Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut
What's new

Articles for deletion

  • 09 Apr 2024 – Barby Storage Reservoir (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by JMWt (t · c); see discussion (2 participants; relisted)

Redirects for discussion

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Did you know? articles[edit]

Newlyn Tidal Observatory (2023-11-20) • Godalming (2023-09-20) • Reigate (2023-09-10) • Woking (2023-03-18) • Jarn Mound (2022-12-09)

Reached maximum of 5 out of 298

Featured pictures[edit]
  • A591 road, Lake District - June 2009 Edit 1
    A591 road, Lake District - June 2009 Edit 1
  • Aerial View of Edinburgh, by Alfred Buckham, from about 1920
    Aerial View of Edinburgh, by Alfred Buckham, from about 1920
  • Canary Wharf from Limehouse London June 2016 HDR
    Canary Wharf from Limehouse London June 2016 HDR
  • City of London skyline from London City Hall - Oct 2008
    City of London skyline from London City Hall - Oct 2008
  • Lancashire 1610 Speed Hondius - Restoration
    Lancashire 1610 Speed Hondius - Restoration
In the News articles[edit]

Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City (2021-07-22) • 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods (2009-11-21) • February 2009 British Isles snowfall (2009-02-06)

Main page featured articles[edit]

Coventry ring road (2023-07-23) • Combe Hill, East Sussex (2023-01-11) • Brownhills (2022-03-03) • Abberton Reservoir (2021-09-05) • Shaw and Crompton (2021-08-15)

Reached maximum of 5 out of 71

Main page featured lists[edit]

List of scheduled monuments in South Somerset (2023-12-22) • List of castles in Greater Manchester (2023-04-07) • List of Shetland islands (2022-05-20) • List of freshwater islands in Scotland (2020-04-24) • Scheduled monuments in Taunton Deane (2018-10-26)

Reached maximum of 5 out of 7

Watch

Archives[edit]

Disagreement on Christchurch article re:settlement definition[edit]

There is a dispute at the article for Christchurch, Dorset over whether, how, and in how much detail, the article should cover Bournemouth Airport – a major employer which was in the now defunct borough of Christchurch, but some distance outside the built-up area in a neighbouring parish. This is essentially a difference of opinion on how to handle the ambiguity around defining settlements. If you think you can help resolve this, join the discussion at Talk:Christchurch,_Dorset#Bournemouth_airport. Thanks, Joe D (t)

Unitary councils[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was consensus to combine tier 1 and 2, consensus to go on a case by case basis for tier 3 with a default to split. The issue with unitary districts can be discussed separately. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 29#Unitary county councils: separate articles or not? there has been discussion at Talk:Somerset County Council#Merger proposal, Talk:North Yorkshire Council#Merger of North Yorkshire County Council and North Yorkshire Council and Talk:Wiltshire County Council#Merger discussion.

In terms of the differences in geographical and legal continuations I'll divide them into tiers.

  • Tier 1, Cornwall, Durham, Isle of Wight, Northumberland, North Yorkshire, Rutland, Shropshire, Somerset and Wiltshire, all of these kept the same area and the council was renamed rather than abolished and reformed, Rutland appears to tier 1 as while the order mentions about the new county it doesn't discuss the council, most of these also dropped "County" from their name when they became unitary
  • Tier 2, Buckinghamshire, which was abolished and reformed but kept the same area
  • Tier 3, (edit, Cumberland), Dorset, East Riding of Yorkshire and (edit, Herefordshire), these ended up with different boundaries and were legally different entities

Given these subsequent discussions and the possibility of merging tier 2 and 3 I'm looking at getting consensus on what should be done.

Please indicate you're !vote by stating if you support merging/keeping separate for example if you think Wiltshire Council and Wiltshire County Council should be separate articles, one for the council until 2009 and the other for the council from 2009 then write "Separate tier 1" (or "Separate all" since you are likely to want to keep the others). If you think tier 1 and 2 should be merged but tier 3 should be separate write "Combine tier 1 and t, separate tier 3". In terms of the arguments, for merging at least the 1st 2 tiers it can be argued that if the council(s) are legally the same or at least cover/covered the same area then per WP:NOTDIC we shouldn't create separate articles mainly because of a slight name change namely "Somerset County Council" becoming "Somerset Council", noting for example that Durham County Council has it seems never been split. It also gives the impression that for say Somerset the changes in 2023 were significant but not the changes in 1974 (exactly the same name but different legal entity and different boundaries) which is likely to suggest to readers that the 2023 changes were more important while having a single article better helps readers understand the differences. In terms of the arguments for keeping separate, for especially tier 3 it can be argued that if they have different boundaries and were different legal entities its more appropriate to have separate articles and put hatnotes. It can be argued that putting different but similarly names councils also violates WP:NOTDIC by treating different entities in 1 article. Also some of the articles may have enough content that its more appropriate to keep separate. @A.D.Hope, Eopsid, 10mmsocket, JMF, Mhockey, Moonraker, Number 57, Rcsprinter123, Stortford, ValenciaThunderbolt, and Wire723: Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Combine tier 1 and 2, neutral on tier 3, tier 1 and 2 are the same or almost the same so should probably be combined but I'm less sure on tier 3 are they may be different enough. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Separate articles in all cases except where the word count is low (e.g. Rutland County Council). Most readers are looking for the current council and the 19th & 20th century history is better in a separate article, instead of causing a distraction by appearing near the beginning of a combined article. The technical difference between a renamed body and a newly formed council has little weight. Wire723 (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur with Wire723. BTW, the span of Buckinghamshire County Council originally included the Milton Keynes District Council (along with Aylesbury Vale DC etc), so the boundary is not the same as that of Buckinghamshire Council. Unless of course you mean its 2020 transition (nothing happened in 2009: MK left in 1997). The only thing that has stayed the same is the ceremonial county. It is this kind of complication that makes it wise to have separate articles. JMF
  • Combine tier 1 & 2, apart from nomenclature its all part of the history of a single sub-division. Tier 3 is sufficiemtly different to warrant sperate articles. Going for the purist route of haveing separate articles for every minor change could lead to a mine field, which is what the proposal is trying to avoid Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the 3 ones it may be better to just consider each on a case by case basis and have no particular rule. If there is a consensus to split tier 1 I will reverse the merges from last year, if there is a consensus to merge tier 2 or 3 I will merge those, if there is no consensus I will leave things as they are and were from last year's discussion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Before !voting, one way or the other, it seems a good idea to consider potential implications of these mergers. For example, for Wiltshire there's separate articles for Wiltshire Council elections post-2009 and Wiltshire County Council elections for prior years. Presumably, these two articles would also need to be merged. I haven't so far checked out others. Rupples (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The way the opening sentence of Wiltshire Council has been written could lead one to think Wiltshire Council has been a unitary authority since 1889! One of the problems of merging is unless clearly defined and written there's a tendency for topics to become confused. Rupples (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Combine tier 1 & 2 - I'm concerned that splitting articles every time there's a change of status or boundary fragments the narrative too much, and artificially exaggerates the extent of change and downplays the amount of continuity there was at each reform. We also need to consider how much material there would be for a page on the 'old' version of the council - I can see such articles being basically stubs or heavily overlapping the page for the modern council. I think the key points about the old version of such councils should still be mentioned on the modern council's page anyway, to provide useful context for understanding the current version.
I agree the wording needs to be clearer in places to avoid the impression of unitary authorities having been created in 1889. We do have to bear in mind that "unitary authority" isn't the legal name for these councils, but instead a widely-used shorthand for them. Strictly speaking they are all either county councils which also perform district-level functions, or district councils which also perform county-level functions. Whether or not they include the word "County" in their titles is a matter of branding rather than indicating a legal difference. To be clear:
  • County councils which now also perform district-level functions: Cornwall, County Durham, Isle of Wight, North Yorkshire, Northumberland, Shropshire, Somerset, Wiltshire
  • Councils with the same name as a ceremonial county but which are legally district councils which also perform county-level functions: Buckinghamshire, Dorset, East Riding of Yorkshire, Herefordshire, Rutland
It does seem to be at the whim of the civil servants who drafted the statutory instruments putting the changes into effect which model they followed, and the effect is the same either way. To my mind Buckinghamshire's situation was identical to Shropshire's - a county council which covered the ceremonial county minus one district which had already become unitary, but for some reason Shropshire is legally a county council and Buckinghamshire a district council.
I would keep Cumberland Council separate from the old Cumberland County Council as there are enough differences - notably Cumberland hasn't been reinstated as a ceremonial county and there was a 49 year gap. This follows what we've done in Wales where there are separate articles for Pembrokeshire County Council (the current body established in 1996) and Pembrokeshire County Council, 1889–1974. The time period gap also applies for East Riding of Yorkshire and Herefordshire, so keep them separate. I can see the argument either way on Dorset, so happy to leave that one as it is (split). Stortford (talk) 07:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that splitting articles every time there is a change of status or boundary is a bad idea, and for that reason I am opposed to new articles for UA areas which were (and still are) non-metropolitan counties. Buckinghamshire is an example of a non-metropolitan county (legally the "county of Buckinghamshire") which is now also a district and has a district council. But I don't think that the transition of a county council to a UA, however accomplished, can be characterised as a "change of status". I suspect that the reason why the transition was sometimes achieved by repurposing the old county council and sometimes by forming a new entity was more to do with legal efficiency than the whim of civil servants (i.e. which assets needed to be legally transferred). To my mind, the important factor is whether the UA councils are significantly different kinds of local authorities from their predecessor councils. I think they are. Mhockey (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But in the cases of North Yorkshire and Somerset etc apart from the slight name change and gaining the district functions. Yes it may be thought of and sometimes called a new council it was both a geographical and legal continuation unlike Dorset. Having 2 articles on 2 similarly named councils having similar functions and covering exactly the same area doesn't seem helpful and I would have thought the differences would be more effectively covered in a single article. Had North Yorkshire council area had a boundary change when it became unitary then I could see the logic even though I'd be fine with 1 article but when they are exactly the same I don't think its a goo idea, given North Yorkshire Council is not only a geographical continuation but also a legal continuation. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhockey: But North Yorkshire County Council and North Yorkshire have similar functions as well as covering the same area and the same legal entity. I can see the logic in having separate articles at Municipal Borough of Wisbech and Wisbech Town Council (or Stowmarket Town Council starting at 1974 even though the urban district council has the same boundaries) even though the district/district council and parish/parish council cover/covered the same area because a district/district council is a quite a different entity to a parish/parish council, ones 3rd order and the other is 4th order. Or having separate articles at Dobwalls and Trewidland/Dobwalls where the former was renamed to the latter at the same time as boundary changes even though both are the same legal entity. Yes NYC may sometimes be called a new council (which should probably be discussed in the article like Northumberland County Council) but it isn't either geographically or legally, I would have though a single article would better serve people looking up the council. A unitary authority isn't really much of a different entity, all that happened was the council took on the district functions rather than becoming a completely different authority like a parish council. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Separate articles, whether or not the unitary council is legally the same entity as the previous county council. This is a case where substance should take precedence over legal form. WP:NAMECHANGES gives some guidance. In North Yorkshire, North Yorkshire Council is almost always referred to as "the new council", and North Yorkshire County Council is now referred to as "the previous North Yorkshire County Council". See for example this from NYC and from MHCLG. The new council is quite different from the old council - much wider functions (and much larger income), different electoral divisions, different number of councillors, and the fact that it was easier legally to keep the same entity for a changed function does not change that. Everyone knew it was one new council taking over from the previous 8 councils, one of which was NYCC. The old council is history and should be treated in a separate article and not confused with the current council. Generally, in WP when a legal entity significantly changes its functions and characteristics, we have a new article. An extreme example is Arriva Northumbria, which is legally the same entity as Southern National, but no-one would suggest we merge the two articles.
I take a different view of the area administered by the council. Legally the UA area is the same "County of North Yorkshire" as the non-metropolitan county which preceded it, but there was no change in substance or legal form, just a change in governance. Yet we have created a separate article North Yorkshire (district), which I would merge back into North Yorkshire.--Mhockey (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combine tiers 1 & 2. Decide tier 3 case-by-case with a default of separating them - with tier 3 they are different entities but often with much in common and little separating them, so separate articles can lead either to lots of repetition or to several very short articles that are almost permastubs. But they are technically about different subjects so different articles are arguably warranted - subject to WP:GNG of course. WaggersTALK 15:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional comment: councils are not inherently notable - I just need to make sure we're keeping that in mind. The places served by councils will nearly always be notable but the councils themselves need to satisfy WP:ORG if we are to have articles on them. In particular:
    • News coverage of councils being created/changed is often dismissed when considering WP:SIGCOV on the basis of WP:NOTNEWS so we ideally need more than that
    • Multiple passing mentions of councils - e.g. in reports about council decisions etc. - do not constitute significant coverage of the council itself
    As a result I would expect us to have very few articles on councils as opposed to the places they serve(d). WaggersTALK 16:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combine tier 1 and tier 2. A single article suffices in many cases, as there's a degree of continuity between the councils established in 1889 or 1974 and the current councils.
Taking Shropshire as an example, the first county council was established in 1889, then abolished in 1974 and replaced by one with essentially the same boundaries. In 1998 Wrekin District Council became a unitary authority, reducing the area governed by Shropshire County Council, and in 2009 Shropshire County Council became a unitary authority. The above can be explained in a single article, and is arguably more easily explained in a single article than three – Shropshire County Council (1889–1974), Shropshire County Council (1974-2009), and Shropshire Council.
Where there isn't clear continuity we can decide on a case-by-case basis. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combine tier 1 and 2 and case-by-case decisions for tier 3. In pretty much all the tier 1 and 2 cases, the new unitary councils are effectively a continuation of the former county council but absorbing the district functions. Re Waggers' comments about notability, I would be amazed if councils are not independently notable. In many cases they are the largest employer in the area, are one of the most important organisations in the area given their powers, and get nearly daily coverage in the local/regional press. Number 57 11:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would note that Cambridgeshire County Council isn't split between the 1965-1974 gap however Huntingdonshire County Council and Huntingdonshire District Council are separate. Northumberland Council was split years ago but due to the council in the end keeping "County" in the name the articles were merged. It seems at least ignoring the Welsh ones noted by Stortford that the only reason for creating separate articles for unitary authorities seems to be due to dropping "County" from the name which goes against WP:NOTDIC. Yes when it comes down to things like parishes etc we split if the names are different from settlements but if there is a name change we treat it as a continuation not a new topic like Marlingford and Colton. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Stortford: Regarding the Welsh county councils I'd point out that Carmarthenshire County Council, 1889–1974 is a short article that may more effectively be merged with Carmarthenshire County Council, Pembrokeshire County Council, 1889–1974 is a bit longer though but could probably easily be merged. Note that Denbighshire County Council and Flintshire County Council don't have separate articles. It look like Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire councils unlike Denbighshire and Flintshire cover the same area as the older councils and unlike Wiltshire County Council/Wiltshire Council and Herefordshire County Council/Herefordshire council also have exactly the same name not just similar names. The time gap is anyway far less than Cumberland and probably doesn't have much importance today anyway. If there was a significant amount of info it might be better to keep separate but there isn't. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't disagree with merging the Welsh ones with the same name but a time gap - the Flintshire and Denbighshire examples show that an article focussed on the modern body but with a paragraph or two on the old iteration for context is perfectly adequate. Stortford (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the articles, with a separate section for the old authority, and then redirect the original page to that section so it can easily be found. Unless the page is big enough to fork, then we should keep it separate.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • An interesting point may be if the area the council covers has a separate article or not. In terms of tier 1 only County Durham, North Yorkshire and Shropshire have separate articles however note that although when their councils became unitary authorities they kept the same boundaries they have different boundaries to the ceremonial counties. Tier 2 Buckinghamshire doesn't have a separate article and in terms of tier 3 Cumberland and Dorset have separate articles. In terms of other areas with similar names North Riding of Yorkshire (and North Riding County Council) is separate from North Yorkshire (and North Yorkshire Council) and West Riding of Yorkshire (and West Riding County Council) is separate from West Yorkshire (and West Yorkshire County Council). North Riding of Yorkshire/North Yorkshire have similar boundaries but West Riding of Yorkshire/West Yorkshire are quite different as effectively West Riding of Yorkshire was almost split into West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire while most of the North Riding of Yorkshire became North Yorkshire. I'd suggest however due to at least some difference in boundaries and names its appropriate to keep separate articles for the current/former Yorkshire counties and their councils. One could argue that if we have decided to split the county articles it makes sense to split the council articles due to that suggesting they are distinct. On the other hand it could be argued like UKDISTRICTS that if we split both old and new counties and councils there is more of a risk of duplication and that one of the other should be done similar to the fact most local authorities like Maldon District Council go to the district with the exception of those like Eastbourne Borough Council where there is no separate article on the district from the settlement. I'd argue that the 1st option likely applies that is to say we are more likely to split council articles if the county articles are split. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus[edit]

As this discussion has been going for over a month and a half it looks like we can now have a look at consensus. There is a consensus that tier 1 should be combined, thus upholding the previous discussion meaning these shouldn't be re split. Its reasonably clear that most agree that splitting when a council becomes a unitary is not helpful due to it essentially being a continuation. Only 1 user clearly supports splitting tier 1, one other (and another appeared to support this) has said about splitting except when the word count is low. We also need to be careful about how we describe the councils to make sure we don't suggest they unitary authorities were formed in 1889, we also need to be careful as was noted in the previous discussion sometimes about how we interpret sources regarding those that say "new councils" as they may mean 'council which is newly unitary' rather than 'a brand new council'. There is also a consensus to combine tier 2 namely that Buckinghamshire should be combined. There is a rough consensus that in most cases tier 3 should be split however they should be considered on a case by case basis. I will take no action with tier 3 and I have no intention at least at the moment on merging tier 3. Therefor users can use the normal procedures for merging namely either bold merges, informal discussions or formal discussions but as noted the weak consensus here is they should normally be split. The issue about if the area the councils covering that was mentioned by the separate tier 1 !voter and myself just above is a different discussion but something I may bring up at this project's talk page at some point.

In terms of the pre v post 1974 councils which was touched on here and at the previous discussion I think we should include it in the guidance that if the name was exactly the same there should only be 1 article even if the council was reformed with different boundaries.

This guidance would also likely apply in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

I therefore suggest adding something to WP:UKCOUNTIES a heading "Local authorities" similar to UKDISTRICTS saying something along the lines of When a council like Lancashire County Council was reformed in 1974 with the same name it should not be split into separate articles for pre 1974 and post 1974. This applies even if there were boundary changes. When a council becomes a unitary authority like Somerset Council but keeps the same boundaries it should be covered in a single article even if like Buckinghamshire the council was abolished and reformed with the same boundaries. If like Dorset County Council/Dorset Council (UK) there were boundary changes it should be considered on a case by case basis if separate articles should exist with the default to having separate articles. Factors that may also be taken into account if separate articles are needed or not as well as the difference in boundaries include the time gap between abolishment and formation, article content, if one council was a 2 tier and the other was a unitary and if the names of the councils are identical of merely similar..

Does this reflect consensus and do we also agree with adding the guidance about 1974? I think the only one that this might change is Cambridgeshire County Council which had a 9 year gap and different boundaries. @ValenciaThunderbolt, Wire723, JMF, Murgatroyd49, Rupples, Stortford, Mhockey, Waggers, A.D.Hope, Number 57, and Davidstewartharvey: Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a niggling worry about including "article content" in the list of factors to consider. The existing contents of an article shouldn't usually be considered when deciding whether a subject is sufficiently notable to have an article of it's own. So I'd suggest switching "article content" for "significant coverage in reliable sources" or similar. We would hope that in most cases the two things are identical (if there's sufficient coverage, it'll be reflected in the article content) but that isn't always the case. Otherwise, all good! WaggersTALK 09:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Waggers: I was thinking about how much content the article(s) have but more importantly because articles should normally be judged by potential not just current state about how much appropriate content could be added and along the same lines if sources tend to treat them as the same or different councils. This seemed to be a point Wire723 was suggesting however given the factors about current and potential content are going to be the case in every topic on Wikipedia not just councils per Wikipedia:Article size I wander if we should just exclude this point as it does seem a bit of instruction creep to state something that applies to any topic on Wikipedia. So do you agree on just excluding this point/criteria? Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that works for me. WaggersTALK 09:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that redirect pages should be created to redirect the reader to the correct page, so articles are not written by editors whom cannot find the older named authority. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidstewartharvey: yes redirects should be created for future names and be left behind after renames. If Staffordshire County Council was going to become a unitary in 2026 named "Staffordshire Council" we would create Staffordshire Council as a redirect to Staffordshire County Council and then move Staffordshire County Council to Staffordshire Council once the rename happened leaving the redirect behind from the old title. If a geographically different council was going to be formed, say the new Staffordshire Council didn't cover Newcastle-under-Lyme district due to it being merged with Stoke-on-Trent then we could still redirect the future council to the present one pending a separate article just like Herefordshire County Council redirected to Herefordshire Council until a separate article was created on the old council. Something like "Redirects from future and former names should be created" would seem like a good idea. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly yes - I wouldn't single out 1974 though as a large part of the point of this policy tweak is to catch the more recent changes to unitary authorities, plus it's a UK-wide policy so don't forget the equivalent reforms in Northern Ireland were in 1973 and in Scotland were in 1975. "Same name" might also need clarifying - I'd take that to mean same geographic name (e.g. North Yorkshire), but others might interpret it to mean "North Yorkshire Council" is different to "North Yorkshire County Council" because of the extra word, contrary to the consensus above. Stortford (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Stortford: The reason for including the 1974 point is that all councils were abolished and reformed (often with different boundaries) so to clarify that they like unitaries should not be split. This helps to clarify to users who think that Somerset County Council that existed from 1889 to 1974 and Somerset County Council that "existed" from 1974-2023 were not very different while Somerset Council that has "existed" since 2023 is very different and needs a separate article. Having the point about 1974 may help clarify to users who think this is the case. In terms of Northern Ireland and Scotland we could just put in brackets 1973 for Northern Ireland and 1975 for Scotland. That said it doesn't seem like users splitting pre 1970s and post 1970s councils has been a problem but it would be here if this does become a problem. Do you think it would be better to just remove this point? or maybe reword. I was interpreting "identical" to mean exactly the same name namely "Northumberland County Council" (pre 2009) has the same name as "Northumberland County Council" (post 2009) and "similar name" to mean "North Yorkshire County Council" (pre 2023) and "North Yorkshire Council" (post 2023) but not "North Riding County Council" (pre 1974) that it seems everyone agrees should stay separate even though the name of the county and council are essentially variants in a geographical sense. Luckily this doesn't seem to be a problem currently as there aren't any unitaries that have kept exactly the same name as the previous council but have different boundaries to it. Maybe we should just remove this point and look at re adding it in the future if this happens. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This now has been added to UKCOUNTIES with the suggested modifications, I'll leave this open for a little while longer to see if people agree. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would suggest that if we are treating the council of an administrative county, which was replaced by the council of a non-metropolitan county and then became the council of a unitary authority, as the same continuing council, it seems very odd to treat the area governed by that council as changing (e.g. from Dorset, Shropshire or North Yorkshire) when its council became a UA (to Dorset (district), Shropshire (district) or North Yorkshire (district)) - even though neither the geography nor the legal status of that area changed. --Mhockey (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Mhockey: Perhaps we need to look at having a similar rule for splitting unitary districts but I'd point out that while Shropshire and North Yorkshire districts cover the same area as the 2 tier county council areas they don't have the same area as the ceremonial county. No one is suggesting that Northumberland (district) should be created as its the same area as the ceremonial county as well as the 2 tier county council area. Even though I pushed to have separate articles years ago for unitary districts with a different area to the ceremonial counties I'm wandering if it might just be better to do what we have for Somerset and have 1 article for both the ceremonial county and unitary district with the same boundaries as the 2 tier county even though the boundaries are not the same as the ceremonial county, thoughts? Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree that it would be better to have a single article for cases like Somerset or North Yorkshire, where the legal county (now a UA district) covers a smaller area than the lieutenancy area (aka ceremonial county). We had that for years under the two-tier system and I don't remember any push for separate articles then, and I don't think the change in governance should change that. Mhockey (talk) 10:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Workshopping Possible RfC[edit]

The above linked RfC on the Cornish flag has led me to look at the guidelines here with a view to a possible RfC, but I also notice another issue, and so would like some pre-RfC discussion about this.

First the presenting issue. In December there was this discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 38 which led to an insertion of Do not include flags in the infobox, as they cannot be placed in context there. This was added to the guidelines for English ceremonial counties only. A guideline for one country in the UK, but not all. Looking at the discussion, I see a consensus for the change but it is a weak one, and it did not consider other options in the round. So that should probably be revisited at RfC.

But looking at that showed a second problem. We have separate guidelines for:

  • English, ceremonial, "Shire county", examples: Devon, Suffolk and Berkshire
  • English, ceremonial, Metropolitan county, examples: Greater Manchester, West Midlands (county)
  • Former counties of England (those that no longer function with an administrative role), examples: Avon (county), Westmorland, Middlesex
  • Counties of Scotland, examples: Cromartyshire, Renfrewshire (historic)
  • Former counties of Wales (those that no longer function with an administrative role), examples: Glamorgan, Denbighshire (historic)

Two glaring exceptions are: (1) any mention of counties in Northern Ireland, and (2) administrative counties of Wales. (I presume the preserved counties are covered under former counties). Now often ceremonial counties are coextensive with administrative counties and treated together, but in Wales the preserved county is the ceremonial county and these are not co-extensive with the administrative counties. E.g. Dyfed subsumes three counties. Do we need additional guidelines? or should we, in fact, have a generic guideline and the above list as exceptions? Where would I look for the guidelines about how to write about Pembrokeshire? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy, it also omits the council areas of Scotland ("counties" mean "historic"). I'd assumed Northern Ireland is not included to ensure the traditional counties at least are consistent across the entire island of Ireland and under the scope of WikiProject Ireland. Although the modern "districts" could be included here.
Well the "preserved" counties aren't "former" technically, so I don't think they're actually included under that, "former" being only "historic". Although some counties in Wales are GA, so may be little need to standardise it if it seems to be working without it, especially due to the vast differences of counties and county boroughs in Wales. But if we need more, best to add new guidelines for those county types, than combine into a general guideline with less room to adapt. DankJae 11:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More or less the entirety of the county guidelines are in need of reform, Sirfurboy, but it's very tricky to find a consensus to do so. This isn't anyone's fault in particular, just the result of many competing (but valid) opinions and the fact that a change in one area often has knock-on effects, turning an apparently simple issue into a bit of a minefield. 'County fatigue' is a thing, I can attest to that.
The flags discussion you mention is a good example. It began with me proposing a guideline about how to cover English county flags, then became a more general discussion, and was then watered down to a bullet point. I think I'm right in saying that everyone involved agreed that some form of guidance would be helpful, but consensus on the form of words proved elusive. A.D.Hope (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To give a more helpful answer, I would strongly discourage you from trying to fix the county guidelines before opening an RfC on county flags. The county guidelines have proven very difficult to change and will become a distraction. There is currently momentum to discuss the flags, which we should take advantage of; I also believe it will be possible to write a UK-wide guideline, therefore removing the need to deal with the various types of county.
You may want to read the discussion on county infobox collages as an example of a recent, successful change to the guidelines. It was quite an involved process, but by focussing on a well-defined topic and with good (if I can blow my own trumpet) management of the discussion it went well. Although it initially only applied to English ceremonial counties, it was later successfully applied to Wales thanks to @DankJae. I think this is a good argument for crafting a good guideline even if it isn't immediately applied everywhere, as it provides a good foundation to build on.
I'd be happy to help in setting the parameters and managing the debate, but appreciate that I'm heavily involved and so might not be the best person to do so. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, counties are difficult, and a successful RfC ideally needs to be simple. But there is a principle here of precedence that might need resolving. We could have an RfC that has a few options (e.g. remove the flag sentence from English ceremonial counties guidance OR add it to all English county guidance or confirm the status quo, for instance). But that still leaves Welsh administrative counties to have flags, and they all do. Which is a little incongruous when they have a lot of shared history with English counties.
The question is whether that one should be parked, pending a different RfC, also keeping it simple, that provides a common guideline for all counties (of Great Britain - NI doesn't seem to be included), with the other guidelines acting as exceptions. To be honest I am somewhat in agreement that I do not have the time or stomach for that one, but if we did have that one, then that would be the place for general guidelines about flags.
I'll wait to see what others have to say. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy, the main issue with the county flags is whether the modern flag is for the ceremonial or historic county. This difference is much more apparent in England where counties changed over time continuously, but in Wales they were fully abolished, with some restored like Pembrokeshire later, near identical to the historic county, while the Flag of Flintshire is at Flintshire (historic) but not Flintshire, so no, not all Welsh counties have a flag. If we regard county flags to be purely on the historic counties, then they can easily be worked for Wales which has separate articles for historic counties, or some historic counties were resurrected almost exactly, whereas England was much more complicated and continuous process. I don't see any issue with Wales having some of them, as local government is different in Wales. DankJae 19:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You see, part of the problem is that the distinction between historic county and ceremonial county is a false one for most of the counties. Some counties are historic only. Middlesex no longer exists, and Sussex and Yorkshire have been divided, and others like Surrey and Kent have a different extent to what they had historically, but the historic county of Surrey is simply Surrey with a pre 1965 border. (And some other stuff - I'll avoid the pedantry). This is why Surrey, Kent and, of course, Cornwall don't have separate articles for their historic counties. The border change is historical detail about Surrey and Kent, not a different type of county. So the guideline allows flags for historical counties (Sussex, Yorkshire) but not for ceremonial counties where the historic border is the current border (Cornwall), or, indeed, ceremonial counties that have lost some territory (Surrey, Kent). I don't think that makes sense. I also don't think we would want to fix that situation by creating articles for the historic county of Cornwall, Surrey, Kent etc. as though such a county exists as a separate entity from the current ceremonial county. That would be counter to other advice in these guidelines and established consensus, that we do not take the position that historic counties still exist within their former borders. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add some context to what DankJae said above, the majority of the county flags which appear on Wikipedia are those registered with the Flag Institute, a charity dedicated to the promotion of flags which also maintains a flag registry. The institute only recognises the historic counties, so it won't register flags for counties like Merseyside or Gwynedd. By and large these flags have been designed fairly recently (although many include older symbolism), often through local competitions. Some are registrations do recognise older flags which are popularly used, however, including that of Cornwall. The Institute and its registry are not "official".
The fact that the institute only recognises the historic counties puts it at odds with our own guidance, as you note in your comment. It means that, for example, the flag registered by the institute for Lancashire does not represent the same area as our article on the contemporary ceremonial county. This is the case for a surprisingly large number of counties – you can use this tool to compare the historic and ceremonial borders within England. In my opinion it is inappropriate to use these flags in the ceremonial county article infoboxes, which should focus on the ceremonial county, but including them in the body is fine.
It's also worth noting that, as far as I'm aware, the official status of most of these flags is debatable. The Department for Communities and Local Government did take to flying them at one time, and some local authorities fly them. Nevertheless, they're not official in the same way as the banner of arms of an authority, which is the flag form of the coat of arms granted to it by the College of Arms, and which belongs to the authority. While I'm not sure it would gain consensus, I'd be tempted not to include a flag in the encyclopedia at all unless there's evidence of it being widely used in the 'real world', rather then simply being registered with the Flag Institute. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, the last paragraph is also the reason why I've removed the coats of arms which were formerly in many English ceremonial county article infoboxes; they belong to the council they were granted to, not the county-at-large. In some cases the council whose arms were used didn't even cover the whole of the ceremonial county, for example Shropshire. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How are you feeling about the RfC, Sirfurboy? No pressure, just your general thoughts. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the difference between the proposed discussion and the previous one? We seem to be going round in circles! Is the previous consensus (if indeed there was one) of not including flags in the infobox no longer accepted? There's always going to be exceptions to guidelines. Cornwall is one IMO, though I was not of that view previously. The case for Cornwall was astutely signalled by DankJae in the previous discussion, but was not taken further. The guideline could be restated to allow strong cases for exceptions, akin to the infobox images guideline. Rupples (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Cornwall discussion demonstrates that the previous consensus – no flags in any infobox – is not accepted. An RfC will allow the issue to be explored more fully, hopefully resulting in a stronger, more stable consensus regardless of what the result actually is.
You note that the guideline could be restated to allow exceptions, which would require a discussion anyway. It may as well be an RfC. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But why not just change the guideline to a sensible compromise now that opposition has been raised and see if that sticks. Be bold! Rupples (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very reluctant to be bold in this case. Firstly it's presumptuous, as I don't know exactly what the community wants, and it could imply underhandedness or WP:OWNERSHIP of the guideline. I can understand you not wanting yet another discussion, but it allows everyone a say and help keep things above board. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the existing 'no flags in infobox' guideline is not accepted, shouldn't it be removed until a new discussion resolves the issue? There seems little or no basis now for its enforcement. Rupples (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hard cases make bad law. Willingness to make an exception in an extreme case should not be taken as a desire to rescind the basic principle. NebY (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's just it. We know the guideline is contested in relation to Cornwall, but not the rest of the ceremonial counties. Resolving that is best done through an RfC, not the actions of a single editor. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't dispute this. I may be mistaken, but there seems to now be a question mark over what consensus there was to put in the guideline from the first discussion. Although no opposition was raised at the time, re-reading that discussion gives me the impression that it was only A.D. Hope, Waggers and myself who approved of it. Rupples (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OTOH, I participated and my criticism of the first drafts was, I think, taken into account in the final version, to which I raised no objection. The straightforward way forward is to leave that text in place but hold a formal structured RFC on the matter, not to subject ourselves to a period of anything-goes edits and article-by-article disputes. NebY (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we don't just want to open up to a free for all. I think I still have two concerns regarding the status quo:
  1. Cornwall appears to be a clear exception to the broad rule, primarily owing to its historical nature and the widespread acceptance and use of the flag.
  2. Some counties have historical county articles because the counties have been extinguished (e.g. Middlesex), and these articles have flags on.
I am in broad agreement with you and others that the flags from the flag institute are problematic. But in that case, I would like to extend the prohibition on use to all county articles, including the historical county articles. On the other hand, I think that the prohibition should be on flag institute flags rather than flags per se. If a county has a flag that is strongly historically associated with the county by name and regardless of minor changes in borders, that flag should be allowed. If a flag is a recent unofficial invention, it should not be allowed. More succinctly, it would be no flags except Cornwall! (Except I am not quite sure about the status of the flag of Yorkshire. The symbol is old, but associated in history with York. I am not sure if it was a pre flag institute flag of Yorkshire or not. Some reading is required.
But in essence I think tweaks rather than reversions are called for. It makes no sense that Sussex has a flag and Surrey does not. So should this be extended to historic counties? but with caveat that exceptions exist (or we can deal with the exceptions by RfC - except RfCs are time consuming so ideally we could cover it all off in one, if the issue can be worded simply). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we discussing only England or will a prohibition extend to all the Welsh and Scottish county flags and coat of arms? Further, is the discussion limited to positioning images in the infobox or extended to elsewhere within the county articles? Also, there's the question of emblems. The Sussex flag is apparently based on an emblem going back to 1611. Are we distinguishing between flags and emblems? Rupples (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. I agree we'd do well to have one rule that covered articles on past, present and future counties.
2. We wouldn't exclude flags merely because they're registered with the Flag Institute! Rather, registration with the flag institute cannot be either a necessary or sufficient reason for inclusion. That is, we would not include a flag merely because it's been registered with the FI and we don't have sufficient faith in the FI to assume their registry is complete.
3. We could simply say that flags are not included except in exceptional cases with talk-page consensus (a limited form of WP:IAR) or we could save some repetition in discussions and even save some editors the effort of trying to gain consensus if we laid out the exceptions to start with. Broadly speaking, I'd suggest we want to see either
a. adoption by an official body such as a county council or lieutenancy (if Lord Lieutenants have ever adopted a county flag - does anyone know?), OR
b. longstanding widespread popular use, by which I would exclude eg late-C20 / C21 newspaper campaigns such as one I saw giving readers a choice of flag but no option of none, followed by FI registration and sales shortly after, but no evidence of widespread popular use.
4. This would apply to depictions of flags in the infobox whether using the |flag= parameter or as the main subject of another image. NebY (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I partially agree with this. In my ideal world, the guideline would be something like:
Flags should only be included in a county article if there is evidence of the flag being in widespread, popular use over at least a decade. Registry with the Flag Institute may form part of this evidence, but is not enough on its own.
Where a flag is included in an article, it should be placed in the body, with appropriate accompanying text explaining its origin and use. If the flag warrants a standalone article, make sure this is wikilinked.
I'm still not convinced about including flags in the infobox. Even the most popular aren't official, and the infoboxes of several types of county are, strictly speaking, about them as official administrative units. Putting them in the body seems like a reasonable compromise – I'd note that I did the same with the various council coats of arms and that's caused barely an issue. Flags just seem to be a more emotive topic, which I can understand. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You omit my (3a) adoption by a county council etc. Is that because you wouldn't see that as sufficient evidence, or because you know that no councils etc have ever adopted flags, or something else? NebY (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not intentionally; I intended my comment as a general setting out of my position, rather than a direct response to you.
However, as far as I'm aware no council has fully adopted one of the flags in popular use. They largely don't need to, as if they need a flag they can fly a banner of arms of their own coat of arms. Lancashire County Council, for example, sometimes flies its banner of arms from County Hall in Preston.
Having said that, the 'popular flag' has been flown on Lancashire Day. I'd possibly characterise this as 'recognition' rather than 'adoption'. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So your preferred outcome amounts to no flags in county infoboxes and probably only Cornwall's in the article body, unless sources found describing a flag's "widespread, popular use over a decade"? (Sources found seemingly satisfy this condition for Cornwall.) Rupples (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, flags other than Cornwall's will almost certainly make the cut. Speaking anecdotally, I've seen Yorkshire and Lancashire many times 'in the wild', as well as several of the Welsh flags. Essex and Kent's also have fairly long histories.
The intent isn't to exclude flags for the sake of it, but for our coverage of them to reflect their status. The bar for inclusion isn't that high – there are quite a lot of articles like this about Lancashire flag being flown. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposed wording places a bar on article content but gives no clear reason — unlike the infobox "ban" guidance which gave the sound reason that its context could be misleading without further explanation in the article body. Whether the flag is recent or has a longer history is neither here nor there. Take Aberdeenshire (historic), a recently designed flag, at the behest of the lord-lieutenant: its design and how it came into being is explained and reported on in reliable sources, e.g.[1]. Why exclude it from the article body? At present, I agree with your second paragraph because this would help stop random placements of flags in articles with no context added, but disagree with the first stipulation. I fail to see why it's thought necessary or desirable for flag images to have to pass this additional bar for inclusion. Rupples (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines shouldn't explain their reasoning, in my opinion, as their purpose is to be instructions rather than essays. I added an explanation to the current infobox guidance as a compromise, but a link to the discussion which led to the guideline would be my preference.
Aberdeenshire's flag looks to be a 'Flag Institute' flag which involved the Lord Lieutenant and the Lord Lyon in its design competition. It isn't the Lord Lieutenant's flag and, as far as I can tell, it hasn't been officially registered with the Lord Lyon. It might catch on in popular use or it might not, but it's only been ten months since it was chosen so it's impossible to tell what will happen in the long term. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the intention here; is it to put forward a single suggested guideline to a formal RfC or to offer a number of options? Rupples (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is part of the reason for a workshop phase. To see what is needed. However, an RfC must be stated simply. The number of options should be small. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion seems to have moved on from county flag images in infoboxes to a wider guideline (or instruction according to A.D.Hope in a reply to me above). The default position would prohibit all flag images from the infobox as well as depictions of flags and related text from the body of county articles (ceremonial, historical and others) unless an exception is gained through consensus or there is a pre-determined exemption in the guideline. Is this a reasonable summary/conclusion of what contributors to this discussion are seeking? Rupples (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would make sense to expand the discussion to county flags in general, I think. In terms of what is being sought, on my part I'd prefer a guideline phrased to allow any flag to be included in the article body which meets the criteria of being reliably shown to be in widespread use. I would not support flags in the infobox.
Just to note, all I meant above is that the guideline should be written as an instruction rather than getting bogged down in the whys and wherefores. It should also link to the upcoming RfC, to allow later editors to easily read it and understand the reasoning behind the guideline. That's just my preference, I'm happy to go with the general consensus. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Widespread use or popularity as the determining factor for inclusion in the article body is I think unworkable and an unnecessary restriction on article content. Rupples (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was not my intention that we would extend the guideline to page content. In general I am wary of a guideline that says what is and what is not legitinate content for a page. That should be a decision for page editors. Guidelines could suggest, but I don't think they should prohibit. Infoboxes, however, are misunderstood and often way too much is shoehorned into them. They lack context and they are not meant to be a substitute for page content. Let's stick to the infobox guidelines. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not necessarily opposed to your position on prohibiting page content, but I expect the arguments for or against a flag will be similar from article to article. On that basis I think a general guideline would be useful, rather than having lots of little discussions across the many county articles. It's not even a proper prohibition – guidelines aren't binding and WP:IAR always applies, after all. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting you say I expect the arguments for or against a flag will be similar from article to article. I'm not aware of existing arguments/reversions/edit wars over flag images/text placed in the county article bodies — I recall querying this with you in the first discussion and from memory your reply was the problem was confined to inappropriate flags being placed in the infoboxes. Rupples (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it interesting? There hasn't been any attempt to remove flags from the article bodies, so why would there have been any discussion, reversions, or edit wars? A.D.Hope (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great to hear there's been no attempt to remove flags and associated text from the article bodies and hence no disruption. On the first question, the reply is not only interesting, but revealing: - I think a general guideline would be useful, rather than having lots of little discussions across the many county articles. Rupples (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In what sense revealing? I'm not trying to hide anything about my intentions, so if you have a concern please do say. I'll do my best to address it :) A.D.Hope (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My last two replies state my concern, plus the fact we're now rehashing roughly the same arguments as the first discussion. To illustrate, there was a problem with infobox collages because certain editors were adding too many images, some of which were difficult to view and of poor quality. A guideline to prevent this was discussed, agreed and successfully implemented and led to a much improved set of images that benefited the county articles. The context issue about ceremonial county infobox flags was reasonable grounds for putting in that guideline. There isn't the same problem with flags in county article bodies because there's space for a sourced narrative to explain and describe the image. The situation seems stable so a guideline is unnecessary, restrictive and imposition of changes may lead to instability for seemingly no tangible benefit. That's it :) Rupples (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My personal feeling is that, although the situation is stable, if a flag doesn't really exist outside the Flag Institute's flag registry then it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia; it's a bit misleading for us to imply it's used to represent a county when it isn't (or only rarely is) in practice.
At the moment I'm reluctant to get into a full discussion about the above, because this isn't the RfC, just the bit before an RfC, and it would be tiring to go over the same topic twice. I also don't mind if the RfC doesn't cover flags in the body, as often a narrowly-focussed discussion has more chance of success than a broad one. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we're discussing raising the bar on including flags at all to basically WP:GNG itself, then List of British flags, Flags of cities, towns and villages in the United Kingdom and List of English flags#Ceremonial counties which relies on the Flag Institute, as well as other database sources, should be re-done and possibly largely cut. And as mentioned in the first discussion many flag articles going to AfD, with the remaining justifying using the flag at all. I've seen fictitious flags added to articles over the past few years, as well as very limited used ones, like banners of arms for a council made to represent the place, like Colchester (there for a short time). The Flag Institute while not evidence of "officiality", does display the flag clearly to verify its design over possible WP:UGC, so valued but yes not indicative of use. But if we are being more critical of actual and recognised use, maybe flags should be removed entirely unless overwhelmingly proven they are commonly used (evidenced by an strong article), which may be rare (in "official" use).
Of course, such would be controversial, and I think it goes overboard on any real benefit, but there should be some guideline on flags overall too, to stop fictictious or rarely used flags being added, which isn't helped by the fact they are file named "flag of" on commons pushing fictional flags to the top of search results. The Flag Institute is at least respected and only uses flags that at least are recognised somewhat, so probably why it became the "official unofficial" source at this point. DankJae 14:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think these are all valid points which are worth discussing more fully. I'll hold back for now, though, as I don't want to pre-empt the RfC any more than I already have. A.D.Hope (talk) A.D.Hope (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how else we could do it, if we're trying to apply some sort of standard. The flags are not official and registration with the Flag Institute isn't enough to warrant inclusion, so evidence of actual use is the main measure we have left.
I don't think it's unworkable. For the Lancashire flag, for example, there are several news articles about it being flown in various parts of the historic county. That's all we really need in terms of proof. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to comment on one of the considerations referred to by Sirfurboy in the green-shaded box at the top of this discussion. In respect of the individual countries, I wonder whether it would be preferable to let the England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland wikiprojects determine their own guidelines. In reality, this seems to be a devolved matter, so a top-down UK-wide approach isn't necessarily desirable and may be more difficult to get agreement on. There may have to be 4 separate discussions, but the discussions could uncover aspects unique to an individual country that only come out when considered on a country-by-country basis. The case needs to be made why consistency across all the UK counties overrides real-world devolution. Rupples (talk) 14:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Local government is devolved and past government reform acts only applied on each UK nation. One could argue historic counties pre-date devolution, but I think the main issue is that right now the approach to historic counties overall differs between each nation. Wales and Scotland have historic county articles while most of England do not.
    Ofc, I don’t see the current status quo in Wales to be problematic for a guideline aside using the unofficial Cardiganshire flag for Ceredigion. Guidelines on the verifiability and notability of flags should probably be Wikipedia-wide. DankJae 15:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tbh, I think the “no historic counties” rule should be exempted/modified to Wales because of either how different or similar they were. And the fact that it’s already ignored and seems beneficial to keep the status quo as the mergers would just be too messy and between two unrelated entities that happen to share a name. DankJae 15:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'm in agreement with @DankJae. We're essentially discussing notability and verifiability, and the same basic principles are going to apply regardless of whether a flag represents an English or Scottish county. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    . . . but not Welsh, so there's already differentiating circumstances. Are we discussing notability? WP:N states notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article ... These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article .... I put a link into the notability guideline in the previous discussion, but it doesn't seem to have hit home so have quoted the relevant passage. Rupples (talk) 16:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    English, Welsh, and Scottish counties, for the avoidance of doubt. The guideline called 'notability' doesn't apply here, but we are discussing the notability of the county flags. The guideline has a poor name, in my opinion. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think having county flags entirely was disputed, so makes sense to only include flags if they have an article, like what we do with notable people lists only include those with an article. And a flag article should hopefully be notable, clarify what the flag is used for and by whom to then justify/criticise its use on a county article if we can’t do “one for all” and need to consider each flag individually.
    Back onto the original topic, just saying the approach to historic counties already differs between UK nations on Wikipedia so makes sense to do it for their flags, out of practicality. DankJae 17:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DankJae Why just consider flag images, as opposed to other images? Should all images in county articles be restricted to those portraying subjects that have their own article? Why are county flags seemingly being singled out? Now, disputes over what flags are depicted in Northern Ireland I can understand — but elsewhere? Rupples (talk) 18:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rupples, county flags are singled out because they’re being disputed, if there was clear consensus for or against we wouldn’t be in this situation. Other images in articles are largely specific. DankJae 19:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We ought to be discussing the issue raised by Sirfurboy on whether there should be a single guideline on excluding flag images applying to all UK county article infoboxes and exceptions. The question I posed was an attempt to refocus on the original issue. If editors wish to significantly broaden this to a discussion on the inclusion/exclusion of county flags in county articles as a whole, it's probably best to open a separate discussion. Rupples (talk) 17:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sirfurboy, when do you propose opening the RfC? It's been a week since this discussion opened and I fear we're starting to tie ourselves in knots a little.
    I don't really mind how the RfC is framed, but I think one about flags in infoboxes has much more chance of reaching a conclusion than anything broader. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if the above seems dismissive, Rupples, it wasn't my intention. You're right to re-focus on the original issue, I'm just keen to move from this preliminary discussion into the actual RfC – possibly too keen! A.D.Hope (talk) 19:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Cornwall the only British ceremonial county with a flag in its infobox? GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ceremonial counties are really an English thing, and to my knowledge Cornwall is the only English ceremonial county article which currently has a flag in its infobox. The remainder were mostly removed by myself, the last after the discussion which led to the guideline being amended to prohibit infobox flags.
Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland were not affected by that discussion. The flags registered for the historic counties of Scotland and Wales are often used in the infobox of whichever article covers the historic county, typically either an article about the historic county (e.g. Flintshire (historic), Aberdeenshire (historic)) or the contemporary local government area which covers its area (e.g. Pembrokeshire, East Lothian). To my knowledge the articles about the Northern Irish counties don't contain flags, but it's not my area of expertise. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although Wales and Scotland also have lieutenancies just as per the ceremonial counties of England. The terminology differs though. In Wales these are the preserved counties, and in Scotland they are lieutenancy areas. Yorkshire, Sussex and Middlesex were ceremonial counties, but their lieutenancies are extinguished, making them historical. They do have flags. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although another big difference between England and Wales is that the ceremonial counties of England are, for a large part, also the administrative counties, whereas the preserved counties of Wales are not. So yes, there is a difference between England and Wales. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The link to the lieutenancy areas/ceremonial counties is a bit misleading. In England we use the lieutenancy areas as the basis for our county articles, but it's a matter of convenience as much as anything – they're in current (albeit fairly minor) use and quite stable, unlike the other sorts of county.
It's (mostly) the historic counties which have had flags designed for them, it just happens that when it comes to England many of the ceremonial county articles also cover the historic county and so are where a flag representing the historic county should be included. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is no such thing as Cornwall county, that tag was removed some years ago and legally “The whole territorial interest and dominion of the Crown in and over the entirety of Cornwall is vested in the Duke of Cornwall”, confirming that Cornwall has a separate Head of State from the remainder of the UK. This was upheld in the High Court in 1855, during the Duchy v Crown Foreshore dispute, and again as recently as 2011.
“Although Cornwall is de facto administered by England, a formal de jure joinder of Cornwall and England has never taken place.” (G.D Flather, Queen’s Counsel attached to the Boundary Commission 1988). 85.94.248.27 (talk) 08:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of a ceremonial county (see Ceremonial counties of England for references) is an area for which a lord-lieutenant is appointed. Cornwall is very much one of those (see https://lordlieutenantofcornwall.org.uk/) so for the purposes we're talking about, it is a county. Indeed that website refers to Cornwall as a county lots of times, as I'm sure many others do too. That's not to take anything away from what you're saying though - there are lots of reasons why Cornwall is a bit of a special case. WaggersTALK 11:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to take anything away from Cornwall, but is it that much of a special case? In terms of governance it's almost identical to any other English county, and it has less autonomy than combined authorities with devolution deals. The existence of the Duchy of Cornwall is a difference, but we don't treat Lancashire as a special case because of the Duchy of Lancaster.
I'm just concerned about presenting Cornwall, as far as possible, as it actually is, rather than giving undue prominence to minority positions such as the county having a separate head of state to the rest of England. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend shutting down the RFC at Cornwall & (when ready) opening up an RFC here, with two options. Have flags in all British ceremonial county pages' infoboxes or Remove flags from all British ceremonial county pages' infoboxes. Consistency is required. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was largely the previous discussion, and now its being tested. Plus it's only "English" as ceremonial counties are treated differently in Scotland and Wales, and a Britain-wide guideline wouldn't work, ceremonial counties in Wales do not have flags, they don't exist. The main issue that started the debate was many of the flags are likely for historic counties not strictly the succeeding "ceremonial counties", how strict we should overlap the two is the main issue up for debate, as well as recognising modern usage. DankJae 00:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can't have a flag on all ceremonial counties as not all ceremonial counties have a flag. For instance, see this answer regarding a flag for Greater London [2]. I think the RfC options could be:
  1. Status quo
  2. Remove the recently added guideline regarding flags, allowing flags in all county infoboxes, but not mandating. A matter for page editors.
  3. Extend the prohibition of flags in infoboxes to all county articles of all types in England [optionally: and Scotland and Wales]
  4. Replace the guidance with something like "flags in county infoboxes are discouraged, but may be included when an editor consensus at the page demonstrates sufficient sourcing of a flag that is recognised and used in the county, and displayed and associated with the county by its people."
That last one would definitely allow Shetland and Cornwall to continue having a flag on their article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is option (4) not a more detailed version of option (2)? I'm a bit wary of offering three general options and one which is detailed, it seems unbalanced. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to cut any unnecessary options, but there is a difference. 2 removes any mention of flags in infoboxes, whereas 4 would suggest they should be avoided unless there is strong reason not to. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I see the difference now. Maybe option (4) should be rephrased something like 'Amend the guideline to discourage flags in county infoboxes, but allow them by editor consensus'. The aim is for all the options to follow the same format, if you see what I mean. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's fine. The discussion above mentions the quality of sourcing though. I would like to capture that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth having a second discussion about that, or even having that discussion first – decide if we need a guideline about which flags should be in the articles, and then where they should go. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To flesh out the above, I'd suggest:
  • A discussion (not necessarily an RfC) about how we use county flags, paying particular attention to flags which have been added to the encyclopedia because they're registered with the Flag Institute, but for which there is not much evidence of actual use.
  • The infoboxes RfC
  • Using the outcome of both of the above to help resolve the original dispute at Talk:Cornwall
I appreciate that the above adds an extra step, but does it seem reasonable to you? If the wider 'flag legitimacy' (for want of a better phrase) debate isn't resolved before the infobox discussion then I predict it overshadowing the latter and making it more difficult to reach a conclusion. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion outline[edit]

Yesterday, Sirfurboy and myself had a chat on their talk page about how to proceed with the discussion, and we've come up with a bit of a plan:

  • First, a discussion about which county flags we include in the encylopedia. This will not be an RfC, and will be run over the next week or so.
  • Second, the RfC about whether or not to include county flags in article infoboxes. Sirfurboy is going to work out the wording and scope based on the above discussion.
  • Finally, a conclusion to the discussion at talk:Cornwall which started this whole debate!

While the addition of a discussion before the RfC will make the process longer, clarifying what we're actually debating is necessary to help the RfC stay on-track; these discussions can get a bit unwieldy otherwise, as I'm sure many of us are aware.

The first discussion will be opened this weekend, and will be publicised on related talk pages to encourage a broad input of views. Cheers, A.D.Hope (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might be an idea to notify Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology about these discussions, once they are set up. Rupples (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Rupples. I've now notified heraldry and vexillology, and I've also notified the four national WikiProjects and the talk page of Cornwall, since the latter is where the overall debate started. If you can think of anywhere else to publicise the discussion please let me know and I'll do so. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff! Thought of the vexillology project as comments from that quarter might bring a different perspective. Don't think it's necessary to place a notice on each county project — quite a few seem inactive. The ones that might be worth notifying individually are the historic counties such as Yorkshire, Middlesex, Sussex and those where the flag has been in existence for a long time, Kent springs to mind. Perhaps scan through List of United Kingdom flags#Counties for the more "traditional" ones — no obligation though. It's a bit of a minefield, take Cheshire the wikilink above says in the Date column, 2013, yet List of English flags#Historic counties states 1938 and Bedfordshire says 2014 and 1951. Rupples (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acton Bridge copyright[edit]

Acton Bridge#History says This section is adapted (with permission) from Snapshots in Time, with a deadlink reference. The copyright issue with this was raised 9 years ago on the talk page to no response. Can anyone access this book and (a) determine if it is legitimately CC BY-SA 4.0 compatible and (b) if not, resummarise and rewrite the information in the book (if it's a reliable source) to avoid copyright violation? — Bilorv (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bit more information on the book at http://www.pardoe.net/abo/abwibook.htm but not enough to answer those questions. WaggersTALK 12:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I've blanked this material as its compatibility is unclear and I'm also not confident how relevant and encyclopedic it is. — Bilorv (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People categories and places[edit]

Requesting comment on a cross-discipline categorisation dispute at Talk:Crook o' Lune#Queen categories; may have wider application than this project (suggestions welcome), but I thought I'd ask here first. Dave.Dunford (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have to say I agree with you, these are definitely trivia at best. Give there appears to be no reliable sources that say the events mentioned actually happened, its unverifiable. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick: The same user is again adding what seem to me like peculiar categories to another place article on my watchlist, adding Port Meadow, Oxford to Category:Lewis Carroll and Category:Alice Liddell. There are associations between the place and the people, sure, but they are far from defining (Port Meadow is famous for lots of other things) and furthermore, Port Meadow is not mentioned in either of the articles Lewis Carroll or Alice Liddell. I simply don't think this is how categories are supposed to be used – wikilinks from the Port Meadow article (which already exist) are sufficient. Is it just me? I've tried talking to the user but got nowhere. Any thoughts? Dave.Dunford (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think your definition of categories is absurd, and hinters our ability to locate relevant articles. Dimadick (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think your definition of categories is absurd. And I think yours is too, and I think you are the outlier, which is why I'm here requesting a second opinion. If a category such as Category:Places visited by Lewis Carroll existed, then Port Meadow would belong in it. But, by your method, what are you going to do about somewhere like London? Are you going to put the London article in every category of every person with an article who's ever lived in (or visited) London, or even whose ouevre is particularly connected with London – and if not, why not? I challenge you to define what makes an association between a person and a place sufficient for you to put that place in that person's category, and what is insufficient. Your use of categories is subjective and illogical. If you really, genuinely want a list of "things that are peripherally associated with Lewis Carroll" you can find it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Lewis_Carroll Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick: I've been thinking about why I think your use of categories is illogical and inappropriate, and I've concluded that it comes down to my understanding that categories must have an aspect of "inclusion" and "direction", and your interpretation of them ignores that element. There is a clear hierarchy, a direction of inclusion, in valid category chains such as Category:Oxfordshire ⊆ Category:Oxford ⊆ Category:Areas of Oxford ⊆ Port Meadow, or Category:British male writers ⊆ Category:Lewis Carroll ⊆ Category:Works by Lewis Carroll ⊆ Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (where "⊆" means "is a superset of", or "contains"). Conversely, there is no such directed or inclusive relationship between Lewis Carroll and Port Meadow: there are lots of aspects of Lewis Carroll that are nothing to do with Port Meadow, and there are lots of things about Port Meadow that are unrelated to Lewis Carroll. You could just as well have placed Lewis Carroll in a (hypothetical) Category:Port Meadow. This may not be the right forum to debate your interpretation of categories, but I don't know where is. Dave.Dunford (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick: A further thought: the only logical way to reflect the association between Lewis Carroll and Port Meadow (or Elizabeth I and Crook o' Lune, for that matter) using categories, while preserving the hierarchical requirement, would be to create intermediary categories such as Category:Places visited by Lewis Carroll and Category:People associated with Port Meadow, and put Port Meadow in the former, and Lewis Carroll in the latter. This is rather analogous to a many-to-many relationship in data theory. But both categories would be deleted for being non-defining, if nothing else. These are loose relationships, and these are not a job for categories – which is effectively the point I've been trying to make all along. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
– "which is effectively the point I've been trying to make all along" The job of categories is to help concentrate articles relevant to a topic.Dimadick (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick: That's a very loose, subjective and individual interpretation of the purpose of categories, and ignores all the nuances I've explained above. Categories, by definition, imply inclusion: a one-to-many relationship. Port Meadow is not a subcategory of Lewis Carroll, since you could just as easily reverse the categorisation. If you drew a Venn diagram to illustrate the relationship it would show, at best, an intersection. Dave.Dunford (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick and Dave.Dunford: As far as I know the previous "ping" won't have worked, because it needs to be added in an edit which includes a signature in the same edit. Adding this one instead. PamD 21:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dave.Dunford: AFAIAA, Carroll nor Liddell, did not create Port Meadow? Merely rowed on it, with one sentence in the article. So don't seem to be a WP:DEFINING aspect of the subject, and are WP:OVERCAT for WP:NOTDEFINING. So agree these are overcats, noticed Sean Connery at Balmoral Hotel, looking for an outlandish example, seems this isn't recent.
In the end, templates (if needed) or the actual article can serve for navigation. DankJae 23:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is reminiscent of a problem at Mnemonic verses of monarchs in England, discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#What constitutes a "Cultural representation"?, where @Dimadick: had added "Category:Cultural representations of [every single monarch]": I maintain that a mention in such a verse is not a "cultural depiction".
On Alice: it's noticeable that although the article on Port Meadow, Oxford says "This is where the Reverend Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (Lewis Carroll) and the Reverend Robinson Duckworth rowed up the river on 4 July 1862 with three young girls — Lorina, Alice, and Edith Liddell. While journeying slowly from Folly Bridge to near Godstow, Dodgson began at their request to make up a story that later was expanded into Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.", the article on Alice's Adventures in Wonderland says "The journey began at Folly Bridge, Oxford, and ended 5 miles (8 km) upstream at Godstow, Oxfordshire.", so Port Meadow is merely one of the places they passed through. The categorisation is not helpful to anyone.
It begins to look as if Dimadick is in a minority of one in their interpretation of categorisation policy. PamD 13:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to throw my +1 into the ring here, I'm with Dave.Dunford - categories aren't for tenuous/spurious links. This kind of association might fit better as Wikidata relationships but even then, "places visited by a person" doesn't seem to be a sufficiently notable property for inclusion (visited by and visitor of are for insects visiting species of plants, there's no equivalent property for humans visiting places). WaggersTALK 13:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the relationship between Port Meadow and Lewis Carroll is rather tenuous, but it's not really the weakness of the association that bothers me, on reflection, it's the hierarchy of the associations. In a straightforward categorical relationship between two concepts, everything in the subcategory is associated with the supercategory. Everything within Alice in Wonderland pertains to Lewis Carroll, but not the other way round: Lewis Carroll wrote many books, but Alice in Wonderland has only one author. That hierarchical relationship doesn't apply here: Lewis Carroll is associated with lots of places, and Port Meadow is (or could be) associated with lots of people. Dave.Dunford (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wards[edit]

There has been some discussion on the inclusion criteria for wards, see User talk:Davidstewartharvey#Westborough Ward as well as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 29#Wards v settlements, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 10#Proposed deletion of all articles on local government subdivisions wards, divisions etc. and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chalkwell Ward. @Davidstewartharvey, Onel5969, Keith D, Eopsid, Sparkle1, Editing with Eric, Rjensen, RexxS, DuncanHill, Sionk, Mutt Lunker, Elmidae, Crowsus, Doktorbuk, Pigsonthewing, Ralbegen, Peter James, MapReader, Barkeep49, Mccapra, DELETEDUSER4562910, and Number 57: from these discussions.

The question is if wards are notable or not and if they should have separate articles from settlements or parishes of the same name. As we know counties have articles and are always notable like Essex, districts are always notable and generally have separate articles from the settlement of the same name like Maldon/Maldon District and parishes are always notable (except perhaps pre 1974 urban parishes) but are combined with a settlement of the same name like Waltham Abbey. However wards may not be considered notable like these per WP:GEOLAND as they don't have their own local government but to preform electoral roles. GEOLAND excludes things like census tracts but as was pointed out in the proposal to delete all wards that wards are not census tracts. I'll propose the list of options below about inclusion. Sometimes it may be best to decide on a case by case basis due to article size etc.

  • A, wards are treated as notable under WP:GEOLAND and considered legally recognized and should have separate articles from settlements of the same name namely Speke and Speke (Liverpool ward) are separate articles. This is similar to Parliament constituencies which always have separate articles even if the have the same name as a settlement or boundaries as a district.
    Arguments in favour, wards like constituencies have electoral roles and thus are likely to be considered legally recognized, the wards have census data and will often have an order to create or reform them. Because they tend to have contrived boundaries and change frequently unlike parishes which tend to remain stable for long periods and correspond to natural boundaries it may make them unsuitable to combine with settlements.
    Arguments against, many sources for them are primary sources and it doesn't appear they have the same importance as constituencies. Sources discussing the area etc that is more than trivial mentions may be hard come by. For urban ones in unparished areas often there is no census data or other formal boundaries for suburbs that were newly built as part of the larger town as opposed to villages that were absorbed into the town.
  • B, wards are treated as notable but should be combined with settlements of the same name namely Chalkwell deals with the ward of the same name with the exception of those that have a parish of the same name with different boundaries for example Boxford parish[3] and Boxford ward[4] have different areas so should be split. This may also cover cases like Wampool where a ward is named after a hamlet which thus only has a tiny population compared to the ward.
    In favour, the more rural areas with parishes are more distinct and already have data for the parish which suggests splitting may be a good idea. As noted for recently built suburbs there may be no other formal boundaries etc so using the ward boundaries even if unstable or they exclude part of the suburb may be more effective.
    Against, it may still be more effective to cover wards in governance or "ward" sections of parish articles.
  • C, wards are treated as notable but should be combined with settlements of the same name namely Chalkwell deals with the ward of the same name. Unlike B this also includes those with parishes with the same name but different boundaries. Like with Scotforth/Scotforth (parish) we would create separate articles if the ward excludes all of the suburb of which Brockley may fall into.
    In favour, as mentioned it may be more effective to cover wards in settlement/parish articles especially if there isn't much content in the articles.
    Against, as mentioned in the Castle Hill discussion ward facts may be unsuitable due to the instability and arbitrary nature of boundaries.
  • D, wards are not presumed notable and must pass WP:GNG in order to be notable and otherwise should be merged into related articles or deleted.
    In favour, as mentioned many independent sources that would show notability are often difficult to find.
    Against, as noted wards like constituencies have electoral roles and thus are likely to be considered notable.

Discussion[edit]

Please case you're !votes and other discission here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think wards come under WP:GEOLAND 2. Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it. The smallest British legally recognised division is a parish. Wards are just sub divisions, unless they meet GNG and meet Wikipedia:V, should be either deleted or merged into the main article (i.e. parish). In the case of Westborough Ward and Milton Ward both are primary sourced, and without any secondary refs, in fact all the election data is unreferenced. In the case of Westborough this can easily fit into the Westcliff-on-Sea article as it is within its legally recognised borders defined in the local plan, however Milton falls within both Southend on Sea and Westcliff-on-Sea. Therefore I would vote d based on the above.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • D. First of all thank you User:Crouch, Swale for setting out a number of options. Obviously wards are populated but I wouldn't describe them "settlements" as such. A ward might cover a single settlement; some might cover more than one settlement; others might cover part of a settlement. Ward names and boundaries can frequently change. In most cases they are names given to areas containing roughly an equal number of voters within a local government district or parish and used for local government elections. They are not areas used for local governance, so my interpretation is they do not have the legal recognition required for presumed notability under GEOLAND. There are articles that have election results going back over many years, which some readers likely find of interest. The problem is they largely consist of data i.e. the election result and boundary changes, though there could be commentary but it hasn't been included in the article. The problem with these is they would not make a suitable merge to the same-named article on the settlement because of UNDUE weight e.g. Allerton (Liverpool ward) and Allerton, Liverpool. I think it's preferable wards are treated on a case-by-case basis under the GNG. Although we're discussing the UK here, I think we also need to consider that wards exist in other countries and ask ourselves why UK wards should have presumed notability, when those in other countries appear not to have. Rupples (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • D, but the whole topic of wards seems to be distinctly inconsistent at present. If wards are of interest to readers, I would think a list of wards for any given council would be an asset. Looking at the two cities cited above, there is no list of the wards of Southend, as far as I can see, while there is a list at Liverpool_City_Council#Council_wards. Do we expect readers to look for wards? There is an article Dingle (Liverpool ward), but it is not mentioned in Dingle (disambiguation). There is City Centre North (Liverpool ward), but no redirect from City Centre North. There is no entry for Lancaster Rural North, in which I vote. It would be helpful if it was a redirect to Lancashire County Council, and if there was a list of wards there. Ah, I now find List of electoral wards in Lancashire (by following a link at the bottom of the "Council elections in Lancashire" navbox): why isn't it mentioned in the article on the council, which just tells me there are 82 divisions? Why aren't there redirects from the ward names? PamD 22:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Pam. Definitely agree if we were to have wards, Lists are probably the way forward. Someone started to think about it, as there are Categories set up Category:Electoral wards of Southend-on-Sea but as some wards have not been set up, they don't appear.
    Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now linked List of electoral wards in Lancashire#County council as a "See also" from Lancashire County Council#Elections, which seems a useful connection. PamD 16:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
D. Not independently notable, much too subject to change, often retaining the same name but with different CPs, even neighbourhoods. Belong as subsections in the relevant LA page. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
D. I've noticed a few wards pages as I've been working on the pages for districts and elections, and I've always thought they're an odd thing to have pages for. Whilst not census tracts in terms of WP:GEOLAND, they are analogous to them. The boundaries are reviewed every few years because the overarching objective is electoral equality, not community identity. Even where they share a name with a geographic community (village / suburb etc.), the ward will only rarely and co-incidentally be a good fit for the community. A page about a ward is therefore inherently contrived - there's not much you can say about it other than the election results, which can be quite adequately covered on the local authority elections pages. Stortford (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A As the policy states, populated, legally recognised places are notable. Wards are established by acts of Parliament/Statutory Instruments so they are legally recognised. If consensus is against independent notability, then GEOLAND would need to be changed to reflect that. I agree a lot with what Pam says re lists of wards. That would probably be the most useful focus before seeking to develop individual articles which may well become redundant depending on list quality. This isn't just an issue for the UK though. There are wards articles for Brisbane City Council, Ottawa City Council and Toronto City Council (these are ones that I know of, there may well be others). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • D Wards are subject to change at Boundary Commission reviews. As the Boundary Commission's boilerplate text says in their consultations and recommendations, When carrying out an electoral review the Commission has three main considerations: • Improving electoral equality by equalising the number of electors that each councillor represents. • Ensuring that the recommendations reflect community identity. • Providing arrangements that support effective and convenient local government. Our task is to strike the best balance between these three considerations when making our recommendations. To do this the BC will adjust boundaries and the numbers of councillors for wards, and even listen to local opinions about ward names, but it's impossible to find an appropriate number of communities of suitable sizes to satisfy all three considerations. As a result, communities and wards are not coterminous and though residents may engage with their councillors, it's questionable whether they feel any identity with their ward, see it as defining their community, or regard the boundaries as anything but arbitrary and changeable. The significance of the wards is that they return councillors, of which there are about 20,000 in England alone[5] - those councillors are not inherently notable and neither are the wards that elect them. NebY (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • D Wards are arbitrary and keep changing. So articles would not be particularly useful and would require a lot of maintenance. JonH (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • D - GNG trumps everything and I'm generally against notability criteria for different types of subjects in general on the basis of WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP. WaggersTALK 15:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A - having read GEOLAND again properly, and checked Geographical feature to make sure wards conform to the definition, I find Stevie fae Scotland's rationale above compelling. Wards should be assumed notable. On that basis I'm happy with option B but I think the encyclopaedic information about a ward (e.g. past elections, councillors, etc.) would interfere with the flow of an article about a settlement or parish, so A it is. WaggersTALK 07:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak C they don't appear to be census tracts and can be useful for merging other NN articles to like what seems to have been done for the wards in Bristol which is a county, district and single unparished area. In larger unparished areas especially if they are the same as a district wards may be a useful breakdown however I agree they change a lot and aren't like parishes etc so I'm not strongly saying they are inherently notable and it looks like consensus is against it anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

County flags: discussion 1[edit]

This discussion is primarily about which flags we include in the county articles. 'County articles' can be interpreted broadly to include the various county-level administrative subdivisions and the ceremonial/lieutenancy divisions across the United Kingdom. The overarching purpose is to decide whether we can create a consistent inclusion criteria for county flags, and if so whether this should be formalised as a guideline.

There are two issues which we could do with clarifying. The first is what to do about flags which have some recognition, but which are not in widespread use. This is closely related to the Flag Institute and its UK Flag Registry, which is our source for many county flags; although it has registered flags for many counties, they're not all widely used. Does a county flag belong in a given county article if it isn't actually flown in that county?

The second issue is how to handle flags which represent a different area to that which the article is about, for example where an English ceremonial county article also covers the historic county. Flag Institute flags, in particular, explicitly represent the historic counties rather than the current ones. The solution seems obvious – just specify the type of county a flag represents in the body text and image caption – but it would be good to gain consensus on this.

Let the discussion begin! A.D.Hope (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion A: flag inclusion[edit]

  • Comment, I think there should be two criteria on whether to include a flag. A verifiable source of a flag's design, in which a source like the Flag Institute can verify the flag's design (most flag images here are USERGEN, so needs verification) very clearly as they provide a detailed image of it, and another source showing what the flag is used for and if it is in public use. The Flag Institute alone is not enough, nor are some flag databases. Considering many flags have articles of their own, we could use those as a basis to see if these flags meet GNG. So if it has an article, use the flag (similar in how people are "notable"). Although many flag articles are barebones, and may not actually meet GNG. DankJae 09:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A 'double test' such as that could work well, yes. Giving the current flag articles an audit to see which meet GNC using the above criteria may be a good place to start. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion B: flag areas[edit]

General discussion[edit]

I see flags as relatively harmless, and I'd give them attention appropriate to the level of local adoption they have. In areas where you often see the flag when out and about (e.g. Cornwall, Devon, Northumberland) they probably warrant a bit more discussion. In other areas (I'm regularly in Berkshire but don't think I've ever seen its flag flying in the wild), less attention is probably due, although I'd still mention it briefly and include an image if there was some involvement from locals in producing it. I haven't looked into the background to all the county flags, but if there are any modern creations which have only been adopted by an unofficial enthusiasts' body like the Flag Institute, perhaps not worth mentioning.

I'd also bear in mind that most of the county pages are in fact multi-purpose - the Essex page covers the various definitions of the county, including its historic, non-metropolitan and ceremonial definitions, despite there being territorial differences between those definitions. (I don't like how prominently the article insists on it being a "ceremonial county" in the lead when the article also covers the other definitions - sounds like we're having to use the qualifier because it isn't any other kind of county, which isn't true - but that's a wider discussion.) For such multi-purpose articles, I'd be happy to see the flag included even if it strictly speaking was only adopted for one of the definitions, with appropriate caption or footnote to clarify. If it's only the Flag Institute who says it doesn't apply to a particular definition, I'd treat that restriction as being their view but not binding - in my own home county of Hertfordshire the county flag is routinely flown outside County Hall, and I suspect the county council would be non-plussed at a suggestion that it needs a footnote under it saying ignore this if you're from Potter Bar or the northern bits of Royston. Stortford (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd generally agree with Stortford above. The constant addition and removal of the flags from the few county articles I follow a bit tiresome, to be honest, and I'm not really convinced by the argument that "the article is about this particular definition of the county, whereas the flag applies to this definition" – the articles generally cover all definitions of the county in question. For the record, the Derbyshire flag (where I live) is fairly well known and well used. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On your first paragraph, it's worth mentioning that a lot of the county flags are modern creations; some only really exist in the Flag Institute's registry, others have been adopted more widely. The dates they were created can usually be found through the Flag Institute itself or British County Flags. I am a bit sceptical of some of the Institute's dates, but their veracity can be considered on an article-by-article basis; we're more concerned with the overall principle.
I broadly agree with your second paragraph, which echoes what I wrote above. When a flag is included we should clarify the area it's supposed to represent. For Hertfordshire, I believe this would mean explaining that the flag is the county council's banner of arms, which it has released for general use. This presumably means that it represents the area of the non-metropolitan county governed by Hertfordshire County Council. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

City population support[edit]

Just to check something. When reviewing the Liverpool page I could see that Liverpool 4th largest city in England (per List of towns and cities in England by population) which appears to be using BUA, so I did a head-count that it would be the 5th in the UK. However according to List of cities in the United Kingdom, if we ignore City of London/Westminster as we often do, it is the 9th largest in UK as it is vaulted by other cities because the list is measured by Local Authority area. Are we authoritatively saying that this is the specific size of the city? I ask because over on City of Leeds the wording is toe-ing the line of a technicality per making it technically the second largest city in England by population behind Birmingham, since London is not a single local government entity (as does Sheffield), while Birmingham is going for It is the second-largest city in Britain (never mind the "Second City" claim which includes a sterling source discussing the "Second City Derby" never mentioned within the article), Glagow confidently just states the third-most populous city in the United Kingdom while Bradford vaguely shakes a fist at the fourth-most populous metropolitan district and the sixth-most populous local authority district in England, Edinburgh meanwhile apparently can't count making it the second-most populous city in Scotland and the seventh-most populous in the United Kingdom (it's 8th). Can we agree a few things:

  • such technicalities are not warranted in leads
  • we should just use the List of cities in the United Kingdom methodology, and List of towns and cities in England by population should be changed to match it?
  • phrases like "by population" / "most populous" are not required where "largest" would suffice
  • city is clearer than diluting to met district / authority district (especially when one "City" is specifically, technically, "not a singly local government entity")
  • the List of cities in the United Kingdom probably needs a numbering system to help Edinburgh and readers in general (and I'll stop the ribbing now, honest) with two number 1 slots (or a wider definition of "London" in a numbered list)

Just in case of any confusion, the "Top 10" list should be:

  1. London
  2. Birmingham
  3. Leeds
  4. Glasgow
  5. Manchester
  6. Sheffield
  7. Bradford
  8. Edinburgh
  9. Liverpool
  10. Bristol

Thanks all. Koncorde (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

City status (at least in England and Wales) is held by an defined territory. Because in some cases this clashes with how ordinary language prefers to consider an urban area to be a city, we have to use our wording carefully. We can either do lists based on built-up areas, or we can do lists by areas that hold city status, but mixing and matching to our own bespoke policy makes for a mess and would need more explanation on too many pages, rather than sticking to the more objective "this place is Xth largest built-up area" / "Yth largest place holding city status". I agree, it sounds intuitively perverse to describe Leeds as the second largest city, but it is the second most populous territory to hold city status - perhaps it's a point to explain more carefully further down the article rather than prominently in the lead, but it is correct. Your "top 10" list looks like it's built-up areas from the 2021 census plus London first, but I would add a significant note of caution there - we have the new built-up area statistics from the 2021 census, but we're still waiting for the "built-up conglomerations" to be published. (The built-up conglomerations will be more directly comparable to the old built-up areas from the 2011 census - the built-up areas for 2021 are more like the discontinued built-up area subdivisions from the 2011 census.) I fully expect when the conglomerations data is published it will include London (whereas the published built-up areas so far don't) and we'll see a rather different ranking to the list based purely on built-up areas, at which point we can update articles accordingly. Stortford (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Stortford that we need to word things carefully, generally I'd prefer settlement population over districts I terms of preference for which is the best I'd use (1) BUASD, (2) BUA, (3) parish (or unparished area) and (4) district, see User:Crouch, Swale/Populations. I'd mention all 4 figures in an article (though not necessarily all in the lead) even if there are separate articles for districts or BUAs. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't disagree with either of you, I raise it because at the moment it seems a mixed bag of what is being used as the definitive source. For example the Leeds & Sheffield articles pipe "second / third largest city" to the List of English districts by population. This is obviously highly questionable as the list of districts is neither a list of cities, and conflates cities with districts, and has a lot of districts in there that are Unitary Authorities representing (largely) whole counties which would be confusing to any reader. Birmingham appears to be using this website whose population figures differ from those on any wiki list, so unclear what source is being used. Others use the List of cities in the United Kingdom, while places like Bradford decide every possible measure of size is required in the first paragraph.
Waiting for "built-up conglomerations" to come is fine, but are we agreed "BUC" will be the definitive version? How long do we wait while wikipedia is a mess of "technically" in the lead? Can we not just say "Leeds is the 3rd biggest city"? Koncorde (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you can find reliable source which say it is. If it's only true if you see things through the prism of a certain set of assumptions and modifications to what sources actually say then I'm afraid that falls foul of WP:SYNTH. Leeds is the second most populous built-up area on a list which expressly excludes London. However, you can't just choose to put London first and add one to all the other scores, because that isn't what the source says. If you look back to the 2011 built-up areas, which are the last official set that include London, the largest four were Greater London BUA (9.8m), Greater Manchester BUA (2.6m), West Midlands BUA (2.4m) and West Yorkshire BUA (1.8m). City Populations has tried pre-empting the 2021 built-up conglomerations with its own version that it's called agglomerations, which similarly has the three largest being London, Manchester and Birmingham, with Leeds/Bradford in fourth.
You also can't use the unqualified word 'city' and expect readers to automatically understand you're using it to mean urban areas, given that the official definition of city is something else. The Office for National Statistics carefully avoids using the terms 'city' and 'town' in its published datasets for urban areas and opts instead for 'built-up area' or 'built-up conglomeration' instead, so as to avoid ambiguity. We should not therefore introduce that very ambiguity by attaching different names to its data. Stortford (talk) 07:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet our articles use a mix of unqualified, qualified, and the source is.... piped wikipedia articles using mixed datasets. Koncorde (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following on from the above I think that List of towns and cities in England by population article is full of WP:SYNTH. Its source explicitly excludes London but the article includes it and the source also doesnt refer to the areas as towns or cities. Eopsid (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
List of towns and cities in England by population:
I have removed London from the table and you can remove the ranking if you want. Probably by the time you read this the town or city fields will be renamed to BUA. For other uses of town and city, I’d keep since you only need to go to the places article to see if it is a town or city.
Recommendations:
I recommend these to read up on town and city status and how to refer to places for the broader discussion. Maybe these answers some questions.
My opinion:
Use BUA for town and city articles when comparing size since the corresponding district article uses the other figure which tends to include other towns or parishes in the district. At least we have the word borough otherwise we would have the same disambiguation problem for towns that we do for cities. Chocolateediter (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fear the general reader will find it hard to understand why London's not in Wikipedia's List of towns and cities in England by population, the more so as the ONS does publish a census figure for London, and why if London's not counted as a whole, the larger towns and cities in London aren't included instead. I follow the reasoning that we have chosen to use only one ONS publication as our source, but that seems to have created an article which should be called List of towns and cities in England outside London by population. NebY (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that London is now a BUA. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale, Not exactly sure where citypopulation.de gets that. It doesn't appear on ONS Custom Profiles while Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester BUAs etc do, and apparently London has 33 BUAs, although ONS state they release data only on the 32 boroughs + City, so that's what the 33 likely refers to. So ONS seem to state there isn't a London BUA, and doubt citypopulation.de is as reliable than the source it claims its data is from. DankJae 22:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, the ONS provide inner, outer, city and greater London figures. I guess I’d be blamed for WP:Synth if Inner London figures were used (only City of London puts London below Birmingham out of the four). I assume the London Authority uses inner and outer so that is why they appear in the authority figure tables. Chocolateediter (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't mix different kinds of district/area in one list, sure; we don't need WP:SYNTH to tell us that. We could have two sections in List of towns and cities in England by population. One would be for London, which could be broken down by borough, inner/outer, or (as the ONS often does) both; the other would contain all the existing tables for anywhere but London. NebY (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DankJae: It appears that the definition of BUAs changed in 2022, see the 1st "news" entry of the top left of the UK page though we haven't got to 2022 data yet. And the ONS maps you've linked appear to show things that aren't BUAs and don't correspond to parishes. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale Confused, what I linked is for exactly the 2021 census. Searching Birmingham on the map gives "Birmingham Built-up area" as a option which produces a figure the same (but rounded) in the exact article. Nonetheless, I don't trust citypopulation.de's explanation of the situation more than the ONS itself, something from them is preferred. DankJae 08:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DankJae: OK I see, I was trying clicking on areas without searching and yes there is a Birmingham BUA but no London but indeed as I mentioned it appears it was only recently (according to City Population) that the definitions changed, see Kingswood, South Gloucestershire#Demography where although it makes reference to the 2021 census the data is from City Population which as I noted recently included the definition update. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help requested to resolve a dispute[edit]

Chocolateediter and I are engaged in an edit war at List of towns and cities in England by population, specifically over how the statistical area that the ONS calls "Milton Keynes" should be represented, and more generally whether the basic premise of the list is sound. We have both reached 3RR so we appear to be at an impasse. Is there a Solomon in the house? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Type=Town in infoboxes[edit]

I note there is an increasing tendency to replace the link to the wikipedia article Town in infoboxes with a link to List of towns in England. Surely this defeats the point of of the parameter? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography&oldid=1220049212"