Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 42

English county flags

Apologies for another 'counties thing'; I was hoping to address this after the potential county guideline change above, but I can't see that going anywhere now so it may be better to switch to a smaller topic: flags. For a while I've been excluding flags from the ceremonial county infoboxes for the rationale explained below, but we should probably have a proper guideline in place (whether it's this or another one). My guideline proposal is:

English county flags
Do not include any flag in the infobox of an English ceremonial county article. Instead, include flags in an appropriate section of the article body. Appropriate flags to mention in the body are those registered with the Flag Institute and unofficial flags which reliable sources report to be in widespread use to represent the county.
When an historic county has its own article (e.g. Sussex, Cumberland), this is the most appropriate place to cover its flag. Otherwise, include the historic county flag in the relevant ceremonial county article. Bear in mind that many flags have their own articles (e.g. flag of Wiltshire), so a summary is all that is needed elsewhere.

Version 2:

English county flags
Flags should not be included in English ceremonial county articles unless they are notable; reliable sources must confirm that a flag is widely used to represent a county. Registration with the Flag Institute alone is not sufficient evidence of notability.

When a flag is to be included, this should be done in the ceremonial county article which best covers the area represented by the flag. When a flag represents an historic county which has its own article it should be included there instead. Bear in mind that some flags have their own articles (e.g. flag of Wiltshire), so a summary is all that is needed elsewhere.

Do not include flags in the article infobox. Instead, include flags in an appropriate section of the article body.

The rationale for the above is as follows:

1. County flags registered with the Flag Institute represent the historic counties of England. The majority of the ceremonial counties have different boundaries to their historic predecessors/counterparts, so one flag can’t represent both entities. The flag of Lancashire, for example, represents the parts of the historic county now in Merseyside, Greater Manchester, and Cumbria, but not the parts of the ceremonial county of Lancashire which were formerly in Yorkshire. It's an impossible circle to square in the infobox, but the body allows more room for context.

2. Unofficial flags are just that, unofficial, so shouldn’t be in the infobox. If they’re notable enough to be mentioned in reliable sources I don’t see an issue with mentioning them in the body.

3. Banners of arms (i.e. coats of arms turned into flags) are the property of the council that owns the coat of arms. They do not represent the area they govern in general, so shouldn’t be in the infobox. Council coats of arms aren't included for the same reason.

There are a few county flags which long predate the Flag Institute (e.g. Essex, Kent), but for our purposes I’d recommend treating them like the other historic county flags. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @G-13114, @10mmsocket, @JMF, @XAM2175, @Acapital, @NebY and @Edmund Patrick, @TheCyberDragon, as based on this discussion and other interactions I believe you have at least a little interest in the topic. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd like an exception for Cornwall (concerning how much more controversial it would be), but I don't expect for it to be granted. As this is only England, won't comment further. (Wales has a stable ad-hoc situation; flags on only dedicated historic articles, or re-created historic counties in 1996) DankJae 17:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Don't worry, I know Wales is stable and I'm very keen on doing my bit to keep it that way! I'm neither here nor there on Cornwall, but I do think that 'put all the flags in the body' is a reasonable compromise which sidesteps a lot of the issues which arise from putting them in the infobox. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The body is the best place to give these issues the clarification needed. The infobox is for uncontentious essentials. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

And it's also completely wrong. We don't recognise the difference between 'historic' and other types of county on wikipedia as our longstanding policy makes clear. Your proposed guidance is completely at odds with our existing policy. Also why are you giving credence to the flag institute? They aren't an official body, they describe themselves as a charity. G-13114 (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Just so. Recognition by the Flag Institute does not render a flag official or indicate that it has been adopted by the lieutenancy, nor is it a sign of lasting common usage, though it may indicate promotion of the flag by a campaigning organisation. As the Association of British Counties puts it, "As part of our efforts to strengthen the identity and recognition of the nation’s counties, the county flag is a highly effective weapon. ... The advent of this registry with its pertinent county stipulation is therefore an opportunity for ABC to pursue its goals, exploiting a novel resource that suits our aims well."[1] NebY (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

We've tended to treat flags registered with the Flag Institute as semi-official as the UK Government gives the institute some recognition as an authority on flags (see bottom), but there's no statutory basis for their use so far as I'm aware.

Am I right in thinking you're arguing for the exclusion of Flag Institute flags on the basis that they're not official? A.D.Hope (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that registration by the Flag Institute is neither a necessary nor a sufficient reason for inclusion in our articles. That a government webpage includes the Flag Institute under "Further Information" is hardly governmental "recognition" and it's a mistake to treat the institute's registration as semi-official. NebY (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, but I'll be interested to see if there's a consensus for changing our stance toward Flag Institute flags. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying I'm arguing for exclusion? To repeat, I'm saying that registration by the Flag Institute is neither a necessary nor a sufficient reason for inclusion in our articles. NebY (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I realised I'd worded the comment above badly and quickly altered it, but you must have caught the first version. Apologies! A.D.Hope (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Considering there was a time (the remants remain), of a user generating flags for cities based on their coat of arms, with no evidence the flag itself has been used, the Flag Institute is a good resource to confirm the validity of the design or existence of flags. But ofc, shouldn't be the sole justification for inclusion alone, but if the flag appears in a bunch of news articles and images on/in the (historic) county then it should be probably included. Although you can argue, if common usage overrides the FI's specification that they're only for the historic county, and people regularly use it for the ceremonial county, then could be justified in that way. DankJae 19:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

That's a very good point and kind of gets to the crux of the matter, which basically is that some editors like to see flags in the infobox and take a looser view of what the county infoboxes represent, whereas others prefer more clearly defined inclusion criteria. This leaves us with an anomaly. The historic county of Yorkshire has an infobox flag while Lancashire doesn't (even though the heading to the Lancashire infobox is Lancashire County Palatine of Lancaster). I can understand why people might be peeved by this. Rupples (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Correction: the County Palatine header has recently been removed. I was looking at a previous version of the Lancashire infobox. However, the infobox continues to state the county was established in c.1182. Rupples (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@NebY@JMF@DankJae@G-13114

I've re-written the guideline based on your comments (see 'version 2' above), any further feedback is welcome. In prticular, do you think the guideline adequately suggests that e.g. the Lancashire flag only needs to be covered in Lancashire, not Merseyside, Greater Manchester, or Cumbria? A.D.Hope (talk) 11:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Is the last sentence advocating no flags in the infobox at all even on historic counties like Yorkshire? And what determine's notability of flags here? The existence of a separate flag article? DankJae 11:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

It is, yes. Notability isn't related to a separate flag article, it's just determined in the normal way e.g. by newspaper articles proving a flag has been used 'in the wild'. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to spoil the party but as a general principle, spotting instances of use does not make a valid citation (it's OR). A citation needs to be an RS reporting that it is used. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Well I guess basing it on the existence of flag articles is probably a weak argument from myself, after looking a bit and noticing the lack of secondary sources or any source, seems many flag articles such as Flag of Buckinghamshire, Flag of Cumberland, Flag of Plymouth, Flag of Hampshire, Flag of Kent, Flag of the City of London, Flag of Middlesex, Flag of Norfolk, Flag of Northumberland, Flag of Oxfordshire, Flag of Shropshire, Flag of Suffolk, Flag of Surrey, Flag of Warwickshire, and Flag of Bedfordshire have to be deleted in their current state. If they can't be proven notable, I guess removing the flag for these ones entirely.

Tbh Wikipedia has had a long-standing issue of flags (especially user-generated ones), so there may need to be some stricter criteria on using them entirely. DankJae 12:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The underlying issue seems to be that many of the county flags are poorly sourced, with an over-reliance on the Flag Institute and not enough evidence of actual use. It's only by assessing each in turn that we'll know which flags are notable enough to be retained. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

That article is a reliable source supporting the use of that flag to represent Lancashire. I wouldn't use it as the only source to support that claim, it was intended as an example of the type of source we're likely to find. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Of the two options I prefer (1). I recommend reading MOS:INFOBOXFLAG and MOS:NONSOVEREIGN and would like to remind everyone of the recent ArbCom advice emphasising WP:LOCALCONSENSUS - in other words, the global MOS guideline trumps anything that might be decided here.

It's fair to say the MOS is mainly talking about flag icons (e.g. to indicate a person's nationality within a bigger article) as opposed to this kind of use case, but I think the principle holds - they're just best avoided. I've been around Wikipedia long enough to know how problematic flags have been in the past. WaggersTALK 13:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I do agree with the spirit of the parts of the MOS you mention, but because they're about flag icons rather than flag images (as you note) I don't like to lean on them too heavily in these discussions. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

You have just reminded me, however, that I removed flag icons from several ceremonial county templates only last week. There are more out there still to do, such as the local election infoboxes. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• Fundementally oppose version 2. It extends notability to article content against the whole ethos of this encyclopedia. Notability is about whether it's justified for a topic to have its own article. See WP:N. The only exception of which I'm aware is the listing of notable people in settlement articles, where in order to keep the list manageable only those with Wikipedia articles are included. Size concerns do not apply here. Rupples (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

  The intent of the first part of version 2 is to discourage adding flags to articles simply because they exist; I don't think this is controversial, we frequently discriminate when it comes to article content. Is it just the use of the word 'notable' which is the issue? A.D.Hope (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I really think the references to notability should be removed, but even if they are I still oppose version 2. You say the intent is to discourage adding flags to articles simply because they exist. Why? I've read the MOS sections highlighted by Waggers and don't see how they apply here. Is there a great controversy over inclusion of county flags/coat of arms etc? Am I missing something? The first version of the proposed guideline looks pretty much OK. It should help to resolve a problem with editors inserting historic-based flags in the ceremonial county infobox and was the explanation used in your reversion edit summaries. Version 2 looks to give the all clear to remove existing flags from the ceremonial county History section and prevent new ones being added. Most of the flags I've come across are thoughtfully designed and seek to illustrate aspects of historic counties history, which are included within the history section of the ceremonial county articles, or is pre-'97 History invalid? Rupples (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

  The county flags are part of the wider, general debate about the interpretation of the county guidelines and how to treat the historic counties. It's a longstanding issue, as you're probably aware.

  Version 1 of the guideline assumes that flags registered with the Flag Institute are inherently worthy of being included somewhere in the ceremonial county articles. The discussion which followed challenged that assumption and led to version 2. The intent isn't to prevent flags from being included in the ceremonial county articles at all, but to encourage editors to find evidence that a flag is actually used before adding it to an article.

  It's worth noting that in many ceremonial county articles the flag isn't in the history section at all, but in a 'symbols', 'culture', or 'emblems' section (e.g. Herefordshire#Emblems, County Durham#Culture, and Devon#Symbols). Given many of the flags are recent creations I think this is more appropriate than placing them in the history section, and I'm tempted to be more explicit about this in the guideline proposal. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

  Re the historic counties, Wales perhaps has the right idea. Don't know if it's the norm, but Flintshire and Flintshire (historic county) are taken care of in separate articles. I wonder if it's better to adopt that approach, where possible. I note for Bedfordshire its history has been largely spun off to History of Bedfordshire. Think I prefer Bedfordshire (history county) as the title, but I digress. Agree with your point on placing recently created flags in a symbol/emblems section. Don't immediately see how we can tell from sources whether a flag is widely used. What exactly is meant by this? The first version says in widespread use a subtle change which could mean something different. Rupples (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

  @DankJae is the person to ask, but I believe Wales follows the WP:UKCOUNTIES guidance of only having separate articles for historic counties which no longer have any administrative role at all. I suspect the rationale for the two Flintshire articles is that they cover significantly different areas.

  On widespread use, the answer will probably vary depending on the flag, but I'd expect to see evidence if a flag has been e.g. flown from public buildings, appeared at sporting events, or generally has an existence outside of the internet. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

  @A.D.Hope, the basis for those articles is based on Talk:Historic counties of Wales#So. But to sum up, the historic counties of Wales were completely abolished for administration in 1974, so not a continuous administrative entity like many in England are, such as Lancashire, but those in Wales with the same boundaries were merged, such as Ceredigion/Cardiganshire. Plus those articles date to almost as old as UKCOUNTIES so a long standing exception. UKCOUNTIES does state Former counties of Wales (those that no longer function with an administrative role), examples: Glamorgan, Denbighshire (historic), which is helpful for Denbighshire where half of the historic county isn't in the modern one, and that the modern county has no connection to the old one except name.

  In terms of flags, if I am hearing @JMF right, a source has to show and describe the use of a flag, so a sole image of such probably isn't enough, and if we were to implement that criteria, many flags probably have to go entirely, such as those I mentioned above. Understand this criteria, considering many unsourced flags have been added in the first place. DankJae 22:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

  Plus for Wales it is only three extra articles, would be hard to apply it to England. DankJae 22:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I'm wrong but but I thought the original objective of this discussion was to provide back-up to justify reversions of flags placed in ceremonial county infoboxes. If so, this can be achieved by adding to the Infobox section of the Counties guideline something like "Flag(s) should not be placed in the ceremonial county infobox because .... (reason(s) why not)". That's it. There's no need to suggest in the guideline they be included in the body or anywhere else, nor that they be excluded. Leave the option open and to editor discretion. Should an unsourced flag be placed in the body, revert in the normal way. I don't support either of the proposed changes to the guideline. Rupples (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

That was the original objective, but it's become a more general discussion about the county flags. In my opinion we do need to be clear about which flags are generally considered acceptable and where they should go, because (what I consider to be) inappropriate flags are regularly added to the county articles. For example, at South Yorkshire an unofficial flag was added this week and the banner of arms of the defunct county council was added in August. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

But you and others have successfully reverted these infobox flag additions without the backing of a guideline. For South Yorks and other recent instances I've checked the flags were all placed in the infoboxes, not the article body. Rupples (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

A guideline would be helpful as it indicates consensus, making those removals easier in the future. When flags are added it is nearly always to the infobox, yes. A.D.Hope (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 1.1

Following the comments by @Rupples last night, is there general support for adding the line:

Do not include any flag in the infobox

To the 'Infobox' section of the 'English, ceremonial, "Shire county"' section of WP:UKCOUNTIES? The rationale for this would be the same as that given for the original proposal. This would provide a solid basis for removing flags from the ceremonial county infoboxes, independent of the discussion above about the notability of the county flags in general. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I would add a brief rationale why. Something like disagreements/misunderstandings/lack of consensus over what flags represent, which "cannot be adequately explained within the limited confines of an infobox". Not sure of the actual wording but the principle is that where a valid reason is given and pointed out it helps aid understanding and compliance; otherwise it comes across as an order/instruction with no apparent basis that's more likely to be ignored. You took the trouble to provide good explanation on User talk:Adzri64#County flags, which is commendable. Hopefully a link to the guideline either in the edit summary or editor Talkpage would save time explaining. Rupples (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a yes from me. Rupples is right that including a bit of rationale would help; I don't think we need a massive discussion to agree on the exact wording though, I trust you to put something sensible. WaggersTALK 11:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

In response to both of you (@Rupples), perhaps something like:

Do not include flags in the infobox, as they cannot be properly contextualised there.

That part of the guideline is instructional rather than explanatory, so a full rationale wouldn't really fit in. Ideally we'll soon have a proper guideline on flags which will will provide editors with an explanation for our position, but we're not quite there yet. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Personally, wouldn't have thought of "contextualised"; it's not a word I've ever spoken! Rupples (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Is that a stamp of approval for 'contextualised', @Rupples? I doubt I've ever said it myself, now that I think on. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I may have thought of "placed in context" but not "contextualised". As I'd never used the word and couldn't recall coming across it I did take the trouble to look it up. Read into that what you will :) — it's just that it may be preferable to use a form of wording that perhaps is more easily recognised. But yes, a brief reason for the 'instruction' is fine. Rupples (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't tell if you meant 'that's a good word, I just hadn't thought of it' or 'use a simpler word'; it's no bother though, I'll use 'placed in context' or similar. :) A.D.Hope (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's not always easy to convey what one means and others can read into one's words meanings that were not intended. I recently amended a reply at an AfD upon re-reading my original wording. I purposely put in the :) in my reply so that you wouldn't take it as criticism and appreciate your reciprocation. Rupples (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't MOS:INFOBOXFLAG already say "just don't do it"? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@JMF, thats for flag icons like England, otherwise we’d be removing the Union Jack from United Kingdom. DankJae 16:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Just as you say, it's more for cases like the individual county flags being added to the English region articles (since removed). A.D.Hope (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I've added the following to the lead section of the English ceremonial county guideline:

Do not include flags in the infobox, as they cannot be properly contextualised there.

As relatively few editors have contributed to this discussion I would be receptive to re-opening it if there are objections to the new guideline. I also think that a wider discussion about county flags would be good, but maybe after Christmas eh? A.D.Hope (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Wigan

Wigan has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Frimley § Town/village discussion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Frimley § Town/village discussion. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Worcestershire Newsletter - December 2023

• This newsletter can't be read on a mobile (or, can't be read by me on my mobile, in various modes) because it uses "Navbox" syntax. Just mentioning this to draw attention of the editors of it to this accessibility issue. PamD 09:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Districts v former counties

At Talk:Cumberland#Merge proposal there is a discussion about if districts that were formerly counties should have separate articles or not. @Chessrat, Devokewater, ThoughtIdRetired, Inops, and A.D.Hope: who have participated there. Previously I asked this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 27#Districts v historic counties but I was also talking about unitary districts that share the same name as a current county like Shropshire (district) and County of Herefordshire but this time I'm only asking about districts where the county doesn't exist at the time the district exists/existed.

Those affected are include those where we have 1 combined article for both the district and former county are:

• Huntingdonshire (which the district was called just "Huntingdon" until 1984)
• Richmondshire (which was abolished as a district in April and its not clear if it was ever a ceremonial or administrative county)

On the other hand we have 3 districts with separate articles, all 3 districts were created in the last few years.

• Cumberland/Cumberland (unitary authority)
• East Suffolk (county)/East Suffolk District (former county wasn't ceremonial)
• West Suffolk (county)/West Suffolk District (former county wasn't ceremonial)

It seems to me like Cumberland, Huntingdonshire and Richmondshire fall in WP:UKCOUNTIES where it doesn't make sense to make a distinction between administrative and ceremonial and the boundaries are similar (presumable for Richmondshire) so it probably makes sense to merge. Yes in the case of Cumberland (and East and West Suffolk if we also decide to merge) we would loose things like the Infobox historic subdivision but this doesn't seem like a big issue as Oxfordshire doesn't have an infobox for pre 1974 Oxfordshire and putting the current infobox from Cumberland (unitary authority) would seem helpful. Similar reasons seem to apply to keeping Huntingdonshire and Richmondshire merged.

In terms of East Suffolk and West Suffolk it seems that because the counties were never ceremonial counties and thus there weren't lots of definitions making it difficult to decide what to split and because the boundaries of the districts are quite different namely the fact that the current Babergh and Mid Suffolk districts aren't in the districts but were in the counties leads me to think it may be appropriate to have separate articles but I wouldn't really have a problem with merging them though.

Should we merge Cumberland and East and West Suffolk or should we split Huntingdonshire and Richmondshire or only split/merge some? I don't have a strong opinion either way or strongly desire consistency (though I think East and West Suffolk should be treated the same) but I'm wandering what people think, thoughts? Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I would be inclined to keep the Suffolks as separate articles given the very different borders and lack of ceremonial nature of the former country, but that the others should be merged and there's no need to keep them separate. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 22:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Something to put into the decision-making process, however small a point it may be, is whether or not there is any sense of identity established or continued for any of entities discussed. For instance, in Cumbria, the old "Cumberland" continued in the names of the two NHS hospitals that serve the region, being named at the time of the county Cumberland, continuing through the merger into Cumbria and now still existing with the unitary authority. There was never any discussion about changing those names. We also have Cumberland sausage (available in all butchers in the area) which has maintained the identity of Cumberland, regardless of how local government is organised. I agree that a sense of identity is difficult to measure and evidence, but it is still detectable. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I think all historic counties have identity to the community but only Middlesex, Sussex, (though East and West exist) Yorkshire (though East Riding, North, South and West exist) and Westmorland have this which points to not splitting as its more likely to cause confusion due to the different historic and ceremonial definitions. As someone from Suffolk I only found out in 2012 about the counties of East and West Suffolk and I was surprised that I had never heard about this, on the other hand I had heard long before about Cumberland and Westmorland and only more recently did I find out that East and West Suffolk were not "full" counties. I think this points to having separate articles for the Suffolk counties. Probably if the concept of administrative v ceremonial counties had have been kept in 1974 the Isle of Wight would have been a unitary district of Hampshire but because that concept was abolished they had to either make it a 2 tier district of Hampshire (as originally planned) or make it a completely separate county. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Chessrat: where an administrative area has broadly similar boundaries to a current or former ceremonial county the two entities can generally be covered together. Historic Cumberland and unitary Cumberland are close enough, even if the latter is missing Penrith, but the various Suffolks aren't. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Stortford: What are you're thoughts on these, you have been editing the Suffolks recently anyway. Do you agree with the rest of us that the Suffolks should stay separate? What are you're thoughts on the other cases? Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree to keep the 1889-1974 administrative counties of East and West Suffolk separate from the post-2019 districts of the same name. The modern districts are a new thing rather than a re-establishment of something resembling the old counties after a 45 year hiatus. Stortford (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like we all agree, and just for the record, I do too! WaggersTALK 11:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Format for parts of towns

In {{Infobox UK place}}, where parts of a town/city are listed, should any bracketed terms like "(Village)" have that capital letter or not? See Shrewsbury etc. It looks wrong to me, but I thought I'd check here for consensus (or an actual written guideline). Thanks. And a Happy New Year to all, with lots of productive and collegial editing! PamD 09:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is necessary at all. After all, again looking at Shrewsbury, many of the other places listed were former villages. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Capitals for proper nouns only. Rcsprinter123 (confess) 15:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

No they shouldn't be just like Mercury (planet) isn't. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Murgatroyd49, I don't think those bracketed terms should be there at all. But if they are they should definitely be all lower case. WaggersTALK 14:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

At present the articles I've seen affected are Shrewsbury, Northampton and Peterborough, though there may be others. Should we edit those to (a) remove "(Village)" or (b) change it to "(village)"? PamD 15:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd just remove them, they don't add anything in the current context and could be confusing. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll maybe leave it until this discussion has been here a week, just in case there are any other opinions. PamD 15:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

It's over a week now :) WaggersTALK 11:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, consensus here seems to be that those descriptors should not be there, with or without capital letters: I've removed them from the lists in Shrewsbury, Northampton and Peterborough. Thanks for comments. PamD 17:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Describing historic counties in past tense

Hi, following edits by @A.D.Hope, at Yorkshire citing WP:UKCOUNTIES that historic counties do not exist. Should the leads of Glamorgan, Renfrewshire and Cumberland, for example, be "was a county"?

Plus historic counties of England etc, being "were areas"? DankJae 23:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Just to note, I'm applying UKCOUNTIES as written but I would prefer a more nuanced approach, which I outlined and tried to gain consensus for here. The discussion petered out, unfortunately. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

If it's any help, Britannica uses the present tense "Yorkshire is/comprises".[2]. See also Glamorgan.[3] Rupples (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I live in Berkshire, according to the BBC and many organisations which require my postal address, in one of the unitary authorities which replaced the now-defunct Berkshire, listed in Wikpedia's list of historic counties of England. As far as I am concerned, it is, not was, but other similar cases where the name is no longer used may well be considered was. I agree with @A.D.Hope that a straightforward black-and-white approach is not ideal. Bazza (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)'

The leads of Glamorgan, Renfrewshire and Cumberland should certainly say "was a historic county". The leads of Berkshire and Yorkshire, like Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire and many more, should say "is a ceremonial county". I don't see the problem? Over the centuries, counties have come into existence, gone out of existence, expanded, contracted and changed. It has only become a problem because a lobby group want to pickle in aspic the status as at an arbitrary moment in time of their choosing. See WP:ADVOCACY, WP:SOAPBOX. We have been over this repeatedly and the logic always leads inexorably to the same conclusion. Please don't start it up again.--𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Yorkshire isn't a ceremonial county; according to UKCOUNTIES it's a 'former county' as it no longer has an administrative role, which means referring to it in the past tense. The phrase 'was a historic county' reads somewhat awkwardly, hence 'was a county'. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I suspect we'll get a lot of opposition from proud Yorkshire folk if we imply that Yorkshire no longer exists. Certainly it has no role as a county in any current sense, but it's very much a current, commonly-recognised "area" that people identify with, in the same ways as East Anglia is.

Other countries have these kind of unofficially/loosely defined areas too - consider things like the Bible Belt/Deep South in the USA. So I think there's a case for defining Yorkshire as a present-tense "area" in the same way, while acknowledging it's not longer a county in any meaningful sense. I'm not sure the same applies to Glamorgan etc.

We really need to be careful about being overly prescriptive and reliant on officialdom for things that really relate to cultural humanities as much to physical and administrative geography. WaggersTALK 11:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

We might receive a lot of opposition, but according to our guideline Yorkshire is a former county which no longer exists. The solution would be to change the guideline, but that's proved impossible to do.

I would be willing to re-opening the discussion had earlier this year about my proposal to change the wording of the first part of the guideline, but first I'd really need some commitment from other editors to see the process through. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

You haven't addressed my comments about defining Yorkshire as a (current) "area" as opposed to a county. WaggersTALK 12:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The current guidelines encourage this, but as a 'legacy' section. The current Yorkshire lead does mention its continued cultural relevance. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why the lead of Yorkshire has to be so "work to rule". At talk:Yorkshire, I have proposed a non-confrontational text: Yorkshire is an area of Northern England. A county in its own right until 1889 (when it was divided between three Ridings for administrative purposes), it retains a strong local identity as a unit for many purposes. We can debate the details at that talk page but here we should focus on the general principle. To me, our main objective should be to keep all these mechanical details below the parapet. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Personally I think the root issue is that the county guidelines are unfit for purpose, as editors more often end up battling against them than using them as an aid. Less prescriptive language would help. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

That's an excellent introduction and would serve the reader much better than our current opening, a list of neighbours. NebY (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Made all of Wales' past tense anyway. DankJae 17:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope, DankJae, and JMF:: Jumping in a week late, I’d say something is past tense when it is obscure and irrelevant. (If you don’t want examples jump to summary but if you don’t read context properly you will be annoying)

–

Councils, combined authorities and parliaments are doing the bins, building transport networks and creating laws so are relevant and have to be well-known to a lot of things so the areas these cover have to be used were appropriate.

Regions, ceremonial counties and historic counties are all irrelevant (unimportant) to current governance; they all exist and serve a role to context to different situations (where in England, what is it grouped with and where did somewhere get its name).

Cleveland is an obscure name but it has some relevance since Redcar and Cleveland, a group of hill, etc exist.

Something that is former, the obscure and irrelevant like Widdecombe-shire or Dickering.

I’d say a recent example is Richmondshire District Council being abolished, Richmondshire is no longer relevant to most things and has faded into enough obscurity that Crouch Swale in the District vs County didn’t even known if it was at a time a ceremonial county or historic county (neither -shire suffix was also used for wapentakes so it has always been a district).

Using ceremonial counties does feel like a square peg in a round hole sometimes and this is especially true low league sport maps.

–

To summarise, can I suggest we please use these questions instead of strict guidelines:

"Is it relevant?"

"Is it obscure?"

"Which best fits the situation?". Chocolateediter (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

In the end, the guidelines are there, so unless we change them (best piece-by-piece), then we have to consider them. But I'd argue if an area is more commonly referenced now as an "area" or a "region" than a historic county then UKCOUNTIES doesn't need to automatically apply. But if the term was and is only used for the former county then we should follow such guidelines. Basically only follow UKCOUNTIES when the article is mainly on a county. DankJae 22:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Even if the historic counties do not officially exist, that does not mean they are automatically referred to in the past tense. They can exist in the present in the minds of people and in common talk. Assuming again they do not exist in an official capacity, then that is what is happening (being treated as existing in the present) because so many sources use the present, as well as innumerable people in common speech. I therefore say to those rigidly insisting on using only the past tense, face reality and deal with it! Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

In the end, that is what WP:UKCOUNTIES states in its current form, I do not like it, but it's there unless changed. I raised this initially because I was caught off-guard with the past-tense. But can see the reasoning, considering it makes sense for Wales, which has separated historic county articles. DankJae 23:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Uncited list of districts

I'm cleaning up Category:Articles lacking sources from December 2023 and I saw that most of "List of districts in the London Borough X" articles are not cited; some (such as this) are in total disarray. Can somebody here help deal with this? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a slight tangent, but not I'm keen on using the word "district" there because of the official meaning it carries - essentially the boroughs themselves are districts so the areas within them need to be called something else. "Suburbs" or "neighbourhoods" might be a better choice. WaggersTALK 11:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Waggers, Be bold and fix it then! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the number of "district" lists and categories at Category:Districts of London by borough and Category:Lists of places in London this is going to be a pretty huge requested move. I don't think it's "just do it" territory. WaggersTALK 11:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

There are so many official uses of "district". The London Plan has 33 local authority districts but 149 District centres (District being between Local/Neighbourhood and Major) as well as various Business Improvement Districts, and the borough Local Plans go into detail on them. NebY (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the biggest lessons I've learned from editing Wikipedia is just how sloppy we are with language and definitions in the UK. WaggersTALK 10:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

We have too much history of too many fixes. Or, after the rolling English drunkard made the rolling English road, he sat in the pub and named things. NebY (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I wish we had one type of county! A.D.Hope (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

This is kind of addressed at List of areas of London. "Area", although a vague definition, avoids meaning anything official (like "district" does) most of the time. I would say there should be a big consensus-gathering exercise before changing anything wide-scale, though. Rcsprinter123 (indicate) 00:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm aware we've hijacked @CactiStaccingCrane's thread which was asking for help with sources for (ahem) areas of London, perhaps we should get back to that. WaggersTALK 09:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

No, no, it's fine! I find the discussion to be helpful. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Multiple boroughs in infobox

Worcester Park is a suburb which straddles two London boroughs and a Surrey borough. Should the infobox show this, and if so how? I've experimented a bit with "London_borough1" etc but can't get anything apart from Sutton to show up. PamD 08:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

They can all be added and do show up but it makes the infobox confusing. It may therefore be better to have just the 'main' one in the infobox and leave the others to be explained in the text. What the main one is, is open to question and perhaps best discussed on the article Talk page because Worcester Park doesn't look to have a defined boundary. Rupples (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Kilburn straddles the line between Brent and Camden, Kilburn High Road. It would be misleading to leave one out, and besides a significant part is in Westminster. The infobox uses the parameters london_borough, london_borough1 and london_borough2. NebY (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree where it's just an overlap with London boroughs both can be included, but with Worcester Park the infobox would also have Epsom and Ewell as a district and Surrey and Greater London as ceremonial counties. Also, with Worcester Park, other than the railway station and a sports ground it seems little else is in Kingston. Rupples (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The infobox doesn't work too well when there are multiple regions or counties. In the case of Worcester Park they come out in this order:

---

• London borough
  • Sutton
  • Kingston upon Thames
• District
  • Epsom and Ewell
• Ceremonial county
  • Greater London
• Shire county
  • Surrey
• Region
  • London
  • South East

---

Arguably it would make more sense in this order:

---

• London borough
  • Sutton
  • Kingston upon Thames
• Ceremonial county
  • Greater London
• Region
  • London

---

• District
  • Epsom and Ewell
• Shire county
  • Surrey
• Region
  • South East

---

-- Dr Greg  talk  23:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@PamD:: "Kingston" is Kingston upon Thames! Using

| london_borough = Sutton
| london_borough1 = Kingston upon Thames
| shire_county = [[Surrey]]
| shire_district = [[Epsom and Ewell]]

should achieve what you desire. Bazza (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Lundy

Lundy has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Non-metropolitan districts named after rivers and other geographical features

Last November, User:A.D.Hope moved Cherwell District to Cherwell (district) saying that that district was called simply "Cherwell" in legislation.

Does the same apply for other non-metropolitan districts that are/were named after rivers that flow through them? Is Arun District called simply "Arun" in legislation, and was Eden District called simply "Eden" prior to abolition?

Does the same also apply for non-metropolitan districts that are named after other kinds of geographical feature? Is Epping Forest District called simply "Epping Forest", Malvern Hills District simply "Malvern Hills", Cannock Chase District simply "Cannock Chase", etc.?

I don't mean to sound like I'm disagreeing with A.D.Hope's action - I'm just curious. :) 2A02:8084:F1C0:4700:F45E:6499:599F:893D (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

There's usually an exception somewhere, but districts generally don't include 'district' or 'district of' in their formal names. The ones you mention are simply 'Arun', 'Eden', etc., and should therefore be referred to as 'Arun district' (uncapitalised) rather than 'Arun District' (capitalised). In article titles I think 'Arun (district)' is best, as 'Arun, England' could still be confused with the river.

There's typically a piece of legislation somewhere which mentions the district and therefore confirms its name, such as the Arun (Electoral Changes) Order 2013, and the ONS also periodically produces district maps, which can be helpful for checking names. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if I sound like a cracked record here, but Wikipedia policy is to use common names which aren't necessarily the same as official names. Nobody should be renaming articles to match an official name without consensus that the new name has become the most commonly used name in reliable sources. WaggersTALK 11:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify the point I'm making - I happen to live in a borough that is named after a town. Usually when someone says the word they're talking about the town; when they're talking about the borough they'd usually include "Borough of..." or "...borough" to make the distinction clear, or even "... council area" - and the same is true of the local press. Common usage trumps official names. WaggersTALK 11:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using 'borough' to disambiguate, either in titles or text, but it should be lowercase unless the word forms part of the official name or would otherwise be capitalised, e.g. at the start of a sentence. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I guess the tricky thing is when council names come into play - e.g. in Cherwell District Council, the "District" is part of the name so capitalised; but that's the council of Cherwell district. Oh what fun. WaggersTALK 12:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's just one of those local government inconsistencies I'm sure we're all used to by now! A.D.Hope (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

This applies to all districts named after something else, that they're not the primary topic (after cities, valleys, their county). If multiple sources use "Foo District" then that can be a suitable WP:NATDAB, preferred over using parenthesis "Foo (district)". Wikipedia does not follow official names for article titles, although seems no clear commonname for these. Could see the argument for consistency among England's, if they're all legally just the shortened name. Wouldn't use the map as a basis, they may have altered names for visualisation.

If this argument were held, would that mean "Durham (county)" over County Durham, Hounslow (London borough) over London Borough of Hounslow, and Bradford (metropolitan district) over City of Bradford? DankJae 12:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• The districts are generally called "X" (per Ordnance Survey as well as legislation) but WP:UKDISTRICTS says about using natural disambiguation if possible. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Evanton

Evanton has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Rhondda

Rhondda has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I have created a proposal to reverse an undiscussed split at Talk:List of Nuttall mountains in England and Wales#Merge proposal. I believe that may be of interest to members of this wikiproject. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Notice of requested move Talk:Demography of Belfast#Requested move 1 February 2024

There is a requested move at Talk:Demography of Belfast#Requested move 1 February 2024, proposing to rename some "Demography of" articles to "Demographics of". Interested editors can comment at the RM. Adumbrativus (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Note that

1. The move request concerns 26 articles, not just Belfast
2. WP:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements specifies "Demography" as a section heading.

PamD 08:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Coatbridge

Coatbridge has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm _Talk 15:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Geography question: what's a spate river?

The lead sentence of River Rothay has had this red link since it was created in 2005 (and the term seems to occur, though not linked, in a few other articles). Is there a geographer around who could clarify? (@Geopersona: asked on the talk page 13 years ago but never got an answer). PamD 20:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

It's fed by rainwater (ie few tributaries) so the water level varies depending on recent rainfall and can run at high force when full and be quite erosive. Largely a fishing term. Rcsprinter123 (spout) 23:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

RfC on Cornish flag

An RfC has been opened at Talk:Cornwall about ncluding the Cornish flag in the article infobox. Please contribute if you would like to do so. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for South West Coast Path

South West Coast Path has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Northallerton

Northallerton has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm _Talk 02:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Brighton and Hove

Was Brighton and Hove given city status in 2000 or 2001? Some sources say 2000 and some say 2001. Maybe the request was accepted in 2000 and happened with effect in 2001. There is also other complains about the articles at Wikivoyage:User talk:Crouch, Swale#Question. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: It took effect on and from 31 January 2001. There has been low-level disruption at Brighton, Brighton and Hove and related pages for some time along the lines of what has been written on your Wikivoyage talk page, from various IPs and single-purpose accounts. I think it is all based on a misreading of the text which granted city status (full text here), which admittedly is slightly ambiguously written. ...Now Therefore Know Ye that We of Our especial grace and favour and mere motion do by these Presents ordain declare and direct that the TOWNS OF BRIGHTON AND HOVE shall henceforth have the status of a CITY obviously means that the (former) towns of Brighton and Hove together have the status of a city, but I think our complainants are interpreting it as "the town of Brighton shall henceforth have the status of a city" and "the town of Hove shall henceforth have the status of a city". Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 00:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Hassocks5489, I'd note that Britannica says 2000 though but I think you're source confirms it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think the date issues arose because it was announced and publicised in 2000 but officially only took effect from 2001. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

combined authorities on infoboxes

I’ve started a discussion on the Template talk:Infobox UK place about combined authorities on infoboxes. Chocolateediter (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Minster town

Seeking second opinions on whether 'minster town' is a term that people would expect to see as the primary description in the lead or short description for towns which have a minster church. To me it sounds contrived. It's trying to emulate the well-used term 'cathedral city', but I don't think it's a term in common usage; it feels like it only turns up in quite niche contexts. It was removed from the lead on Reading a while ago following a talk where users noted that it turns up more in crossword clues than day to day life. @DragonofBatley added it to a handful of places in 2020, mostly in Yorkshire. Having recently stumbled across these, I have taken the term out. There's nothing wrong with mentioning the minster church later in the lead and article, but 'minster town' grates, especially for larger towns where the minster church isn't the main thing for which they're known. Dragon has now reverted my edits to Rotherham, Dewsbury, Halifax and Howden - rather than start a separate discussion on each town's page, thought it better to get overarching views here. Many thanks. Stortford (talk) 07:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

A good idea to bring the discussion here rather than on/in many articles. I agree with the idea that it can be mentioned in the article but not necessarily as a lead, as once it may have had more importance as a description that today. Wikipedia does not have an individual article Minster Town but has Minster (church) where "The Church of England has designated additional minsters in the 20th and 21st centuries, by adding an honorific title to existing parish churches." see Minster_(church)#Late-20th-_and_21st-century_additions Edmund Patrick – confer 08:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Minster is these days a type of bestowement placed on a church or on a cathedral by the Church of England. There is only 31 I believe. I can't see why they can't be in lead, as much as Cathedral city, as a cathedral is just a bestowement too. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

It is not a term in common use and has no particular relevance to the town. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

You could say the same about the term Cathedral City? Especially as not everywhere that has a cathedral is actually a city. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

If it s not a city, eg Guildford, then it can't be described as an <anything> city. a Cathedral is a form of minster. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we don't mention the minster - more that "X is a minster town" as the first sentence in many cases feels like the wrong emphasis, and 'minster town' in particular isn't a well-recognised term. Even for places which are cities and have cathedrals we don't always start with "X is a cathedral city" if the cathedral isn't one of the main features for which they're known - e.g. Manchester, Bristol, Portsmouth. My wording on Howden kept the minster in the opening paragraph of the lead, but I moved it to a separate sentence at the end of the paragraph: "Howden is a market town... It is known for Howden Minster, one of the largest churches in the East Riding." That's now been changed back to "Howden is a minster and market town..." For places like Rotherham where the parish church has only been elevated to minster status relatively recently, I'd suggest the minster status of the church is a much less notable point for further down the article rather than being a defining characteristic of the overall town to go at the top of the lead. Stortford (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your approach. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

"Minster town" is not a description in widespread use AFAICS so I wouldn't use it in the lead. Rupples (talk) 09:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I would not apply it in the lead to the towns where the honorific title has been recently added to parish churches. I thought the term applied to historic places with minster as part of the name such as Axminster. Esemgee (talk) 09:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Nothing comes up when searching "minster town", so not a commonly used term, probably best removed. Plus it having a minster is not connected to it being a town, nor is it a common status like "market town", while "cathedral city" is more used and relates to it being awarded city status because of it, whereas towns aren't towns because of a minster. Although the same could be applied to using "port city" or "university town"? Although those are known terms and more of prevalent features than a minster. It having a minster can be mentioned in another sentence in the body or lead depending on its importance to the subject. DankJae 13:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Personally I'd avoid using all such terms, in the same way we avoid using size or economic descriptors like 'large village' or 'affluent suburb'. If an area's port, minster, or university is notable then it will probably be mentioned in the lead anyway. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• I doubt it needs to be mentioned in the lead though it probably should be mentioned lower down. "Market town" is a common term and "cathedral city" is a way of distinguishing between a larger district with city status but I don't think "minster town" is common or important enough for the lead. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

No, "Minster town" is not a generally used term and should not be in the lead sentence. Leeds has a Minster, though only since 2012, but is not thought of by anyone as a "minster town". PamD 07:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)