by an IP but I could easily see a more widespread problem/battle about to occur. Just a heads up at the moment. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Now raised at WP:RSN#Fantomon's climate data website as no response here as IP is insistent to win edit war and no consequence for IP but a block for me. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Infobox template

In the section on Infobox there is a note of two exections to the use of {{Infobox UK place}} - do we really need the second exception?

civil parishes and community council areas in England and Wales which include more than one notable settlement;

This came about because of the deletion of the specific template that was supposed to be used for this situation. Can we not just use the standard {{Infobox UK place}} and avoid having the civil parish using one infobox and the settlements that are in the civil parish using a different infobox. For consistency it would be better to remove this exception and go with the UK specific template for both circumstances. See Ingatestone and Fryerning which uses {{Infobox settlement}} while the two settlements, Ingatestone and Fryerning use {{Infobox UK place}}. We will have to add "Main settlements" to the {{Infobox UK place}}. Keith D (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Support - Agreed, have a single template for places and parishes as they correlate in many cases, the sidebar look will be consistent, places which have the same name as its parishes can enter 'parish' as the 'settlement type' option which activates the light blue bar which spans the sidebar, while non-matching placenames can refer to its civil parish in that field. Some other fields might have to be brought over such as coat of arms shield as more than two images might not be supported, etc. Regards, The Equalizer (talk) 10:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • This was brought up here and I raised it here in response. As I said in the latter I'm a bit concerned that information such as post town and dialing code etc are more likely to be difficult and less appropriate for CP that are only CPs due to the CP potentially being in multiple post towns etc. I'm not opposed to this change though as long as the "Main settlements" is kept. I would point out that districts such as South Cambridgeshire and Selby District also use the "Infobox settlement" and districts that have similar boundaries as well like Bristol (which is the 2nd exception to the UK place infobox) though Bristol does list the area code and postcode. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Swale, the UK template allows multiple entries of most fields, and additionally are mainly optional so post town etc could be left out if it is a polycentric post location and instead explained within the prose? Those two district examples predate the creation of the UK template. Agreed on carrying over several fields including the settlements. The Equalizer (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
The multiple post town and dial code etc. apply which ever template is used, it is not something being introduced by this proposal. Districts use the {{Infobox settlement}} template as per How to write about districts so are not covered by this proposal. Keith D (talk) 13:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason why CPs that aren't settlements need to use the infobox designed for settlements while districts use the one for administrative units? Ingatestone and Fryerning is a lot more similar to Nuneaton and Bedworth than it is to Grange Moor. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Not that I am aware of, may be we could switch them over at some point, I was just trying to reduce the exceptions and get consistency here. Keith D (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps we should have a particular template that deals with all administrative units in England? Though I guess many will think that's unnecessary. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
We should probably also have Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about parishes like Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about districts and Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties perhaps based on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England/Parishes RfC, User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes and User:Crouch, Swale/Civil parishes/Splits. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Probably too many of them as the settlements and the parish can be covered in a single document. Much better to have one rather then trying to keep 2 in step as there would be little difference between them. Keith D (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
When covering settlement and parish in one article we need to make it very clear which population (and area possibly) we are giving. Does the infobox allow for two separate populations if both are known (perhaps both parish and built-up-area subdivision)? Even if just one figure is given we need to specify whether it's the settlement or the parish. PamD 00:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes we should never state "village" when referring to parish data, I correct this every now and then. For the text in the article I tend to use something like "in 2011 the parish had a population of X" but for the infobox I don't clarify this, see Monkton, Devon though maybe we should. Does having 2 infoboxes (especially if there is population data for both BUA and parish) seem like a good idea as with Goosnargh? IMO a subpage for parishes would be useful despite the fact most are covered in a settlement in the same way the how to write about settlements applies to the likes of Hastings even though its a district. The likes of Ingatestone and Fryerning would be covered by it and it could still clarify things like the fact that when settlement and parish have the same name they generally have only 1 article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Post town obsolete?

As an aside, is there much point in keeping the post town parameter as it is now obsolete in the real world? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

None that I can see. Past its use-by date. Delete. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Population ... of what?

We have many articles which sensibly begin "X is a village and civil parish..." (and perhaps some other combinations), but then go on to tell us the population without specifying which unit the population figure refers to. Can we tweak the infobox to include a field in which the relevant population unit (civil parish, built-up area, ward, etc) can be shown, in such cases? And can we specify that "Total resident population" in the lead should clarify this too? eg "The parish had a population of nnnn in the 2011 census". The "Demography" section can give any more detailed population figures for the different entities referred to by the article name, as in Silverdale, Lancashire. PamD 14:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd support this per Wikipedia:Separate articles for administrative divisions to settlements#Describing in articles it would be good if the population and area (and thus population density) could be provided for more than one figure. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Density should not be auto-calculated, but should be an option as certain smaller populations counts are merged. The Equalizer (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
There is a hack where the population_ref field can be used to format multiple population counts, but some markup knowledge is required, so extra fields that can do this would be handy. However, census numbers of local entities and subdivisions aren't always clear-cut and unseasoned editors might not appreciate how to properly isolate correct figures, that the smaller a place is the less likely there will be separate local figures for parish/village/built up area/ward etc, or realise some small or little-populated areas figures will not be readily available. The Equalizer (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

'Common words and phrases to avoid'

"Avoid redundant words such as "is located in""

Yet "located" is used several times in this article. Harfarhs (talk) 12:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

True, but the specific phrase "is located in" isn't used. The sentences "Chigley is located in Trumptonshire" and "Chigley is in Trumptonshire" mean the same thing are are equally easy to understand, so why use a longer sentence when a shorter one will do? There's no absolute ban on "located", just a request to avoid it where it makes sense to do so. In the two cases on the project page where "located" is used, it would be more awkward to rephrase to omit the word.  Dr Greg  talk  12:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Historical county

There is nothing in this guideline that creates basis to ignore the long established position that we do not take the view that the historic/ancient/traditional counties still exist with the former boundaries. For the avoidance of doubt, wording such as "Bexleyheath is a town in south-east London, England, located in the historic county of Kent." is not compliant with either guidelines. Article should use current UK geography and guidelines should not be used to game the system. MRSC (talk) 06:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Might be worth adding an example that includes historic counties to the guide. The use of historic counties needs to be supported by the main text, and be in context - thus personally i believe the guidelines should be reworked so geography, history, and other items are separated to avoid confusion. This should help to improve articles and ensure the guidelines support using historic counties where it is relevant to do so... historically. They are not geographic in nature, and certainly shouldnt be used as a location indication in the way of the Bexleyheath example provided. Garfie489 (talk) 11:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
The primary reason Kent is mentioned in the Bexleyheath lead is because it is of significance to the culture of the place. That is also why Kent is not mentioned in the lead to somewhere closer in to town like Lewisham. I agree that what goes into the lead should be a summary of the main points in the lead below. There is currently a discussion in the talk London article that seems to be heading towards adjustments to the way HCs are handled, with what appears to be some fresh thinking in this otherwise very stale ongoing discussion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_settlements/Archive_4&oldid=1167283604"