Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places)/Archive 4

addendum tweaks

The addendum consists of text that was added after the policy was voted for. I have brought the section of text following the asterix within the addendum and added an N.b. clarifying that it was indeed added as an afterthought and was not put to the vote. I thought this deserved to be made clear; nothing else has been altered. 80.255 23:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Redundant or competing pages: Places, countries, etc.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions for a discussion on consolidating pages. Maurreen (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Trad counties of England infoboxes

Buckinghamshire
Geography
Area (1831)	477,151 acres
Rank	Ranked 32nd
County town	Buckingham
Chapman code	BKM
Divisions
Type	{{{Divisions}}}
File:Buckinghamshire Traditional Numbered.png 1. Slough 2. Beaconsfield 3. Great Marlow 4. High Wycombe 5. Chesham 6. Princes Risborough 7. Wendover 8. Aylesbury 9. Winslow 10. Buckingham 11. Fenny Stratford 12. Stony Stratford 13. Newport Pagnell
History
Established	{{{Established}}}
Succeeded by	{{{After}}}

In Buckinghamshire (and no doubt others) user:owain appended one of his hobby-horse infoboxes (see right) to the end of the standard infobox, as if it were part of it. An unfamiliar visitor could very easily mis-read the info as current and believe that Buckingham is the county town. It hasn't been so for over 400 hundred years! This is obsessiveness taken to extremes. For now, I've moved it down to the para on "places that are no longer part of modern Bucks" and copied it to History of Buckinghamshire. In my mind, the latter is the only reasonable home for it and I am minded to pull it from the main article since it adds nothing. If it were a copy of one of the old county maps, it would amount to something. Shown in the context of the UK as a whole, the differences are invisible. --Concrete Cowboy 17:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

This is why we need separate articles on the traditional counties. In a Buckinghamshire (traditional) article, this infobox wouldn't be confusing at all. More detailed maps of the traditional counties could also be provided on such separate pages. I cannot see a single reasonable objection to this. 80.255 17:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy with that proposal. Of course if I were the one writing the article, I wouldn't be happy becuase very few people would read it. On the other hand, if it were in the History of Buckinghamshire, then it would be very useful indeed - and people would read it! --Concrete Cowboy 22:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

As if it were part of it? Come on - it clearly says "Traditional county of ..." at the beginning of it! It adds nothing? It shows the traditional county in relation to the other traditional counties! All of the Scottish and Welsh counties have them. I would call suppressing valid information "obsessiveness taken to extremes". Owain 18:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Update: I've tweaked the infobox so it does show a more detailed map of the traditional county of question (in the case of Bucks) and thus the differences are obvious in comparison with the administrative map. In my view, this would still be better on a separate page, but at least it can no longer be argued that "shown in the context of the UK as a whole, the differences are invisible", because they aren't! 80.255 19:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I personally object to these infoboxes, as it gives the impression that wikipedia endorses the position that traditional counties still exist. Which is not NPOV. G-Man 18:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

It is POV to suggest that they DON'T exist. Read the relevant legislation. Read the government statements. Local government was loosely based on traditional counties between 1889-1974, and now it isn't. So what? Why should changes to something 'based on the counties mean we should ignore the counties themselves? We shouldn't. The addition of traditional county information to articles doesn't remove anything, so what's the problem? Owain 19:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Neither should wikipedia endorse the POV that they don't exist. Particularly as the government says they do! Personally, I think I trust government statements over your own opinion, G-Man, if it came to a choice between the two...80.255 19:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

That is still a disputed POV, and is not neutral. This certainly belongs in the history article. G-Man 20:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Preferring one POV over another would not be neutral, and that is what you are proposing. I am proposing including both POVs (if that's what you think they are). Clearly, not preferring one over the other IS neutral. The fact that the infobox would also be useful in the history article is no reason to remove it from the main article. That would be POV. Owain 20:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

But our policy does clearly prefer one approach. That "we do not take the minority that the [traditional counties] still exist with their former boundaries". How exactly is this complying with the policy. G-Man 20:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Nothing exists with former boundaries, by definition. I quite agree that no county exists with its former boundaries; in the case of all the traditional counties, they only exist with their current boundaries, as they have continued to do since 1889, having never been abolished. I and Owain are both wholly complying with your beloved, hamfistedly-written policy. 80.255 21:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, re-phrase to say "we do not take the minority that they [counties] still exist with their former boundaries". So again how is that complying with the policy. G-Man 21:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

You haven't re-phrased anything already. Of course nothing exists with its former boundaries, else they wouldn't be former boundaries. Example: Carlisle isn't part of Durham - that is a former boundary, which was abolished. Hartlepool is part of Durham, because the boundaries of the traditional county of Durham has not been abolished. I've never claimed that any former boundaries exist, as the very idea of something-that-no-longer-exists existing is a contradiction in terms.

You claim that the traditional counties do not exist, but not once have you provide a shred of evidence to support this claim. Go and find me a bill that repealed them. There is no such bill. My position is based on 1) the fact that, according to the law, the absolutely no reason why they should not exist, and 2) according to the government itself that passed the 1972 Act, "[this Act] will not alter the traditional boundaries of Counties." - that is pretty clear-cut statement; it couldn't really have been clearer. I've asked you this before and you have never replied to it, but I'll ask it again: should wikipedia officially take the view that this Government statement was a bare-faced lie? If you believe that the counties do not exist, you answer to this can only be "yes", and the POV ball is very firmly in your court. Of course, you'll need to put in a clear statement that "although the government issued a statement saying XYZ, it was lying!", in several articles...80.255 22:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

"The position of the government" that's a bit of a stretch. Your single piece of evidence for this assertion, is a single statement made 30 years ago, which in itself has no legal force. And could be interpreted as meaning that traditional loyalties of county cricket for example were not intended to change. What the government said was utterly contradicted by what they actually did. If they really meant that, then why for example did they allign the ceremonial counties with the new administrative ones instead of with the historic ones?. And why did they stop producing statistics for historic counties (which happeded as early as the 1920s I believe). It seems to be something that various governments occasionally pay lip service to as a sop to traditionalists, rather than as something they take seriously. You also fail to point out that there is no-longer any direct reference to historic counties anywhere in law. And your sole argument for the surposed "existence" of historic counties is that they have never been formally abolished. Which in itself is quite frankly a very weak argument indeed for claiming that something "exists", and has very little relevance to the real world. I'm sure there are many obscure pieces of legislation which have never been formally repealed, but are no-longer taken notice of. I believe it is still technically legal for an Englishman to shoot a Welshman with a bow and arrow within the grounds of Hereford cathedral for example, as this medieval law has never been repealed. G-Man 19:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Why can't you see what is written in front of you in black and white? They don't have "former boundaries" they have CURRENT boundaries. No piece of legislation since (and including 1889) has even attempted to changed them. Owain 21:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

So your clearly treating the policy with contempt again. I dont care about your personal opinions. You either take the line of the policy or you dont. G-Man 21:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I am doing no such thing. Where does the policy forbid inclusion of traditional county information in the sole article about it? In fact it encourages it with the statement "Articles about counties should not be split up and should not be disambiguation pages". Owain 08:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Can't we do something to resolve the county issue? I don't think the ceremonial or traditional counties need to be mentioned at all in most cases, i.e. where they are the same as the administrative county. Where places have changed county recently (last 10 years?), it needs a mention in the main article but anything older should be in History of...

Separate pages for each traditional county would go a very long way to resolving this issue. Then there would be no complaints from anyone about different maps, etc. 80.255 19:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I was looking at Ryhall yesterday. "Rutland" appears 9 times in a short article and "Leicestershire" not at all despite Ryhall having been in Leicestershire for 23 years until 1997. --Cavrdg 18:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Er, Ryhall was administered by Leicestershire for 23 years, but it's been in Rutland for 900. I'm not sure I understand your objection.Owain 19:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

More importantly no-one has agreed to these boxes being put into articles. There is no agreement that they should be, and they are clearly controversial. You have taken it upon yourself to put them there. Can I ask you to stop putting them into articles until this has been discussed further. G-Man 20:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

My 2p (since the article being disputed is one I have put a lot of work into) Buckinghamshire (traditional) and History of Buckinghamshire should be one and the same. My intention is to expand the history article so that it's significantly more than just what was forked from the main article: a lot more can be said, I just haven't got around to it yet. The whole idea of traditional counties being modern tangible entities is ridiculous, and I can speak as one who lives in modern-day Buckinghamshire, that the "Traditional County of Buckinghamshire" doesn't exist in a modern context. Thus anything referring to the traditional county belongs in the history article.

Also at a recent committee meeting of one of the historical societies in Buckinghamshire (where I am a trustee) I had (for statistical purposes in an unrelated exercise) grouped Buckinghamshire together with Slough and Milton Keynes and got the general response, "what do you want to do that for? We were bloody glad to get rid of them..." -- Francs2000 | Talk 23:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's a pity the government disagrees with you, isn't it? Do you think wikipedia should officially state that the British government has repeatedly lied when it has issued official statements saying "The new [1974] county boundaries are solely for the purpose of defining areas of ... local government. They are administrative areas, and will not alter the traditional boundaries of Counties"? It doesn't strike me as at all NPOV to claim that the government was lying. But perhaps you think we should clearly state that "wikipedia delcares that this government statement was a lie" in the relevant articles? 80.255 23:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

So tell me where this "traditional county" exists then, and what effect it has on the lives of the people who live in mordern-day Buckinghamshire? Why, in the 26 years that I have lived here, have I never heard of it? Why, in the 5 years that I have been the trustee of a history society in Bucks, have I never heard mention of it? How exactly does it differ from the Ceremonial County that is already mentioned in enough detail in the Buckinghamshire article? I will certainly be seeking the opinions of learned local experts on the existence of this "traditional county" of which you speak.

You need more than the wording of a 1974 act of government to convince me, I'm afraid. Acts of parliament have always been woolly in their wording and interpretation and unless you can provide evidence of this "real" place that meets with the opinions of other local experts (which I will seek out tomorrow, don't fret) then I won't accept that you're coming from a NPOV. -- Francs2000 | Talk 23:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

"So tell me where this "traditional county" exists then, and what effect it has on the lives of the people who live in mordern-day Buckinghamshire? Why, in the 26 years that I have lived here, have I never heard of it?"

Many people haven't heard of many things; that doesn't mean they don't exist, unless you're a solipsist! The many laws have little effect on most people, but remain legally in force.

"Why, in the 5 years that I have been the trustee of a history society in Bucks, have I never heard mention of it?"

Presumably because this history society is happy working in terms of administrative boundaries, and not traditional ones. What has that got to do with the price of fish?

How exactly does it differ from the Ceremonial County that is already mentioned in enough detail in the Buckinghamshire article?

The boundaries of the traditional county are the bounderies that were used administratively prior to 1889. In 1889, a new set of "administrative counties" (so-called) were created, and the original "counties" were explicitly left untouched; they were not repealed, nor was there any implied repeal of them; the government, the courts and official censi recognised their continued existence in the years following. It is these counties to which the government was refering to in the statement I reproduced above. In 1974, the "administrative counties" of 1889 were explicitly abolished, so the accompanying government statement say that "the traditional boundaries remain unchanged" clearly wasn't refering to these "administrative counties".

The traditional county differs from the ceremonial county as per the illustrative graphics of both now uploaded.

I will certainly be seeking the opinions of learned local experts on the existence of this "traditional county" of which you speak.

You'd be better off seeking the opinions of learned legal experts. The fact that some people falsely believe that the traditional counties have been abolished doesn't mean that they have. As I have said before, this government statement is very clear; it isn't taken out of context, and it also shows clear the intention of the 1972 Local Government Act bill - as I'm sure you know, 'intention' is most important when it comes to determining what Acts of Parliament exactly mean, and statements, both to the public and to Parliament, have often been used by Judges in their interpretting of statutes.

Acts of parliament have always been woolly in their wording and interpretation and unless you can provide evidence of this "real" place that meets with the opinions of other local experts (which I will seek out tomorrow, don't fret) then I won't accept that you're coming from a NPOV.

See above. As I previously mentioned, why should 'local experts' be experts in parliamentary law? I have never claim that the traditional counties are used exclusively by everyone; merely that they unequivocably exist de jure, and that wikipedia, if it values factual accuracy, should make this clear in separate, unconfusing articles about them. 80.255 00:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Please also answer the question: So tell me where this "traditional county" exists then, and what effect it has on the lives of the people who live in mordern-day Buckinghamshire? I won't be able to respond to any of your other points until tomorrow. -- Francs2000 | Talk 00:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

So tell me where this "traditional county" exists then - what do you mean by "where it exists"? It exists as a set of boundaries that, through both statute and common law, has the legal recognition of the British state.

and what effect it has on the lives of the people who live in mordern-day Buckinghamshire?

As much or as little effect and the individuals who live in Buckinghamshire wish; they all have free wills. How much effect does the ceremonial county have on the lives of people who live in it? Do you even think that the majority of the public even know what a 'ceremonial county' is? Or what a Lord Lieutenant actually does, or represents? Effect is quite irrelevant to legal existence, and this question strikes me as a classic straw man, attempting to avoid the point by trying obfuscate the real issue here. And that real issue is: wikipedia should accurately representent legal facts. 80.255 00:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

wikipedia should accurately representent legal facts - I cannot dispute your legal claim (see below) though Wikipedia should also aim to represent the facts appropriately (see below) -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

In answer to your previous response I'm afraid I can't count that many legal experts among my many contacts and so cannot do as you suggest. What I am objecting to mainly here though is that you want to create a separate article that basically says The such-and-such Act 1974 was so worded that the pre-1974 boundary of Buckinghamshire was never officially abolished and some believe that it is still relevant today. If it's still relevant to Buckinghamshire it belongs in the main article, if it's relevant to the history it belongs in the history article. In all honesty it could go in both. I don't see why you want to create a separate article with its own infobox to say what I've just managed to sum up in a single sentence. From my position it seems that all you're doing is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and I fail to see how creating a separate article called Buckinghamshire (traditional) would be less confusing to the casual observer. If it affects modern-day Bucks, it goes in the main article. If it doesn't, it goes in the history article. What could be simpler? -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Not quite. What I want is separate articles for all the traditional counties, and the administrative and various other counties clearly labeled as such in their titles, so that places can be easily linked. For example, the article on Eton could then be written "Eton is a place in the Unitary authority of Windsor & Maidenhead, the ceremonial county of Berkshire (ceremonial) and the traditional county of Buckinghamshire (traditional)." At the moment, all these different county-types link to the same page, and it's naturally very confusing. Splitting them up into separate pages would allow us to make it clear that they are different entities. The whole idea of using ceremonial counties for organising articles is also confusing; there is no such thing as "Berkshire County Council", yet there is such thing as "Kent County Council", whereas people who live in Tunbridge Well are being told that they are in Kent, those that live in the "Medway" unitary authority are also being told that they are in Kent. It would be a lot clearer to tell these people that they are in Kent (ceremonial county). As it stands, many of the place articles have an info box listing, amongst other things, the ceremonial and traditional county. At the moment they both link to the same article, which also serves as the administrative county article. It's ridiculous from the standpoint of clarity. Eton, for example, links to the Buckinghamshire page under "traditional county", but the Buckinghamshire page now has no information on the traditional county of Buckinghamshire! What good is that? And you claim my suggestion would be confusing?!

What I am objecting to mainly here though is that you want to create a separate article that basically says 'The such-and-such Act 1974 was so worded that the pre-1974 boundary of Buckinghamshire was never officially abolished and some believe that it is still relevant today.'

No, I want a separate article that deals with the traditional county of Buckinghamshire, so that when places are linked as being in traditional Bucks, the reader is actually taken to a relevant page, and shown a proper map of the entity in question, not a map of some other type of county called 'Buckinghamshire' that's used as a Lord Lieutenancy or anything else. The fact that the traditional boundaries of Buckinghamshire still exist precludes them from only being mentioned in the history article. The traditional county is a current entity and some people use it. Those people who choose not to use can use something else; I am not advocating the removal of all the administrative county articles, merely the use of a comprehensive system in which all the various types of 'county' have separate articles that clearly demonstrate their differences and that can be linked to.

And no, I am not 'disrupting' anything to make a 'point'. It is the current, badly-thought-out policy that has caused the disruption. 80.255 12:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Well I am willing to concede to the fact that some people still refer to Eton as being in Bucks (though I have asked the question of people I know who live in the disputed area and every single one of them has come back with "no, it's in Berkshire") but I still cannot agree to splitting off stuff from the Buckinghamshire county article. I don't think your suggestion can be achieved without repeating oneself unnecessarily.

Your argument is that the current Buckinghamshire article does not mention this traditional boundary. So change the article then. I still think your suggestion would lead to more confusion when essentially, and for the vast majority of cases, we're talking about the exact same county, just at a different time period when the boundary was slightly (and it is slightly) different.

I also feel that it would be preferable to include a map of the pre-1974 boundary and to mention that some people believe this is still relevant in the text, rather than using a separate infobox, because the infobox is still leading the casual observer to believe that a separate county is being discussed that is an entity in itself, which isn't the case. I do believe that "some people believe this is still relevant" is correct, as I say I have been speaking informally to contacts and mailing lists since this arose, and so far you are the only person who is saying that the southern-end places are still in Buckinghamshire. If it's written in law I can't dispute that, however laws can be (and often are) irrelevant to what people who live in the area believe, as has been shown following my enquiries.

I do believe that this whole process, as far as Buckinghamshire is concerned, is being overly disruptive. You have explained that your reasoning behind wanting a separate article is because the current article doesn't mention what you want it to, so rather than amending the current article or discussing amendments to the current article, you are proposing a whole new (and in my opinion unnecessary) article that would divert the user away from the valid (and relevant) information on history etc already contained in the main Buckinghamshire article.

I apologise if I am overly defensive or ill-mannered with regard to this topic, however this has gone on for the last two years and to be frank I'm tired with it coming up again. It's also come up at the worst possible time for me work-wise, but that's my personal stuff.

Incidentally, my enquiries around Milton Keynes and its environs produced the answer "It's still in Buckinghamshire, it's just administered differently" from the same people who said that Slough and Eton were definitely in Berkshire. So there you go. -- Francs2000 | Talk 18:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add my voice to Francs2000 - these article should be merged and the Trad infobox attached to the merged article - that makes structural sense and avoids any POV/NPOV. Thanks, Ian Cairns 23:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't avoid POV at all. The traditional county deserves its own article; the history section also deserves its own article. All different entities should have their own article; to attempt to mix them will only cause confusion. 80.255 23:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

They deserve their own articles, yes - but if we ARE going to have one article it should mention everything! To have a policy that dictates having one article but then restricting what can be put into it is a nonsense. Owain 08:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

How about one article with three different main sections: Administrative county, Ceremoninal county and Traditional county - they can all have their own descriptions of boundaries, relationships with other entities, infoboxes, &c. Trying to shoehorn them all into one descriptive paragraph at the beginning is not working. If you look at Monmouthshire it has two headings: The principal area and The traditional county. Both relate to infoboxes of the same name and there is no ambiguity, confusion or loss of information. If we are going to have one article, then surely this is the way to do it? Owain 08:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm content for 80.255 and Owain to have their Buckinghamshire (traditional) article. He can play in his sandbox to his heart's content, because very few people care enough about the subject to visit it. At least it stops him cluttering up the main article. --Concrete Cowboy 09:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

So you want three different articles: Buckinghamshire (administrative), Buckinghamshire (ceremonial) and Buckinghamshire (traditional) as well as a History of Buckinghamshire? Owain 10:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's not forget Buckinghamshire (1889-1974 administrative county) and Buckinghamshire (1974-1997 administrative county) Morwen - Talk 10:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, why not have articles on all of them? They are/were all discrete entities, and all differ in their boundaries. 80.255

No I don't. A single article is (and was) perfectly ok before you started cluttering it with disproportionate detail, at too high a precedence. The history of boundary changes is interesting, but for goodness sake have a sense of proportion. The trad county infoboxes (soapboxes?) are completely out of scale. The issue is exactly the same as it would be if someone put a great big infobox giving the historical route of the London to Oxford turnpike and all variants of what is now the A41 before people ruined it by driving motor cars on it. Or if somebody wanted to show all the railways before that d____d Beecham chappie took his axe to them. Yes, it is encyclopaedic material, but it has to in proportion to the article - otherwise it needs a separate article. --Concrete Cowboy 12:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

For example, the trad county map in Warwickshire is proportionate and is particulary relevant in that case. Put a dirty great big infobox in and you knock out all the photographs. As it is, there is a peculiar white space above the material on Coventry. --Concrete Cowboy 12:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

...which is why a Warwickshire (traditional) article would solve this problem. Then places that are in the traditional county but not in the administrative county can be linked to the right article, without the reader having to mull over lots of different maps showing different entities in order to work out which one applies to XYZford. 80.255 12:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Formal mediation on 'Counties of Britain'

I think we need formal mediation about this issue. Make a list here if you are willing to participate

1. Morwen - Talk 08:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
2. Owain 09:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
3. Chris Jefferies 11:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
4. --Cavrdg 20:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The convention is that there should be a Request for Comment first. --Concrete Cowboy 12:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• I don't see any guidelines about that... We've had plenty of opinions, anyway. Morwen - Talk 12:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

What exactly does formal mediation entail? This matter needs more discussion first, which is what we're all doing, anyway. 80.255 12:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Mediation. The idea is that independent meditors will be able to work with everyone and try to find a solution that everyone can consent to. I don't think the current discussion is productive, we have been going around in circle for 2 years. Morwen - Talk 12:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I think, first of all, it would be more useful to (neutrally) itemise the available options/alternatives and discuss/comment on each of them. The reason that this current discussion is unproductive is that it is aimless. There needs to be a more focused discussion on this if a consensus it to be reached that is acceptable to all parties. 80.255 12:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that would just generate more verbiage. Are you refusing the offer of mediation, then? Morwen - Talk 12:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

...which is why it needs to be focused. Perhaps I'll post a suggestion a little later this afternoon; I don't have time at the moment. I'm not refusing mediation, but I do not feel that we have exhausted all constructive discussion yet. 80.255 13:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Just a point of fact for the record. We did go to RfC on 7th July, see the RfC section further up this very page. Chris Jefferies 13:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I misunderstood: I thought that the reference was just to the new infoboxes. Yes, I accept mediation. It is clear that at present there is no meeting of minds. The participants don't even seem to tuned to the same channel. --Concrete Cowboy 16:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I think formal mediation might help us focus in order to achieve consensus. Why would it be better to do this without help? Chris Jefferies 13:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Which issue is "this issue" being referred to? (SEWilco 17:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC))

You're right, SEWilco, it's not very clear. This long page discusses a whole slew of place name issues. The formal mediation suggestion is specifically for the matter of the policy on British county names, articles on the counties, and referring to counties in articles on towns etc. I'll tweak the title of the mediation section to make it clearer. A lot of the discussion on this page is about those matters, but there's other stuff here too. Maybe we should move all the county stuff to a new page of its own. What do others think about that? Useful or daft?

One other thing, could anyone who wants to be included in the formal mediation process add a line to the list at the top of this section? It may not be enough just to mention it in passing in the text here. Thanks. Chris Jefferies 19:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Other subnational entities

I see a lot of discussion on UK Counties, etc. here, but what should we do about countries we don't know much about? i.e. we don't know, say, the official format of Benin, or Afghanistan, or what not. Some areas prefer the format "X Department", some prefer "Province of X", others are simply "X", like the USA. What should we do about these? Should we have a standard naming format (in format, not name; "department" and "province" above are simply examples), or give preference to local standards? (There are proposals under discussion at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (subnational entities) but there is a lot more discussion taking place here, and this is arguably the better location for it, since, well, UK counties and such are subnational entities :)) I hope this is the right place to do this. --Golbez 15:34, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

afaik Term of X only used in "Province of X" (Italy) and "Canton of X" (Switzerland). Others provinces and cantons that are subnational entities of present day countries do not use this form. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for consensus

Having read through the recent discussions on this page again, there seem to be two main complaints:

1) That the traditional county infoboxes that were recently added to some articles take up too much space and give undue prominence to something that the article is not (or should not be) primarily about, and

2) that information on the traditional counties should not be allowed to dominate articles primarily about administrative entities, and that attempting to incorporate both is often confusing and inappropriate.

The following suggestion is designed takle these objections by doing two things:

1) prevent main/general articles where the administrative area is of primary concern from being "swamped" with references to or information on traditional counties - the main complaint about the traditional county infoboxes above.

2) Keep the primary emphasis on administrative areas but allow useful and informative reference, where appropriate, to be made to traditional counties by keeping information about them contained within separate articles.

Reference is made to the current policy at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) under the subheading 2.2 Counties of Britain.

--start of suggestion--

Line 1:

We should use the current, administrative, county

append

"to organise lists and as the primary references to places".

Paragraph 3:

i) Amend first sentence to

"We should mention traditional counties in dedicated articles about them and and only in secondary references to places that lie within them. Primary references to places should be made using administrative counties only."

ii) 2nd sentence:

it is acceptable to use ceremonial counties as geographic references, as this is often more in line with common usage

append

"but the differences between these and administrative counties (i.e. top level authorities) should be made clear"

Paragraph 4:

Amend to

"In historic references we should make reference to a separate article on the traditional county, if it differs from the current administrative county to which the reference in question pertains."

Paragraph 5:

Amend to

"Information pertaining solely to traditional counties should be contained with separate articles on these counties, and should not dominate or be given excessive prominence in articles dealing primarily with administrative or ceremonial counties."

--End of suggestion--

I believe that these changes should decrease the current conflict relating to this 'county issue' dramatically, while not entailing anything unacceptable to either party. This is not, as yet, an official poll, but users are invited to state whether or not they would support or oppose the above suggestion with a view to reaching consensus on this matter. 80.255 18:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by the 'historic references' section? This is rather unclear. I think certainly no articles regarding the locations post-1844 events should be linking to traditional counties articles (were they to exist). Morwen - Talk 23:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Historical reference: current sentence reads "In historic references we should make sure to note that the county at the time was not the same as the county now, if relevant - difference is largely that in my suggested version 'note' becomes 'link'. For example, currently, an historical reference to XYZshire links to the "catch-all" XYZ-shire article, which often isn't approrpriate at all because it deals almost wholly with an administrative county that is completely different from the county being made reference of. Huntingdonshire is another good example. The vast majority of links to it are linking the traditional county, but the article itself is primarily about a 2nd-level council district! Under this suggestion, all the material about the traditional county would be moved to Huntingdonshire (traditional), and thus all the 'historical reference' links it has will actually go to a relevant article.

Secondly, I'm not sure if I understand exactly what you mean, but there is a standard infobox (not of my making) for places that gives the traditional county for a lot of them (example), which seems to be well accepted by everyone. Under the proposals above, these links (Surrey in the example above) would more appropriately point to XYZshire (traditional) pages, rather than articles which aren't about the traditional counties in question, and thus simply aren't applicable at the moment (such as the Surrey article in the case of Brixton). 80.255 00:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

In these cases, how can you tell that the 'majority of links' are wanting the traditional county, as opposed to the former administrative county? Are you proposing that someone born in 1964 in Huntingdonshire, would have "born in 1964 in Huntingdon, in the [[Huntingdonshire (traditional)|traditional county of Huntingdonshire]]" or somesuch, which is what that would imply? Morwen - Talk 07:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Someone born in 1964 would indeed have be born in the traditional county of Hintingdonshire, but certainly not in the the Huntingdonshire distrct of the administrative county of Cambridgeshire. Linking to the traditional county under such circumstances would, I believe, be better than the current situation in which we link to an article about something that didn't exist until 1984. The boundaries of the former administrative county are also much closer to those of traditional Huntingdonshire than they are to the council district. Whereas it would also be possible to create an article on Huntingdonshire (former administrative county) for such situations, I still think that linking to [[Huntingdonshire (traditional)]] would be considerably better and more informative than, as is currently happening, linking to an article about a council district. 80.255 12:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you not see another way, where Huntingdonshire (traditional) would be created, and would be about the traditional county, its borders, and suchforth, meanwhile Huntingdonshire would (a) mention that there is a Huntingdonshire (traditional), and then (b) describe that it originated as a county and administrative unit in the xth century, then many centuries later was asborbed into another unit called Huntingdon and Peterborough, and then finally into Cambridgeshire. We simply can't have separate articles for every incarnation of every county, as this would lead to duplication and unmaintainability. I suggest a test for whether to split based on (a) different boundaries and (b) lack of continuity, which I will detail later. Morwen - Talk 12:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

May I ask, 80.255, are you suggesting the existing article on Huntingdonshire has insufficient historical detail? Are you saying that the article is unbalanced in some way? I don't understand your criticism, how would several articles on Huntingdonshire would be better than one? Chris Jefferies 08:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

It is unbalanced in favour of the council district. "Huntingdonshire is a part of England around the town of Huntingdon which is currently administered as a local government district of Cambridgeshire. The present district does not match the traditional county boundaries exactly."

Thus, when there is a link such as "Oliver Cromwell was born in the county of Huntingdonshire in East Anglia.", it's linking to a council district that doesn't even have the same boundaries as the county he was born in. As soon as the link is clicked, the reader sees a map of the second-level authority district of Huntingdonshire, and thinks to himself "ah, that's where Cromwell was born!", when it wasn't. It is inaccurate and, in my opinion, not appropriate for links that are not refering to the council district. 80.255 12:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

This isn't really a very special issue, but is just an editorial thing. Perhaps we should look at how this is managed for people born in Germany, for example - do States of Germany get used anachronistically? Morwen - Talk 12:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

As a small point of fact, Cromwell of course was born within the current district of Huntingdonshire. The article gives information on both the district and the earlier county, indeed the third paragraph begins, 'Huntingdonshire is also a traditional county'. It will not help Wikipedia if we generate multiple articles with similar names and covering similar areas of Britain. Chris Jefferies 13:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

If we ARE going to have one article including everything then it should be laid-out in a non-ambiguous way and traditional infoboxes would need to be provided. Currently, the county articles are currently a mess of information all lumped-together. If the single article had internal anchors such as #ceremonial #administrative #traditional, &c then the relevant links could be provided pointing to the right section. This would require small amounts of rewriting to provide three different sections, each of which could have all the infoboxes and detail they required. Owain 13:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Administrative or Ceremonial

Thanks for coming up with a suggestion for debate.
I have some problems with the use of administrative counties as the main building blocks.
1) They include places not widely recognised as counties such as BANES and Blackpool
2) They are not necessarily the top level authorities. The metropolitan counties and Berkshire are administrative counties even though they don't have county councils. So, given the need to mention the real adminstrative arrangement, there is potential for another level of duplication.
3) Some administrative counties have been doughnutted, so Nottingham is not in Nottinghamshire and Leicester is not in Leicestershire
I favour using ceremonial counties as the most widely recognised areas as the building blocks. --Cavrdg 08:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I would aree with that, It seems that ceremonial counties have become the de facto geographic counties. Who wrote this by-the-way you havn't signed it. G-Man 19:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. Now retro signed. --Cavrdg 19:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that administrative counties aren't be best choice, but ceremonial counties are only slightly better. Why perpetuate areas like Greater Manchester for independent towns like Bolton, Wigan, Salford, &c when the administrative area was only created in 1974 and lasted for 12 years before all the councils became unitary. These ceremonial areas are defined for a very specific purpose in a very specific piece of legislation, much in the same way as administrative counties are. They are clearly an attempt to move back to traditional names and areas where the local government situation is now different, but they don't go far enough. If we're going to not use administrative areas, why not go all the way back to the traditional names and areas everywhere? Owain 10:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

To what period would you go for traditional names? 1973? - I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in Botley, on the edge of Oxford, who thinks they are in Berkshire. 1910? - Even fewer would put Caversham in Oxfordshire. As current entities at least the ceremonial counties are clearly defined.

Obviously for built-up areas that cross county boundaries, the traditional name to use would be the one where the centre of the place is. For articles on individual villages or suburbs then the traditional name to use would be the one where the village actually is. e.g. the Reading article would refer to Reading as being in Berkshire, but the Caversham article would refer to it as being a suburb of Reading, but being in the traditional county of Oxfordshire. No ambigutiy there. Owain 13:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Greater Manchester is a bit odd because it wasn't used as a postal county and having their addresses changed helped people to know where they were but there is still a sense of identity around things like GMPTE Welcome to the official public transport site for Greater Manchester, UK.

Greater X can be defined to mean whatever you want it to mean. There is a case for a geographical area of Greater Nottingham for instance. The problem is that it can be highly arbitrary — in the case of Greater Manchester including places with totally separate indentites, which were covered by a shared top-level authority for 12 years, some 20 years ago, but since have been administratively separate. That they happen to share a few joint-boards is neither here nor there with regards their identity. Owain 13:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... If the police cars passing my door said Greater Manchester Police, the fire engines Greater Manchester County Fire Service, the chamber of commerce, the probation service, the crown prosecution service, the strategic health authority, the county records office, all called their local units Greater Manchester, I'd suspect I was in Greater Manchester. --Cavrdg 14:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The suggestion above would not change the use of administrative counties in some instances and ceremonial counties in others, as is the case currently. 80.255 12:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to add: if we are to use ceremonial counties for general lists of places in England, we should also use their counterparts for Scottish lists. 80.255 14:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem with that is that in Scotland the lieutenancy areas are the same as the traditional counties in some areas and totally different in others. There is no consistency. Furthermore the so-called preserved counties of Wales are totally unlike either traditional counties or local government areas. None of these areas were designed with general geographical use in mind, they are defined in the Lieutenancies Act 1997 for very specific purposes. The same goes for administrative counties — they are defined in local government legislation as the areas for the most efficient delivery of local government services. Neither of these areas are intended for the use that they are attempting to be put to. Owain 14:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I've no problem with that. They look a sensible size. I confess I couldn't put my finger on The Stewartry of Kirkcudbright on a map but the same applies to Clackmannanshire old or new. Would most of them be familiar to people in Scotland? --Cavrdg 14:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

They are not intended for use in a general geographic sense. Most are the same as traditional counties, but do we really want something like "List of places in Roxburgh, Ettrick and Lauderdale"? Owain 15:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for splitting test

This suggestion should help to alleviate some of the most silly merges.

A split of an article can be made given the following conditions

• the boundaries of the entities being described are substantively different (more than a few villages)
• there is a lack of continunity between the entities

The resulting articles will be about all those entities with the same boundaries

This would lead to East Riding of Yorkshire being split into two - one for the post-1996 UA, another for the pre-1974 admin county, and also the traditional county.

It might also lead to Huntingdonshire being split into two. Flintshire and Denbighshire would also be split, as would Renfrewshire. However I feel that in order to support this we would have to keep info on the pre-1974 admin counties on the same page as the traditional ones. Morwen - Talk 12:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Lest substantively be misinterpretted, can you list which traditional/administrative counties would not be split under this proposal?

I support it in principle, although I feel that consistency throughout all traditional/administrative/former administrative articles would be better still.

I have no objection in principle to dealing with pre-74 admin counties on traditional county pages, although I none the less think they would be better delt with on their own pages. One great advantage to splitting articles is clarity, and this could be lost when still trying to cover subtly different entities with the same name on the same page.

In the case of the East Riding of Yorkshire, it is not a traditional county anyway; Yorkshire is. The same spplies for thepre-74 county councils of lincolnshire, sussex, suffolk, northamptonshire, etc. 80.255 13:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

This wording is not intended to cover Lancashire, Middlesex, Rutland, Surrey, Northamptonshire, Pembrokeshire, Herefordshire and suchforth, which exhibit either boundary differences or lack of continuity, but not both. Worcestershire, and Huntingdonshire are borderline. I think it would clearly apply to Monmouthshire too. I know the East Riding isn't a traditional county per se, but I think the same issues still apply to it. Morwen - Talk 13:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC) As an addendum I note Cambridgeshire would be split if Hunts was.

The boundaries of Lancashire, traditional and administrative, are certainly substantively different; why do you say they aren't? There's a huge difference! As are those of Surrey, Kent, Warwickshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire to give a few more examples. An example of counties the boundaries of which aren't substantively different would be Cornwall, Nottinghamshire or Derbyshire. Rutland, I agree, is also pretty similar (though I'm not sure whether it's exactly the same). Middlesex isn't really relevant, because it isn't the name of an administrative county. In the case of the ridings of yorkshire, perhaps an East Riding page would be best, as the current Unitary Authority is called East Riding of Yorkshire, as opposed to the former administrative county, which was called simply East Riding. 80.255 15:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, those are definitely substantively different, but they don't pass the 'lack of continuity' part of my test. I agree with Cornwall, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire not exhibiting substantial differences, and would add to that Wiltshire, Norfolk, and Suffolk. My apologies for any confusion. The idea is here to define a very small set of splits that should be very uncontroversial, and then get consensus and actually do them, whilst leaving open the question of whether other splits should happen or not. Morwen - Talk 16:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that Northamptonshire fills both criteria, the lack of continuity being satisfied by the creation then abolition of Huntingdon and Peterborough. The same could be argued for Warwickshire, considering that, in reality, the West Midlands metropolitan county consists of unitary authorities, and thus the former existence of the two-tier WMMC provides the lack of continuity in this case. Also, in terms of the traditional counties around london, the creation and abolition of the administrative county of London, and then the further creation and abolition of the metropolitan county of Greater London (which now only exists as a region) could also be argued to fulfil both your criteria.

Presumably, you'd include the traditional counties covering parts of the former (absolutely abolished) metropolitan counties such as Avon or Humberside? 80.255 17:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

This is not what I'm trying to say with 'lack of continuity' - there continously existed administrative counties named Warwickshire and Northamptonshire. What this is trying to cover is names that were abolished for administrative usage and then later re-used after a gap, with substantively different boundaries to those that were last in use administratively. So to take a hypothetical example for example, if an entity called 'Westmorland' were created tomorrow, that covered in addition to the historic Westmorland the Furness area, this would then definitely warrant a separate article under these tests. Perhaps you could find a better way to put this? Whereas, if an admin county consisting of Westmorland+Furness had been created in 1974 instead of Cumbria and named 'Westmorland', we would not split. I know this doesn't realise your full ambitions but hopefully it is something we all can agree on that at least needs to be done and will set a precedent for further agreement. Morwen - Talk 17:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean, now; I assumed you originally meant a lack of continuity in the naming of a any substantive part of a given entity, rather than simply going by name. By this reasoning, Shropshire ought to qualify, in losing a substantive exclave around Halesowen, and very briefly being officially renamed "Salop" as an administrative county. A number of the Scottish counties would also be covered - e.g. Clackmannanshire would need to be split. 80.255 19:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, the current Lancashire article in incorrect. The administrative county of Lancashire is not a county palatine; the palatine (actually a Duchy palatine) covers only the historic county. In the case of Lancashire, information on this should be moved to Lancashire (duchy palatine). Throughout the palatine (and not just the administrative county of Lancashire), the Duke of Lancaster, and not the Queen of Great Britain, is the nominal sovereign.

Have a look at the "palatine boundary" on the duchy's official website.[1]. I believe the same may also apply to Cheshire and Durham. 80.255 16:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I would not support splitting articles, It's a great way to create a complete dogs dinner. And create utter confusion amongst readers. Especially with regards to Warwickshire and Lancashire et al. G-Man 20:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, we're having this discussion because many of the non-split county articles are dogs dinners and do create utter confusion. Why exactly do you think splitting would create confusion? It would allow accurate linking from the 'traditional county' infobox that appears on so many place articles, and would keep all allegedly cumbersome traditional county infoboxes from articles about administrative counties.

I may split off Lancashire (palatinate) anyway, since it's a special case, and is a dutchy palitine, not a traditional county (and as a most fundamental area in law; if you commit a crime in Furness, you'll still be charged with having disturbed the Duke of Lancaster's Peace), and, as such, is not covered by the policy.

Regarding all the other counties, I still believe they'd be much better off split, and, indeed, suggested it after a number of other users from the "anti-traditional-county camp" agreed with me. However, I'd be willing to give Morwen's more limited suggestion support as a provisional measure in this direction. 80.255 20:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

They're only dogs dinners because of your absurd insistance that historic counties still exist as separate entities. Which other encyclopedia splits up county articles into its different revisions. I will oppose any splitting of articles on principal. Regarding the infoboxes, they are clearly in breach of the existing policy. G-Man 21:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

They are not "clearly in breach" whatsoever. Nothing in the policy forbids infoboxes; in all cases they appear as an 'afternote' well after the infoboxes on the administrative/ceremonial counties. Having said this, I must add that I myself have never added an infobox of this sort into any article. However, they do get added by (horror of horrors!) people who do not share your POV, and the aim of this discussion is find a consensus, not pretend that everything you don't personally like is covered by the current policy when it clearly isn't.

I'm still waiting for the first piece of evidence from you that historic counties don't legally exist as separate entities, when the government thinks that they do. I notice that you still haven't answered my question about the government's position, so I'll ask it again: should wikipedia officially declare that the government was lying when it said that traditional counties have always remained completely unaffected by various administrative boundary changes?

As for the question "Which other encyclopedia..." - this is wikipedia, not an "other encyclopaedia", and our format allows us to do things that other encyclopaediae clearly can't, such as splitting up articles to provide more detailed and less confusing information on different things, without being hindered by book-bound problems this could cause out of our medium. 80.255 21:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Have you seen my comments above. G-Man 21:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

May I break in with a different question. I've asked it before, but I've had agreement from only a few people here so far, yet it's fundamental to the entire process of creating a policy. Here it is...

Will everyone join me in declaring, up front (ie now), that they will abide by the current policy until it is changed and will abide by any future version too? Will everyone abide by the policy even if they disagree with it? (This doesn't preclude anyone from trying to get it changed yet again in future, that option is always open). We must aim for consensus, but if we have to settle for a vote, it is essential that we agree to be bound by the policy even if we're in the minority. Thanks, Chris Jefferies 20:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I have not and do not break the policy. If I did or intended to, I would have no reason to bother getting involved in this discussion! We must indeed aim for a consensus, be it by vote or not. I feel that progress is slowly being made. 80.255 21:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

So - is that a 'yes, I agree to be bound by the policy even if I'm on the minority side'? Chris Jefferies 22:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

A case study that might help?

I had this exchange with 80.255 [slightly corrected for clarity]:

"I'm still struggling with this. Take for example the policy statement

Coventry is in the West Midlands, and within the traditional borders of Warwickshire

This to me is completely reasonable. But I would expect the Coventry article to read [be written as]

Coventry is in the [[West Midlands]], and within the [[Warwickshire (traditional)|traditional borders of Warwickshire]]

so if I wanted to drill down I could go directly to an article about the historical boundary.

But I suppose it would be possible to append the material to the main article and in that case, the line would read:

Coventry is in the [[West Midlands]], and within the [[Warwickshire#Traditional County|traditional borders of Warwickshire]]

provided that [ [[Warwickshire#Traditional County]] ] was at the end and not at the beginning of [ Warwickshire ], as if it had equal status with the current boundary, and didn't swamp it. --Concrete Cowboy 17:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)"

"I'd support the second option. I think it would be preferable all round to have information on the traditional county in a separate article. This could either be seen as ensuring such information doesn't "swamp" or be given "undue prominence" the administrative article, or alternatively ensuring that it is not "relegated" to the end of it or "buried" in the middle of it! I agree that the Huntingdonshire article leaves much to be desired at the moment, and think that effecting this suggestion would certainly be a positive step towards sorting it out. 80.255 17:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)"

What I'm driving at here is that I accept that some info about the trad counties in the modern county article is justified, provided that it is in proportion. Indeed, there are lots of subjects that an editor might want to add to a county article, but there has to be a point when the addition is overwhelming and it needs to be hived off to another article. IMNVHO, Huntingdonshire has reached that point. Warwickshire hasn't quite, but it's getting there. --Concrete Cowboy 19:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe it is too hard for intelligent people to write an article called 'Huntingdonshire', and to explain what the present district is, what the previous county was, and the history of how it all came about. To have several articles dealing with an area of England like this would be confusing to almost everybody - editors and readers alike. Most countries have changed their borders from time to time, some of them often, sometimes they have been provinces within a larger state, like Latvia. Are there separate articles for Latvia the nation and Latvia the Soviet state? There are not. One article is normally sufficient for a country - why not for a county?

Nor do I believe that it is very hard to write an article about, say, St Neots and explain clearly that it is in Cambridgeshire, in the district called Huntingdonshire, but that in the past parts of it were in Bedfordshire and other parts were in the county of Huntingdonshire. We are making something simple sound hard by talking about it over and over again.

And before someone tells me once more that the county 'still exists', that is not my view, nor was it the majority view when the policy was voted on previously. I am using the past tense because I believe that is the correct and best way to describe it - 'Huntingdonshire was an English county'. If you believe otherwise by all means use the present tense. But I will use the past tense until someone produces an argument that convinces me or until Wikipedia policy requires otherwise. Chris Jefferies 21:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

"Most countries have changed their borders from time to time, some of them often, sometimes they have been provinces within a larger state, like Latvia. Are there separate articles for Latvia the nation and Latvia the Soviet state?"

In many cases like this, yes. For example: the former german state of Hanover, and the current administrative region of Hanover have separate articles, and it would be utter lunacy to try to cover both in the same article, just because they share a name!

Whether or not you believe the county of Huntingdonshire exists still, we should follow the example set by Hanover (which clearly no longer exists in its original form), and give it a separate article. 80.255 21:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, as Concrete Cowboy pointed out to me, county articles are split up, completely against policy. In many cases there are history of XYZshire articles, Geography of XYZshire articles, and so on.

The policy states: "Articles about counties should not be split up", so all of these articles are against policy, and should be merged with the main articles if the current policy is to be followed.

I do not believe this would be helpful, however, which is why I say that the absurd "should not be split" clause goes completely against the principles of wikipedia and should be removed.

None the less, I suppose I shall have to grit my teeth and merge every single one of these articles if the current policy remains, because, as User:Chrisjj has mentioned, we must all follow the policy, regardless of whether we agree with it or not. 80.255 21:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It would not be very hard to combine those two Hanover articles, one could argue that they would be better combined. And why do you assume that the authors of the two Hanover articles articles have made a wise choice, but the authors of the single Latvia article have chosen badly?

Your second argument about having separate articles on the history or geography of a place is completely without foundation. Maybe the policy could have been better worded, but it was clearly not the intention to prevent specialist articles on history or geography. The intention was to prevent splitting on the false grounds that historical and modern counties cannot be adequately dealt with in the same article. If a county article became too large then it would make sense to have an article on the history or geography, just as it makes sense for London or England or Bristol. A summary goes in the main article with the detail in the specialist part. Chris Jefferies 22:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, have a look at List of German Confederation member states. I think every single case in which the name of a former German/Austrian state is also the name of a modern administrative area, both have separate articles. In many cases, such as Tyrol, the namespace page is of the former state, not a redirect to the administrative article, which is found at Tyrol (state). If we were to follow this clear convention elsewhere in wikipedia, Huntingdonshire district would be moved to Huntingdonshire (non-metropolitan district).

I'm not inherently saying that this approach is right or wrong - I'm merely pointing out that it is widely-used elsewhere in wikipedia, and it is we who are being inconsistent by following the current policy on counties in Britain.

Secondly, the foundation of my second argument is the current policy. I wholly agree with you that "if a county article became too large then it would make sense to have an article on the history or geography, just as it makes sense for London or England or Bristol"; the trouble is, that isn't what the policy says. Don't blame me - I didn't write it! 80.255 22:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The German Confederation situation does not appear to me to be the way you describe it. Your argument seems at best dubious. The Tyrol is certainly not remotely comparable to British counties. Others here may wish to go and check for themselves. And even if all the German states did follow the pattern you suggest, that would fall far short of demonstrating that it's 'a clear convention elsewhere in Wikipedia'! Nor does it prove that 'it is we who are being inconsistent'.

And your second point relies entirely on taking part of a sentence out of context. The policy reads as follows "Articles about counties should not be split up and should not be disambiguation pages. They should treat the counties as one entity which has changed its boundaries with time." Quoting the first part without the rest is misleading. Chris Jefferies 23:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

"The German Confederation situation does not appear to me to be the way you describe it. Your argument seems at best dubious. The Tyrol is certainly not remotely comparable to British counties."

I disagree. Tyrol was the name of a former entity; it is also the name of a current administrative division, with a significantly different area. Both have separate articles.

"Others here may wish to go and check for themselves. "

Let's save them the trouble and go through some of the top-level federated states of Germany:

1. Baden-Württemberg - separate articles on Baden, Hohenzollern, Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, the Principality of Leyen, Württemberg, Grenzmark Posen-Westpreussen, Württemberg-Baden, Swabia, Hohenzollerische Lande and Württemberg-Hohenzollern

2. Bavaria - separate article on the Bavarian Soviet Republic, Würzburg (state) and Franconia

3. Hesse - separate articles on Hesse-Kassel, Hesse-Darmstadt, Hesse-Rheinfels, Hesse-Marburg, Hesse-Nassau, Hesse-Homburg, Waldeck (state), Isenburg, Isenburg-Isenburg, Isenburg-Birstein, Isenburg-Kempenich, Isenburg-Wied, Isenburg-Büdingen, Isenburg-Meerholz, Isenburg-Philippseich, Nieder-Isenburg, Isenburg-Büdingen-Birstein, Isenburg-Wächtersbach and the Grand Duchy of Frankfurt. I think you get the idea!

4. Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania - separate articles on Pomerania, Mecklenburg-Strelitz (note, separate article on Mecklenburg-Strelitz (district), for the current admin area!), Mecklenburg-Schwerin and Mecklenburg.

5. Lower Saxony - separate articles on the Duchy of Saxony, Brunswick-Lüneburg, Oldenburg (state), Schaumburg-Lippe, Waldeck (state) and Hanover (state).

6. North Rhine-Westphalia - separate articles on Westphalia as an unofficial region, on the Kingdom of Westphalia and Berg (German region)

7. Rhineland-Palatinate - separate articles on the former Prussian Rhine Province, the Hesse-Darmstadt province of Rheinhessen, and on the former Rhenish Palatinate that "became part of the state of Rhineland-Palatinate in 1946", Nassau (state), Salm-Salm, Salm-Kyrburg, Salm (state), the Archbishopric of Mainz and the Dutchy of Arenberg. Even the former French Lippe (département) in occupied Germany has its own article!

8. Saxony-Anhalt - separate articles on former state/regions of Anhalt and Province of Saxony.

9. Schleswig-Holstein - separate articles on Holstein, Schleswig (note, not the same article as the City of Schleswig), Southern Schleswig, Mecklenburg-Strelitz and Holstein-Gottorp.

10. Thuringia (this is going to be fun!). Separate articles on Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach, Saxe-Meiningen, Saxe-Altenburg, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, Saxe-Gotha, Schwarzburg-Sondershausen, Saxe-Coburg, Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt and Reuß; links to Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, Saxe-Hildburghausen and various other in existing articles, giving a clear invitation for them to be created.

Also have a look at the Category:Provinces of Prussia, List of provinces of Prussia and List of Weimar states. The majority of these have separate articles too, such as Province of Posen, a good example of a good article on an historical state. Not to mention many others, such as that on the Free City of Danzig.

So, yes, I do think there is a clear convention elsewhere in wikipedia!

Secondly, you quoted two complete sentences. The first says that articles should not be split; the second says that articles should treat counties as XYZ; there's no implication that articles should be split for other reasons. It clearly says articles should not be split, and should treat counties in a certain way. Nothing has been taken out of context. 80.255 01:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm astonished at your long list of 'split' German states. If quantity could win the day you'd have little to worry about! :-) I'm certainly not going to work through the entire list here, but it's bloated with irrelevant articles. One or two examples will suffice - Baden, there is only one article - Hohenzollern is an article about a family, not a place - Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, a family, not a place - Leyen was a principality that lasted all of 8 years - Wurttemburg is a classic example of an article that is not split, it deals with the general area, Wurttemburg under the counts, as a duchy, as a kingdom, and until 1945 when it ceased to exist (there is a separate article on its history). That's the first five in your list. I'm not going through them all, but your argument is full of holes. Had it been a boat it would have sunk!

If you need further counter examples of places with difficult, complex histories and changing borders look at Poland, Italy, Germany. They all have single articles. How clumsy and difficult it would be if there were separate articles on all the different Polands! Now that would be madness.

And now to the wording of the existing policy. Yes I agree, it could have been written in a way which would leave less room for misinterpretation. But I think most rational people coming to it without a prior agenda will understand what was intended. Let's not pretend that a missing word or phrase prevents us from seeing the underlying sentiment. It was never meant to restrict us from writing detailed articles on the history or geography of a county. Chris Jefferies 09:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

"One or two examples will suffice - Baden, there is only one article - Hohenzollern is an article about a family, not a place - Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, a family, not a place - Leyen was a principality that lasted all of 8 years - Wurttemburg is a classic example of an article that is not split, it deals with the general area, Wurttemburg under the counts, as a duchy, as a kingdom, and until 1945 when it ceased to exist (there is a separate article on its history). "

Firstly, according to this policy, Wurttemburg should be entirely incorporated into the Baden-Württemberg article. Hohenzollern was indeed listed by mistake, as I didn't check it at the time. However, the vast majority of the articles I listed above are not 'irrelevant'. The Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen article, for instance, is not entirely about a familiy. Excerpt: "the Princes of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen ruled over a small principality in southwest Germany" ... "In 1849, Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen and Hohenzollern-Hechingen were annexed by Prussia" - obviously, it was the state that was annexed, not the family!

Leyen did indeed last only a short time, so all the more reason for it, according to your reasoning, to be subsumed in the Baden-Württemberg article.

As for Baden, there is only one article, which starts "Baden is a historical state in the southwest of Germany"; why hasn't this article been merged with Baden-Württemberg, which is, after all, the current administrative state? As I have previously pointed out, I'm only giving these examples to show that very many historical states, areas and subdivisions on wikipedia have their own articles and are not delt with solely in the articles covers their current. administrative counterparts.

"If you need further counter examples of places with difficult, complex histories and changing borders look at Italy... [it has a] single article"

Italy has a "single article"? So perhaps you'd like to explain the existence of:

• Kingdom of Italy
• Italian Republic (Napoleonic)
• Cisalpine Republic
• Duchy of Mantua
• Republic of Venice
• Transpadane Republic
• Duchy of Savoy
• County of Savoy
• Grand Duchy of Tuscany
• Marquisate of Montferrat
• Duchy of Milan
• Duchy of Massa and Carrara
• Republic of Genoa
• Marquisate of Mantua
• Duchy of Modena and Reggio
• Duchy of Lucca
• Republic of Lucca
• Republic of Florence
• Duchy of Parma
• Kingdom of Naples
• Kingdom of Sicily
• Kingdom of Sardinia
• Duchy of Reggio
• Lunigiana
• Ligurian Republic
• Bolognese Republic
• Republic of Crema
• Republic of Alba
• Cispadane Republic
• Republic of Ancona
• Roman Republic
• Tiberina Republic
• Parthenopaean Republic
• Kingdom of Etruria
• Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia
• Kingdom of the Two Sicilies
• Papal States
• Venetia

So you seem to be out by a factor of 28! 80.255 17:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

As far as Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen is concerned, you might as well argue that the article on Oliver Cromwell proves British county articles are split because it mentions Huntingdonshire! I'm not going to continue the discussion on the first part of your reply. You've posted enough examples for anyone who wishes to check.

On the second part, none of the articles you list is about Italy, they are all about the states that were united to make Italy. Listing them to claim that the Italy article is 'split' is like listing the English county articles to claim that the article on England is split. I fear you're struggling to defend an untenable position. Chris Jefferies 17:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Not at all - you gave the example of Italy as an article in which all previous states were combined; it clearly isn't! Since all the states listed nowadays comprise Italy, they should, by your reasning, all be merged into a single Italy article, or consist solely of article on modern administrative districts, rather than articles on historical entities, as, for example, the current Huntingdonshire article does. However, if we were to follow the examples set by Italian and German state articles, Huntingdonshire would consist of two articles, one on the traditional county and the other on the non-metropolitan district.

Secondly, Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen is clearly about both the former principality and the dynasty that ruled it. Your argument against it as irrelevant is very spurious, I feel. Other readers are invited to look at this article and make their own judgements.

I sha'n't post any more examples of articles on historical entities, but I think it's clear that, from the examples I have posted, that there is certainly no policy elsewhere in wikipedia that expressly forbids splitting articles in this way. I refer back to Tyrol and Tyrol (state), and Hanover (state) and Hanover (region) as examples of successful splitting.

I think we are left with a number of different options regarding splitting or not splitting, and that it would be perhaps helpful to have a vote on this presently. What do you think? 80.255 18:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Please don't make controversial edits until later

Please don't make edits to articles during this debate unless those edits are to material not affected by the policy. Making controversial edits during the debate is just poor Wikiquette and doesn't help to keep everyone calm. No more, people, please. Thanks.

If you have made such edits you might usefully consider putting them back as they were at the end of July. Chris Jefferies 00:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Objection

Now, one of the things I object to the most, Is the way that Owain and 80,255's edits treat what I regard as an opinion (i.e that traditional counties still exist) as fact. As far as I can see the only source for this claim comes from the traditional counties movement themselves. Who by their very nature are not neutral or independent, and seems to be based upon some rather questionable interpretations of the law.

Personally I dont think the wikipedia should endorse the opinion of a promotional organisation. As there is no independent confirmation of this view. I think it should be qualified as an opinion. For example Middlesex should say something like: "Middlesex is considered to be a traditional county" rather than "Middlesex is a traditional county". G-Man 19:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Middlesex is a traditional county. If it isn't, tell me what it actually is? Arcturus 19:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

"As there is no independent confirmation of this view" ... except an official government statement. So you think that wikipedia should officially endorse the opinion that the government was lying, then? 80.255 19:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

"As far as I can see the only source for this claim comes from the traditional counties movement themselves."

No, in fact it comes from the government, which has officially said:

""The new county boundaries are solely for the purpose of defining areas of local government. They are administrative areas, and will not alter the traditional boundaries of Counties."

This has been repeated and restated by successive governments on a number of different occasions, and similar statements have been made upon susequent administrative boundary changes.

80.255 19:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Might I suggest that this argument is essentially irrelvant. Whichever tense you use, the tradtional counties are encycopediac, just as are Wessex, Silbury Hundred and the Roman Province of Britania. We are not going to just lose them. The question is really one of proportionate positioning and size. If I go to the article about Alphashire, I dont want to have to plough through three screens of what it used to be before I get to current information. By exactly the same token, I don't want ditto about its ley lines, its dismantled railways, its bypasses, or even its Odonata - all of which are interesting but should only be summarised. If these are all in the same giant article, then what we have is a pseudo paper encyclopedia, not a hypertext encyclopedia. --Concrete Cowboy 14:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

This sounds like an argument for splitting the articles up. How about this then? Three sections in the main Xshire article, with summarised information on administrative, ceremonial and traditional. Then in each section have the standard 'Main article: Xshire (administrative)', 'Main article: Xshire (ceremonial)' and 'Main article: Xshire (traditional)' at the beginning of each section. Best of both worlds? Owain 12:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Another Objection

Now, one of the things I object to the most is the way that G-Man's and ChrisJJ's edits treat what I regard as an opinion (i.e that traditional counties do not exist) as fact. As far as I can see the only source for this claim comes from G-Man and Chris' personal opinions themselves, which by their very nature are not neutral or independent, and seem to be based upon complete indifference to both basic principles of the law and to successive government statements.

Personally I don't think the wikipedia should endorse the opinion of two editors. As there is no independent confirmation of this view, I think it should not be presumed in any way to be fact without appropriate qualification.

Opinions cut both ways, don't they just! 80.255 20:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The opinion of two editors? Funny, I seem to recall that only two editors opposed the present policy, but thirteen of us voted in favour. Wikipedia already endorses the opinion of thirteen editors - not two.

Clearly there are two opinions on the nature of the old counties, we all agree that they did exist, but some believe that they still exist today. There is room in Wikipedia for two opinions, they can both be mentioned in the articles. That was never at issue. The problem has always been (and remains) that you are just not willing to accept the majority view that a single article for each county is the simplest way to do it, and the best for Wikipedia. Nor have you been willing to accept that the proper place for the two opinions to be explained is in the body of an article. Instead you have insisted that it go in the lead section - very much to the detriment of so many articles.

As we have been unable to work towards consensus (this page is just a battleground from beginning to end) I am inclined to agree with Morwen that we will have to go to formal mediation. That is a shame, but it appears unavoidable. Chris Jefferies 20:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

"you are just not willing to accept the majority view that a single article for each county is the simplest way to do it, and the best for Wikipedia."

Complete nonsense; I have not split a single article since this policy came into effect. I certainly don't believe it's a good policy, but equally, I certainly haven't broken it!

"Nor have you been willing to accept that the proper place for the two opinions to be explained is in the body of an article."

I have not made any original changes during the course of this discussion; indeed, in one case I have reinserted a removed reference to an administrative county into a lead section of an article! In both these attempts at portraying me negatively you have failed from a factual standpoint.

For the record, I have been very generous in compromising in my suggestions (suggestion which, I might, are a very long way off my 'ideal' version), and, from my perspective, it is you and G-Man who have impeded consensus by your abject refusal to conceed any ground whatsoever for the good of the project. 80.255 20:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

No further comment. Chris Jefferies 21:05, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The whole problem with voting on these policies is the same as voting in real-life elections. People can vote on something they don't understand. Given the choice between something they can see on a map and something they can't they will naturally vote for what they can see regardless of the actual facts. I don't claim to be an expert in all matters, which is why I have to bow to the knowledge of people who are in certain subjects. I am glad that it has been agreed to mention traditional and administrative counties in a single article, so why are the traditional infoboxes being removed? No-one has responded to my suggestion to have three different sections with internal anchors yet. This should surely allay fears of confusion within a single article. Owain 09:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Since it was I who began this debate by transferring (not removing) the trad counties infoboxes, let me explain. In the specific cases that I looked at (Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire, because they are familiar to me), the trad county infobox provided a level of detail that was (to my mind) out of proportion to the importance it should have in the "current county" articles. On the other hand, I did feel that they were very relevant to the respective "History of" articles (History of Buckinghamshire and History of Oxfordshire), to which I had transferred them. That generated two threads of debate: (a) are the trad counties "history" or are they not? and (b) why are there two articles anyway? - the policy permits only one! Do others agree with this assessment? My own view is that "yes, they are history, not current" and "yes, we should have two articles" (at least - more if someone wants to write about the ley lines that they believe to exist!) --Concrete Cowboy 14:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

List of Demands - an invitation

It seems that this page keeps regressing into destructive argument, so I'm making a last attempt to get it back to constructive, focused, discussion. To do this, I invite all participants of all sides to list their demands - that is to say, the furthest they will compromise on this issue. Without knowing these, it will always remain impossible to reach consensus on this topic; but if the fundamental 'furthest posts' are known, it should be a lot easier to reconcile them and reach mutually acceptable solution.

All are invited to make concise points below: 80.255 21:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Focus may be easier to achieve if a table of all issues and their status was available. (SEWilco 21:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC))

I don't think lists of demands would help, but we might make some progress if we deal with the least troublesome bits first and try to pick off issues one by one. Being constructive instead of arguing endlessly might give us enough trust and confidence to move on to the tougher issues later. Here's a starter for ten :-)

How would you all feel about removing county references from the lead sections of articles about places, and relying on the infobox to supply those details? We could write briefly about the counties in the main body of the article, mentioning that there are different points of view, and link to the article Counties of the United Kingdom which would explain those different points of view more fully (no point in having a full discussion in every article about a British place). If you want to see how this would look, visit Huntingdon where Owain and I have agreed the current lead section wording. We have not written any county text for the main body, but you can see how the lead section and infobox appear.

We'd have to begin by agreeing the explanatory text for the Counties of the United Kingdom article so there was something useful to link to. Then we could write the idea up as part of a new policy and busy ourselves by changing those 'place' articles.

We'd come back here feeling we'd done something useful and done it together. And that would put us all in a good frame of mind for tackling another issue.

How about it? Could we have a straw poll to see if this idea has any support? Sign below under 'Yes' or 'No'. If you answer 'no' feel free to give reasons below the second horizontal rule. Chris Jefferies 12:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

---

I have no criticism of what you've done to Huntingdon; the infobox looks fine, and I see no reason why any sort of county reference need be inserted right at the beginning of the article, any more than national grid co-ordinates deserve to appear in the first sentence.

A Counties of the United Kingdom article won't replace the advantages of splitting off traditional counties into seperate articles, however. If we're going to use infoboxes to give information, the advantage of splitting articles is very clear. In many cases the admin and traditional counties will be different for some places, and splitting articles would allow precise reference to both. If a XYZford is, for example, in the traditional county of Berkshire and administratively in Oxfordshire, linking to Berkshire under traditional county isn't going to be very useful; to put it another way; if a reader clicks on "Traditional County: Berkshire" in the XYZford article, he's going to do so thinking "I want to find out more about the traditional county of Berkshire", whereas if he clicks on the "Administrative County: Oxfordshire" line of the infobox, he's going to be thinking "I want more information on the administrative county of Oxfordshire".

Whereas I do think your suggestion is a good one, it would be so much more useful and workable if we could agree to split articles and, when making reference to any traditional county (such as in infoboxes), link to the appropriate traditional county article. This would also provide a place for extraneous details on traditional counties currently in the main namespace articles. 80.255 15:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, could you suggest an example text to linkt to Counties of the United Kingdom? The main possible criticism I'd have of the idea is that the same text in every article about a place could prove unwieldly and inflexible.

An alternative that would still maintain the level of NPOV would be to split off articles on all the traditional counties, and have the text there (in each traditional county article) instead, which would ammount to far fewer article changes. Then, each place article could link to these article in the traditional county field of the infobox. Just a suggestion. 80.255 15:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for signing up in principle. The Counties of the United Kingdom article already exists, we'd just need to write a section for it. I was hoping we could leave the issue of splitting or lumping articles until later as I don't see a way forward with it yet. I know you believe that the advantage of splitting articles is very clear, but some of us think the advantages of not splitting them is very clear.

I'm not going to prejudice the straw poll by discussing any more detail. Let's just see how many people are prepared to follow this suggestion in principle. If it's a lot, then we can go ahead and try to agree some details. If it's just you and me then we're really no further forward. Chris Jefferies 17:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutral naming

As a policy related to the above suggestion, I think we ought to decide upon what consistitutes a 'neutral' area name. For example, I notice that the use of 'East Anglia' for Huntingdon has been complained about on the grounds that is primarily an ancient kingdom, and shouldn't be used in that way. In terms of use in the opening sentences of place articles - "ABCford is a place in XYZ, England" - it would be useful to agree upon a suitable geographic descriptors that avoid using counties. I suggest the following (feel free to add to or comment about it):

• Use geological areas where possible - e.g. South Downs, North Downs, Peak District, Cotswolds, Lake District, Malvern Hills, Chilterns, Mendip Hills, Pennines, Fens
• If this is not possible, use compass points, specifying if the place is on the coast - e.g. Westcountry, the North East coast, the Midlands, on the North West coast of Wales
• Perhaps refer to rivers in the introduction - "XYZford is a town on the river ABC, in the South East of England".
• Perhaps equate it with a larger, better known place, if application - "ABCford is a village 15 miles east of Salisbury, in the South West of England".

What not to do (in my opinion):

• Don't use ancient kingdoms - Wessex, Northumbria, Mercia, etc.!
• Don't use euro regions, because they're vague and not commonly used; that is not to say there's anything wrong with, for example, "South East England", but "South East England" should be used because a place is clearly in the South East, not because it just falls within the "region" called the "South East" but could better be described as, for example, "Central South coast", etc.

80.255 23:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

If we keep debating the straw poll will fail, partly because people will get the impression we just want to keep talking and partly because the poll will not be noticed as it disappears further and further up the page. Chris Jefferies 23:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm suggesting this because User:Concrete Cowboy complained about "East Anglia" - and I thought it was a fair complaint. I'm not trying to undermine your poll; I'm trying to help it. 80.255

P.s. you could always created a seperate page for the poll - Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places)/poll, for instance, post the link prominently at the top of this page, and the project page.

---

Straw poll

I am willing to work on text for Counties of the United Kingdom to explain the different points of view on British counties, write a clause for the policy, and then help modify British 'place' articles as suggested above by Chrisjj.

Yes

• Sign with four ~ signs
• Chris Jefferies 12:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support only refering to (any sort of) counties in the infobox. Don't necessary either support or oppose the rest, but see comments below. 80.255 16:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Removing county information from the opening sentence and supplying it via the infobox sounds like an elegant solution that will offend no-one! Owain 18:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• MonMan 19:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Further up the page, Owain had a good suggestion that he called Best of both worlds which I think deserves serious consideration. MonMan 14:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Tarquin 09:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (Gah... We're STILL on this one?)
• garryq 08:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC) infoboxes should settle arguments by displaying current former and ceremonial counties and hopefully draw these srguments to a close - in line with wiki.policy

No

• Sign with four ~ signs
• Oppose because I don't think it is sustainable. In an ideal world, it is a wonderful idea, but we don't have such a thing. My reason is this: in many of the village and small town articles, the location information is half the article. If the village has changed administration, make that three quarters. So if, following the proposed policy, we began removing that info "because it is in the info box", there would be a permanent edit war with the people who live there, who would simply put it back in again. That's how we end up with insanities like this: Castlethorpe is a village with a population of around 1000 in the old county of Buckinghamshire, England,[...] The village is now administered by the Borough of Milton Keynes. as if it were the British Mandate of Palestine! (I corrected it - see Talk:Castlethorpe but I accept that I was pre-empting this discussion and so reverted). So my counter-proposal is that articles should say very simply "Alphaton is in the Borough of Betaton and in the ceremonial county of Gammashire." (or even "and was formerly in the traditional county of Deltashire") --Concrete Cowboy 09:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • "in many of the village and small town articles, the location information is half the article" - but surely you do not think that location information should be half the article? If we can keep this information in check by adopting the suggestion above, editors (from the local area or not) will be encouraged to add more non-location information, which in tern will lead to a better article. And if all the location information is in the infobox, people will see that there's no need to duplicate it. 80.255 17:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

If you want to be picky, then "half the text". Ok, I'm willing to be convinced by a a blind experiment: pick a village somewhere with a current active edit history. log out so that you are anon, add the infobox and gut the text. Wait for a week and then reveal what it was. --Concrete Cowboy 19:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Very well - why don't we all try doing that, see the net result at the end of a week? A single place won't be very reliable evidence, but if each of us picked a place for this 'experiment', the results might be more convincing. What do you say? 80.255 19:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not willing to alter articles as an experiment so, no, count me out. I urge others not to do so either. Chris Jefferies 15:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Russian/Cyrillic place names

I think Wikipedia needs a policy for consistent representation of Russian/Cyrillic geographic names in English. Something like:

1. If there's already an established name in English - use it. You can look up established names in English dictionaries (i.e. Webster's, Encyclopedia Britannica, etc.) and atlases (e.g. National Geographic Atlas of the World). You can also use Google test, but don't treat the name as established unless there's at least a few thousand hits. Examples of established names that don't follow modern transliteration rules: Moscow, Red Square, Saint Basil's Cathedral.

2. If there's no established name, transliterate the name. Do not translate words that are a part of a proper name. This applies to common words like улица (street), набережная (embankment), мост (bridge), гора (mount/hill), верхний/нижний (upper/lower), etc. E.g. translate здание на улице Кузнецкий мост as a building on Kuznetskij Most street (not Kuznetskij Bridge street or Blacksmith Bridge street), but здание на Улице 1905 года as a building on Ulitsa 1905 Goda street, because in this case the word улица (ulitsa = street) is a part of the street name. Include literal translation when appropriate, e.g. Kuznetskij Most (literally, a blacksmith bridge) - a street in Moscow.

Azov