Jump to content

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places): Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
80.255 (talk | contribs)
1,936 edits
No edit summary
12 in favour, 2 against, motion carried
Line 7: Line 7:
===Counties of England===
===Counties of England===
''Capitalization not treated here''
''Capitalization not treated here''
(Carried with 12 in favour, 2 against)


''We should use the current, administrative, county. E.g. Eton is in Berkshire, not Buckinghamshire.''
====Approach 1====
One way to state which county a place is in is to use the current (administrative) county. E.g. Eton is in Berkshire, not Buckinghamshire. This approach is consistent with most [http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(places)#Dispelling_a_myth] local and national government literature, some private sector literature, will be familar to most readers and writers, and indeed the approach will apply even if boundaries change again.


This approach is consistent with most local
'''Supporters of this approach''': [[User:Pcb21|Pete/Pcb21]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|(talk)]], [[User:Chrisjj|Chris Jefferies]], [[User:Morwen|Morwen]], [[User:Arwel Parry|Arwel]], [[User:G-Man|G-Man]], [[User:Warofdreams|Warofdreams]], [[User:Tarquin|Tarquin]], [[User:Francs2000|Francs2000]]
and national government literature, some private sector literature, will be
familar to most readers and writers, and indeed the approach will apply even
if boundaries change again. It is also easy for people to find out where
a particular village is, as maps with administrative boundaries are freely available online. While historic county maps do exist, it is hard to find one with maps of modern urban areas and city and borough boundaries transposed against historic counties. It is also consistent with other encyclopedias such as the [[1911 Encyclopedia]], which specifically Cromarty 'Ross-shire' a 'former county'.


We should mention historic counties in articles about places and in references
Implementational details: ''In which articles do we need to mention historic counties? Obviously articles of the county itself e.g. [[Warwickshire]], and ex-county towns such as [[Huntingdon]] should mention [[Huntingdonshire]]
to places in a historic context, but only as an afternote. In geographic
[[Coventry]] is likely to mention that Coventry has only been in West Midlands since 1974. But the [[Lady Godiva]] article wouldn't need to mention a county at all?''
references elsewhere we could use the ceremonial counties, as as pointed
out, it is not useful to state that "Luton is a town in the county of Luton". We should especially use ceremonial counties in listing places by county.


In historic references we should make sure to note that the county at the time
Cons:
was not the same as the county now, if relevant.
* Does not recognise the fact that traditional and administrative counties are seperate entities.
** IMO, they are sufficiently similar that the reader would be best served by describing all the meanings over history of a particular county name in one article. The current surplus of articles is a bit of a minefield, e.g. the two Denbighshire articles would seem contradictory to an uninitiated reader. Best to spell out in one place. [[User:Pcb21|Pete/Pcb21]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|(talk)]]
* Produces a number of confusing anomalies: e.g. 'South Gloucestershire' not being part of 'Gloucestershire'.
** The best place to dispel this confusions would be a single article named Gloucestershire, with a redirect from South Gloucestershire. [[User:Pcb21|Pete/Pcb21]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|(talk)]]
*** I think it would be far easier to have one Gloucestershire article which mentions the status of South Gloucestershire as part of the traditional and administrative counties, but a seperate administrative district, and to have an article on it (e.g. see [[Somerset]]) [[User:Warofdreams|Warofdreams]] 02:50, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
* Fails to recognise that historic counties ''are'' used rather more than some "anti-traditionalists" would like to admit: e.g. compare google results for [http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Bexleyheath+Kent%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&meta= Bexleyheath Kent] and [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&q=%22Bexleyheath+London%22&meta= Bexleyheath London].
** Funnily enough a Google search for Bexleyheath London and Bexleyheath Kent without the quotes gets more hits for the London rather than Kent version. Bexleyheath also seems very poor represented on the web. Most hits seem to be [[link farm]] hits for hotels all produced from the same source... but that's drifting off the point a little. Is the best wording for the Bexleyheath article - Bexleyheath is a town in the [[London Borough of Bexley]].... Prior to the county boundary changes of 1974 Bexleyheath was in the county of Kent.
*** Try comparing Sheffield West Riding (about 3500) with Sheffield South Yorkshire (about 187000) and even Sheffield Hallamshire (about 11000). And if we are to use traditional counties, why use the West Riding rather than Hallamshire: not an administrative area for the last 950 years, and yet still more Google hits. [[User:Warofdreams|Warofdreams]] 02:50, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
**** The concept that just because more people claim one thing over another somehow makes it right is laughable. A lot of Americans refer to Britain as 'England' (probably more people worldwide than refer to it correctly). Does this make their point-of-view right? Of course not. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to inform people of the truth. You can include popular opinion by all means, but state that it is just that, and not the truth. [[User:Owain]]
*****So I'm confused as to why you might support "traditional" counties. Their only use at present is from people remembering the old counties. In the case of some places (in particular on the edge of Greater London) this may be a majority, but if that's not why you support the usage, surely we should adopt the administrative or ceremonial counties primarily with a mention of traditional counties where they are for some reason significant. [[User:Warofdreams]]
******Why do the Royal Mail have traditional counties on file for every address in Britain then? Surely by your logic that's no use to anyone under 50. The problem with so-called ceremonial counties is that they are still fixed to local government areas, and therefore will change with further administrative reorganisation. Also they perpetuate some unloved areas like Merseyside. Who in the Wirral wants to live in Merseyside? The fact that traditional counties have nothing to do with local government makes them ideal as unchanging geographical areas. [[User:Owain]]


Articles about counties should not be split up and should not be
* With the rise of Unitary Authority Areas and the scraping of administrative metrolpolitan counties as administrative units, many places carry a 'county' name that divulges very little useful information: e.g. Darlington is in the 'county' of Darlington; the same applies to croyden,dudley, poole, oldham, gateshead, luton, wrexham and countless others. "Wrexham is a town in Wrexham" is not a terribly informative statement!
disambiguation pages. They should treat the counties as one entity
** ''Agreed that that statement would not be informative. How best then to start such articles?'' (listed in order of becoming more like approach 2)
which has changed its boundaries with time. We should not take
**# '''Wrexham''' is a town and Unitary Authority in Wales. Prior to the Local Government (Wales) act of 19xx it was located in the county of [[Denbighshire]]. (+ Denbighshire articles contains details about its pre+post 1994 boundaries)
the minority position that they still exist with the former boundaries.
**# '''Wrexham''' is a town and Unitary Authority in Wales. It is located within the traditional boundaries of Denbighshire but became a Unitary Authority in 1994]
We should mention that this position exists, especially on pages like [[Yorkshire]] and [[Middlesex]].
**# How about this which I personally would prefer: '''Wrexham''' is a town and [[unitary authority]] in [[Wales]] and [[traditional county|traditionally]] a part of [[Denbighshire]] (+ Denbighshire articles contains details about its pre+post 1994 boundaries). [[User:G-Man|G-Man]]
**# '''Wrexham''' is a town and Unitary Authority in Wales. It is located in the tradional county of Denbighshire....
**# '''Wrexham''' is a town in the traditional county of Denbighshire. It also the name of the Unitary Authority which includes Wrexham town and the surrounding area.
**# '''Wrexham''' is a town in the County of Denbighshire. It is also the name of a Unitary Authority which includes the town and surrounding area.
*** (1) is downright incorrect and should not be considered on the grounds of accuracy. I would support (5) but am willing to compromise to (4). [[User:80.255|80.255]] 00:18, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
**More accurately:
::: '''Wrexham''' is a town and Unitary Authority in Wales. Prior to 1974 it was located in the county of [[Denbighshire]], while between 1974 and 1996 it formed the Borough of Wrexham Maelor within the County of [[Clwyd]]. [[User:Arwel Parry|Arwel]]
::::Wrexham has never ceased to be in the [[traditional county]] of [[Denbighshire]]; is it not currently in the [[administrative county]] of the same name, however. A ''genuinely accurate'' statement would be:
:::: '''Wrexham''' is a town and Welsh Principal Area in Wales. The town is in the [[traditional county]] of [[Denbighshire]]. Prior to 1974 the town also lay within the [[administrative county]] of [[Denbighshire]], while between 1974 and 1996 it formed part of the the Borough of Wrexham Maelor within the administrative county of [[Clwyd]].
:::: [[User:80.255|80.255]] 03:59, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
::::: And as has been repeated ''ad nauseam'', your 'traditional' county of Denbighshire has '''no practical current existence whatsoever'''. People in Wrexham still sometimes put "Clwyd" when they address letters, they do not put "Denbighshire" on them. The former existence of the old county should be noted but '''very much in a subsidiary position''' in the article. The prominence you are seeking to give to the old counties is absolutely unjustifiable and only spreads confusion among readers who are not familiar with the true situation. [[User:Arwel Parry|Arwel]] 16:19, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
:::: Well said Arwell. It seems to me that stating that the "Traditional County" of XXXXXXX exists but has no administrative functions is a contradiction in terms. Being an administrative unit is the entire reason for a county's existance. If it does not exist as an administrative unit then what exactly does it exist as ?. The historic counties are certainly rarely used as geographic terms these days. As far as I'm concerned if it looks like duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is reasonable to assume that it is a duck. If a "county" has no administrative functions, and most people who live within it have no affinity towards it or even realise it exists, then it is reasonable to assume that for all practical purposes it does not exist. [[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 18:56, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
::::: How can the existence of a geographical area that's different from an administrative area be a contradiction? Take Northern Ireland. The six counties there haven't been used as administrative areas since 1974, just as in the rest of the UK, but they appear on maps, people talk about them, they exist. What about the laughable concept of 'ceremonial counties'. How can they exist if they have no local government function? Because people don't think it exists it doesn't exist? What a preposterous statement! Hey, if I stick my head in the sand I can pretend the world doesn't exist.. and so on. [[User:Owain]]
::::But the "traditional counties" are in most cases not used to describe geographic areas any more. Take for example [[Birmingham]], the geographic term used to describe the location of Birmingham is always the West Midlands and never Warwickshire. The same applies to Manchester and Liverpool, when was the last time you heard anyone refering to those cities as being in Lancashire?, like it or not people now use the modern county boundaries as geographic references not the historic ones, life has moved on since 1974 you know. And before you say it about the metropolitan counties not being administrative units, I would like to point out to you that in all of the metropolitan counties, policing, emergency services, public transport etc are still organised on a metropolitan county wide basis, and they are also still used for statistical purposes, so they do still have some "real world" existance and an identity, unlike you're precious historic counties. [[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 23:59, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
:::::Just when I thought you couldn't get more inconsistent than you already have been, you have! Are you suggesting that that what qualifies existence is simply use in some government/administrative capacity? If so, the registration counties of scotland must cause you a lot of problems, being, as they are, identical to the pre-1974 administrative counties! Why are you so pained to accept that different entities can exist simultaneously? ''Not being abolished'' is the only reason required for the continued existence of something - if this weren't the case the very basis of this country and its law (the magna carta and statue of common law) would crumble, leaving britain in consitutional anarchy. [[Llivia]] is still spanish; the workings of nations and administrations is based upon ''what is correct'', not ''what G-Man thinks is the "real world"'' - and the ''real world'' itself is determined by these workings! There is still no such thing as a "modern county", however much you use this nonsense label. As for the administrative metropolitan counties having a continued "real world existence" by merit of their use in public transport - I take it you also recognise the continued existence of the Kingdon of Wessex, given that it is also used in this way? Perhaps we should change the [[Wessex]] article to keep up with this "real world" yet factually entirely groundless "existence"? I do not want to see traditional Counties given their due status simply because people ''commonly use them'' in everyday life - although indeed, they are used far more than you are obviously aware - but because they are ''current entities that have an indisputable real and legal existence, and without which no administrative processes in the UK could take place by merit of the fact that they provide the basis for all divisions used by the government for whatsoever administrative process you could care to mention''. Enclyclopaediae are concerned with ''facts'', not your opinions on what the "real world" may be, nor mine. The facts stand unsupported, and those facts are that traditional Counties currently exist, and without them your beloved administrative change-a-day borders wouldn't have a leg upon which to stand! [[User:80.255|80.255]] 22:00, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)


With respect to the areas covered by unitary authorities, we should only call them counties if they (a) are legislatively defined as such, and (b) are significantly larger than the town they are centred upon, or have no such centring. So we would refer to the [[county of Milton Keynes]], the [[county of Swindon]], and the [[county of York]], but we would say just [[Leicester]], [[Derby]], [[Stoke-on-Trent]].
* If the ''current administrative county'' is to be used, then former administrative metrolpolitan counties cannot be mentioned - for example, terms such as "West Midlands", since these are not current (now split into smaller, administrative units). This is likely to be met with opposition from some quarters.
**As has been pointed out before, the metropolitan counties were never abolished in law. You can find examples of legislation well past 1986 mentioning them.
***And of course they could've been mentioned even if they had become matters of history. The most helpful presentation on [[Dudley]] would say something like ' '''Dudley''' is a town and in the [[metropolitan county]] of the [[West Midlands]] conurbation.... From 1974 to 1986 Dudley was governed by the West Midlands county council though since then most local services have been administered by Dudley District Council.... Prior to the county boundary reorganisation of 1974, Dudley was located within Worcestershire.... The zoo there is on a hill...'
**** Dudley has never ceased to be in the historic County of Worcestershire. A better text would read:' '''Dudley''' is a town in the [[traditional County]] of [[Worcestershire]] [link to Worcestershire (traditional) when it exists], in the [[west midlands]] of [[England]]. It is also a [[Metropolitan district]] [[Unitary Authority Area]]. From 1974 to 1986 Dudley was governed by the West Midlands county council although since then most local services have been administered by Dudley District Council.... Prior to the administrative county boundary reorganisation of 1974, Dudley was located within the [[administrative county]] of Worcestershire...' [[User:80.255|80.255]] 00:27, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
**** Boy that's complicated [[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 17:31, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
***** :). In the actual articles on such towns the admin/county information might be spread throughout the article rather put one after another as in these examples... depends on how much other history there is write about. So that would spread the complexity out a bit. [[User:Pcb21|Pete/Pcb21]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|(talk)]]


Metropolitan counties should be treated as counties - the fact that they no longer have councils has no relevance on their legal status.
====Approach 2====
We should state that the county that a place is in is its historic county. The idea is that these historic counties are timeless standards with little cause for confusion. We also won't have to update Wikipedia every time the boundaries change. Such an approach also results in sensible outcomes whereby York and Leeds are in Yorkshire, Leicester is in Leicestershire, the isle of Bute is in Buteshire, etc.
This approach clearly deliniates between traditional and administrative counties, eachoing the similarly clear deliniation made by successive acts of law and government statements, from 1888 onwards.


With respect to which version of the traditional boundaries we should acknowledge as having historic importance - the versions before the 1847 revisions would probably be best - they include many more anomalies, like [[Islandshire]] and other exclaves.
'''Supporters of this approach''': [[User:80.255]], [[User:Owain]].


Examples of acceptable things:
Cons:
*''Coventry is in the West Midlands, and within the traditional borders of Warwickshire''
*Some claim that this approach can cause confusion. The historic and administrative lineages split further and significantly in 1974. Thus some claim that the use of historic names has little resonance for those under the age of 35, although supporters of this approach would argue that this facts is disputed . For these people the historic county names and locations are interesting snippets of historical information, to be mentioned in relevant articles - but no more than that.
*''Most of the pigeons were found at [[Abingdon]], then part of [[Berkshire]]''
**I don't see how mentioning traditional counties could cause confusion - the Royal Mail for example have the correct traditional county on file for every postcode in the country so they can and should be used in addresses. The administrative areas on the other hand are just going to get less useful as more and more unitary authorities are introduced. Where is Tredegar? In Caerphilly? No it isn't, that's a completely different town 10-plus miles away. Where is Derby, Leicester, Blackpool, etc? Administrative areas are useless for this purpose, but a single well-defined county name that is independednt of local government is a perfect solution. The fact that it's different from local government boundaries is a strength not a weakness. [[User:Owain]]
*''Middlesex is a traditional county of England, now mostly covered by [[Greater London]]''
*The boundaries do not change frequently. In fact once a decade is a reasonable average. Compare that on average a Prime Minister is in office for about five years. We obviously keep the Prime Minister and related articles up to date! This 'advantage' is phantom.
*''Southwark is a village in the [[London Borough of Southwark]] in [[Greater London]]. It is in the traditional borders of [[Surrey]]''
**Why should people have to re-learn where they live just because of a current political trend? Local government areas are supposed to be for efficient delivery of certain services, not as a general identifier of where a place is. The fact that unitary authories exist now that aren't descriptive is reason enough not to use them even if there were no further boundary changes for a thousand years! [[User:Owain]]
*The "timeless standard" is also somewhat dubious - see the [[Counties of England]] paragraph to appreciate how difficult it is define exactly which counties where are the historic ones - after all historic counties are just administrative counties from 800 years ago. '' - this article was created by Morwen using generally unrepresentative snippets from replies of 80.255 that were not intended to stuck together in such a way. Thus, it is unnecessary confusing. For the purposes of this debate, I suggest that the 'timeless standard' is taken to be that of 1887, a year before the creation of administrative counties, [[User:80.255]].
**''Wouldn't that timeless standard then include Bristol?'' [[User:Morwen|Morwen]] 12:13, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)
***I don't see why not as long as it's pointed out where Bristol is geographically (i.e. straddling the Gloucestershire/Somerset border) [[User:Owain]]
**** 1887 is hardly "timeless". -- [[User:Tarquin|Tarquin]] 17:26, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
*This approach goes against common usage and perception in daily life. Maps, directories, 'Welcome to' roadsigns, signs on official buildings, businesses etc normally use the modern county names. [[User:Chrisjj|Chris Jefferies]]
**Just because people repeat the same inaccuracies doesn't make them right. There is no such thing as 'modern county names'. Local government areas are not counties - at most they are 'administrative counties'. Welcome to signs and official buildings are owned by the local council, hence them using their names and boundaries! You are right though that central government needs to erect county boundary signs that are independent of local government boundaries. [[User:Owain]]
*Because of this approach, the article on [[Huntingdonshire]], for example, focusses attention on the historical county rather than the current district council of the same name. Wikipedia articles should begin with current information and deal with history in the body of the text (except for purely historical topics). [[User:Chrisjj|Chris Jefferies]]
**Huntingdonshire IS a traditional county. A local government area borrows its name because it borrowed its area. As we all know local government areas can be changed on a whim. Perhaps the page for the district council should state so. The current 'county name (traditional)' and 'county name (administrative)' distinction works, so what's wrong with that? [[User:Owain]]
*** I think having two articles for each county name is a dogs dinner. It is just plain common sense that we should have a single article on, for example, [[Warwickshire]] that spells out its historical boundaries over the years and most recently the 1974 change which significantly reduced the size of the county. Having two articles each telling half the story with a bit of overlapping just makes no sense.
**** The 1974 change was a change to an administrative area, NOT a change to the county itself. This has been spelled out many times. The original LGA 1888 was clear to make the distinction that the new areas just happened to have the same names and roughly the same areas. The government made a similar clarification in 1974 although they made the mistake in the LGA 1972 of using the word 'county' instead of the phrase 'administrative county'. The end result is the same though - the administrative areas have changed, NOT the counties they were originally based on. The fact that people don't make the distinction is the root of all this confusion in the first place.
*Approach 2 makes it impossible to write short, clear introductory paragraphs on cities, towns and villages which have changed hands historically from one county to another. [[User:Chrisjj|Chris Jefferies]]
**Not at all. How many places really moved from county to county? If you exclude detached parts I'd say relatively few. A short introduction to a place can say where it is located geographically (i.e. what traditional county it's in) and if they want to go on to say how it is governed administratively then that's an entirely different point and can easily be in a distinct paragraph. [[User:Owain]]
***''say where it is located geographically (i.e. what traditional county it's in)''
***This is a non-sequitur. If a traditional country (i.e. an administrative county from a long time ago) can be used for pinpointing location then so can today's administrative counties. Traditional counties are not more "real" in any sense than today's counties, just older and much less used today.
****Really? Where is Leicester? Derby? Blackpool? Tredegar? Where will they be in 20 years time? The concept of using administrative areas that can be changed by a Statutory Instrument is madness! Britain needs a stable geography that CAN'T be changed by the government of the day to suit their political aims. I know where I come from - I don't want successive governments telling me I come from somewhere else... [[User:Owain]]
*This approach is not used by any other encyclopedia (even the in many ways archaic [[1911 Encyclopedia]] uses the [[1889]] counties.) - for example ''Cromarty, formerly a county in the north of Scotland, was incorporated with Ross-shire in 1889 under the designaton of the county of Ross and Cromarty.'' [http://17.1911encyclopedia.org/C/CR/CROMARTY_EARL_OF.htm]
**Not true at all. To use the Wrexham example again, the Encyclopaedia Britannica says "Wrexham county borough, historic county of Denbighshire" [http://britannica.com/eb/article?eu=79632 Online version] [[User:Owain]]
***And the entry on Denbighshire says 'Welsh Sir Ddinbych county of northern Wales extending inland from the Irish Sea coast. The present county of Denbighshire includes the Vale of Clwyd along the River Clwyd and an inland area between the Clwydian Range in the east and the Clocaenog Forest in the west that ascends to the Berwyn mountains in the south. The lower Vale of Clywd and the seacoast are part of the historic county…'. Note use of 'present county'.
**** On the whole, the 1911 Britannica consistently delineates between what it terms "counties" and "ancient counties". This terminology is no ideal by any means, and I don't see anyone arguing that the 1911 britannica is flawless. Yet what is you argument? The 1911 Enclyclopaedia Britainnica is flawed, ergo we should ensure that Wikipedia is similarly flawed? For someone who coninually bemoans "out-of-date usage" is it surely bizzare that you are trying to ensure that the same errors and irregularities are perpetrated simply because they were in 1911! [[User:80.255|80.255]] 22:00, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Examples of unacceptable things:
====Possible convention====
*''Coventry is a town in Warwickshire, and administered by the metropolititan administrative "county" of [[West Midlands]]''
* Develop an article on the subject 'county' that covers both points of view.
*''Brixton is a place in Surrey, England within the former metropolitan "countiy" of Greater London and in the London Borough of Lambeth.''
* Explain specific historical changes in the article on each individual county, referring back to the article above for the principles involved.
*''Middlesex was a county of England. It was abolished in [[1965]] after being gutted in [[1889]] to form the [[County of London]]. The end.''
* To avoid clumsiness, use whichever approach (1 or 2 but ''not both'') is finally agreed in city, town, village etc articles, always linking to the relevant county article.

Further suggestions (80.255):
* A standard boilerplate for stating the traditional county and administrative county in a clear, correct and unconfusing manner.
* Redirects from both (for example), [[Huntingdon, Huntingdonshire]] and [[Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire]] to a ''more neutrally named article'' (e.g. [[Huntingdon, East Anglia]], in which can appear the agreed boilerplate text stating the county situation.
* Seperate articles on counties themselves, all appended with either (administrative) or (traditional). This allows the relevant maps, etc. to be shown in the ''correct'' article without causing confusion. For an example of this method, see [[Gloucestershire]].


===States in the U.S.A.===
===States in the U.S.A.===

Revision as of 22:02, 1 January 2004

This page is fledgling. It shouldn't yet be thought of as final as other pages in the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (...) series

General issues

If the name of a place has changed over time, what name do we use to refer to that place? When places 'change ownership' during the course of time, what convention should be followed?

Specific issues

Counties of England

Capitalization not treated here (Carried with 12 in favour, 2 against)

We should use the current, administrative, county. E.g. Eton is in Berkshire, not Buckinghamshire.

This approach is consistent with most local and national government literature, some private sector literature, will be familar to most readers and writers, and indeed the approach will apply even if boundaries change again. It is also easy for people to find out where a particular village is, as maps with administrative boundaries are freely available online. While historic county maps do exist, it is hard to find one with maps of modern urban areas and city and borough boundaries transposed against historic counties. It is also consistent with other encyclopedias such as the 1911 Encyclopedia, which specifically Cromarty 'Ross-shire' a 'former county'.

We should mention historic counties in articles about places and in references to places in a historic context, but only as an afternote. In geographic references elsewhere we could use the ceremonial counties, as as pointed out, it is not useful to state that "Luton is a town in the county of Luton". We should especially use ceremonial counties in listing places by county.

In historic references we should make sure to note that the county at the time was not the same as the county now, if relevant.

Articles about counties should not be split up and should not be disambiguation pages. They should treat the counties as one entity which has changed its boundaries with time. We should not take the minority position that they still exist with the former boundaries. We should mention that this position exists, especially on pages like Yorkshire and Middlesex.

With respect to the areas covered by unitary authorities, we should only call them counties if they (a) are legislatively defined as such, and (b) are significantly larger than the town they are centred upon, or have no such centring. So we would refer to the county of Milton Keynes, the county of Swindon, and the county of York, but we would say just Leicester, Derby, Stoke-on-Trent.

Metropolitan counties should be treated as counties - the fact that they no longer have councils has no relevance on their legal status.

With respect to which version of the traditional boundaries we should acknowledge as having historic importance - the versions before the 1847 revisions would probably be best - they include many more anomalies, like Islandshire and other exclaves.

Examples of acceptable things:

Examples of unacceptable things:

  • Coventry is a town in Warwickshire, and administered by the metropolititan administrative "county" of West Midlands
  • Brixton is a place in Surrey, England within the former metropolitan "countiy" of Greater London and in the London Borough of Lambeth.
  • Middlesex was a county of England. It was abolished in 1965 after being gutted in 1889 to form the County of London. The end.

States in the U.S.A.

Countries of Europe

There have been many changes as the result of two World Wars (eg the disappearance, reappearance, and change in area of Poland), many minor conflicts (eg the breakup of Yugoslavia), and peaceful political reorganisations (eg the division of Czechoslovakia)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(places)&oldid=2066102"