Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography

WT:UKGEO

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject UK geography and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41: 30 days

What's new

Categories for discussion

21 Sep 2024 – Category:Southend-on-Sea (district) (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Davidstewartharvey (t · c); see discussion

Redirects for discussion

31 Aug 2024 – Verenigd Koninkrijk (talk · edit · hist) →United Kingdom was RfDed by Cremastra (t · c); see discussion

Good article nominees

04 Jun 2024 – Wymington (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Nfutvol (t · c); see discussion

Did you know? articles

Wellesbourne, Brighton (2024-07-01) • Rosal, Sutherland (2024-05-25) • Newlyn Tidal Observatory (2023-11-20) • Godalming (2023-09-20) • Reigate (2023-09-10)

Reached maximum of 5 out of 308

Featured pictures

A591 road, Lake District - June 2009 Edit 1
Aerial View of Edinburgh, by Alfred Buckham, from about 1920
Canary Wharf from Limehouse London June 2016 HDR
City of London skyline from London City Hall - Oct 2008
Lancashire 1610 Speed Hondius - Restoration

In the News articles

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

Main page featured articles

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

Reached maximum of 5 out of 71

Main page featured lists

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

Reached maximum of 5 out of 7

This is a list of recognized content, updated weekly by JL-Bot (talk · contribs) (typically on Saturdays). There is no need to edit the list yourself. If an article is missing from the list, make sure it is tagged (e.g. {{WikiProject UK geography}}) or categorized correctly and wait for the next update. See WP:RECOG for configuration options.

Watch

Disagreement on Christchurch article re:settlement definition

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

Unitary councils

Latest comment: 6 months ago28 comments11 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Combine tier 1 and 2, neutral on tier 3, tier 1 and 2 are the same or almost the same so should probably be combined but I'm less sure on tier 3 are they may be different enough. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I concur with what "Crouch, Swale" has said. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Separate articles in all cases except where the word count is low (e.g. Rutland County Council). Most readers are looking for the current council and the 19th & 20th century history is better in a separate article, instead of causing a distraction by appearing near the beginning of a combined article. The technical difference between a renamed body and a newly formed council has little weight. Wire723 (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
- I concur with Wire723. BTW, the span of Buckinghamshire County Council originally included the Milton Keynes District Council (along with Aylesbury Vale DC etc), so the boundary is not the same as that of Buckinghamshire Council. Unless of course you mean its 2020 transition (nothing happened in 2009: MK left in 1997). The only thing that has stayed the same is the ceremonial county. It is this kind of complication that makes it wise to have separate articles. JMF
  - Looking at the history of Buckinghamshire, Buckinghamshire County Council was formed in 1889, it was abolished and reformed with different boundaries in 1974, in 1997 it lost Milton Keynes district, in 2020 it was abolished and reformed with the same boundaries but dropping "County" from its name. If we are wanting to make a distinction based on Milton Keynes 1997 change would we not have Buckinghamshire County Council dealing with 1889-1997 and Buckinghamshire Council dealing with 1997-present, see Wikipedia:Separate articles for administrative divisions to settlements#Renames where Marlingford and Colton deals with the 1935-present parish not from 2001 when the rename happened. That seems to point to just having 1 article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Combine tier 1 & 2, apart from nomenclature its all part of the history of a single sub-division. Tier 3 is sufficiemtly different to warrant sperate articles. Going for the purist route of haveing separate articles for every minor change could lead to a mine field, which is what the proposal is trying to avoid Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
For the 3 ones it may be better to just consider each on a case by case basis and have no particular rule. If there is a consensus to split tier 1 I will reverse the merges from last year, if there is a consensus to merge tier 2 or 3 I will merge those, if there is no consensus I will leave things as they are and were from last year's discussion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Comment. Before !voting, one way or the other, it seems a good idea to consider potential implications of these mergers. For example, for Wiltshire there's separate articles for Wiltshire Council elections post-2009 and Wiltshire County Council elections for prior years. Presumably, these two articles would also need to be merged. I haven't so far checked out others. Rupples (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
The way the opening sentence of Wiltshire Council has been written could lead one to think Wiltshire Council has been a unitary authority since 1889! One of the problems of merging is unless clearly defined and written there's a tendency for topics to become confused. Rupples (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Combine tier 1 & 2 - I'm concerned that splitting articles every time there's a change of status or boundary fragments the narrative too much, and artificially exaggerates the extent of change and downplays the amount of continuity there was at each reform. We also need to consider how much material there would be for a page on the 'old' version of the council - I can see such articles being basically stubs or heavily overlapping the page for the modern council. I think the key points about the old version of such councils should still be mentioned on the modern council's page anyway, to provide useful context for understanding the current version.

I agree the wording needs to be clearer in places to avoid the impression of unitary authorities having been created in 1889. We do have to bear in mind that "unitary authority" isn't the legal name for these councils, but instead a widely-used shorthand for them. Strictly speaking they are all either county councils which also perform district-level functions, or district councils which also perform county-level functions. Whether or not they include the word "County" in their titles is a matter of branding rather than indicating a legal difference. To be clear:

County councils which now also perform district-level functions: Cornwall, County Durham, Isle of Wight, North Yorkshire, Northumberland, Shropshire, Somerset, Wiltshire
Councils with the same name as a ceremonial county but which are legally district councils which also perform county-level functions: Buckinghamshire, Dorset, East Riding of Yorkshire, Herefordshire, Rutland

It does seem to be at the whim of the civil servants who drafted the statutory instruments putting the changes into effect which model they followed, and the effect is the same either way. To my mind Buckinghamshire's situation was identical to Shropshire's - a county council which covered the ceremonial county minus one district which had already become unitary, but for some reason Shropshire is legally a county council and Buckinghamshire a district council.

I would keep Cumberland Council separate from the old Cumberland County Council as there are enough differences - notably Cumberland hasn't been reinstated as a ceremonial county and there was a 49 year gap. This follows what we've done in Wales where there are separate articles for Pembrokeshire County Council (the current body established in 1996) and Pembrokeshire County Council, 1889–1974. The time period gap also applies for East Riding of Yorkshire and Herefordshire, so keep them separate. I can see the argument either way on Dorset, so happy to leave that one as it is (split). Stortford (talk) 07:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree that splitting articles every time there is a change of status or boundary is a bad idea, and for that reason I am opposed to new articles for UA areas which were (and still are) non-metropolitan counties. Buckinghamshire is an example of a non-metropolitan county (legally the "county of Buckinghamshire") which is now also a district and has a district council. But I don't think that the transition of a county council to a UA, however accomplished, can be characterised as a "change of status". I suspect that the reason why the transition was sometimes achieved by repurposing the old county council and sometimes by forming a new entity was more to do with legal efficiency than the whim of civil servants (i.e. which assets needed to be legally transferred). To my mind, the important factor is whether the UA councils are significantly different kinds of local authorities from their predecessor councils. I think they are. Mhockey (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

But in the cases of North Yorkshire and Somerset etc apart from the slight name change and gaining the district functions. Yes it may be thought of and sometimes called a new council it was both a geographical and legal continuation unlike Dorset. Having 2 articles on 2 similarly named councils having similar functions and covering exactly the same area doesn't seem helpful and I would have thought the differences would be more effectively covered in a single article. Had North Yorkshire council area had a boundary change when it became unitary then I could see the logic even though I'd be fine with 1 article but when they are exactly the same I don't think its a goo idea, given North Yorkshire Council is not only a geographical continuation but also a legal continuation. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mhockey: But North Yorkshire County Council and North Yorkshire have similar functions as well as covering the same area and the same legal entity. I can see the logic in having separate articles at Municipal Borough of Wisbech and Wisbech Town Council (or Stowmarket Town Council starting at 1974 even though the urban district council has the same boundaries) even though the district/district council and parish/parish council cover/covered the same area because a district/district council is a quite a different entity to a parish/parish council, ones 3rd order and the other is 4th order. Or having separate articles at Dobwalls and Trewidland/Dobwalls where the former was renamed to the latter at the same time as boundary changes even though both are the same legal entity. Yes NYC may sometimes be called a new council (which should probably be discussed in the article like Northumberland County Council) but it isn't either geographically or legally, I would have though a single article would better serve people looking up the council. A unitary authority isn't really much of a different entity, all that happened was the council took on the district functions rather than becoming a completely different authority like a parish council. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Separate articles, whether or not the unitary council is legally the same entity as the previous county council. This is a case where substance should take precedence over legal form. WP:NAMECHANGES gives some guidance. In North Yorkshire, North Yorkshire Council is almost always referred to as "the new council", and North Yorkshire County Council is now referred to as "the previous North Yorkshire County Council". See for example this from NYC and from MHCLG. The new council is quite different from the old council - much wider functions (and much larger income), different electoral divisions, different number of councillors, and the fact that it was easier legally to keep the same entity for a changed function does not change that. Everyone knew it was one new council taking over from the previous 8 councils, one of which was NYCC. The old council is history and should be treated in a separate article and not confused with the current council. Generally, in WP when a legal entity significantly changes its functions and characteristics, we have a new article. An extreme example is Arriva Northumbria, which is legally the same entity as Southern National, but no-one would suggest we merge the two articles.

I take a different view of the area administered by the council. Legally the UA area is the same "County of North Yorkshire" as the non-metropolitan county which preceded it, but there was no change in substance or legal form, just a change in governance. Yet we have created a separate article North Yorkshire (district), which I would merge back into North Yorkshire.--Mhockey (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Combine tiers 1 & 2. Decide tier 3 case-by-case with a default of separating them - with tier 3 they are different entities but often with much in common and little separating them, so separate articles can lead either to lots of repetition or to several very short articles that are almost permastubs. But they are technically about different subjects so different articles are arguably warranted - subject to WP:GNG of course. WaggersTALK 15:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Additional comment: councils are not inherently notable - I just need to make sure we're keeping that in mind. The places served by councils will nearly always be notable but the councils themselves need to satisfy WP:ORG if we are to have articles on them. In particular:
- News coverage of councils being created/changed is often dismissed when considering WP:SIGCOV on the basis of WP:NOTNEWS so we ideally need more than that
- Multiple passing mentions of councils - e.g. in reports about council decisions etc. - do not constitute significant coverage of the council itself
As a result I would expect us to have very few articles on councils as opposed to the places they serve(d). Waggers TALK 16:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Combine tier 1 and tier 2. A single article suffices in many cases, as there's a degree of continuity between the councils established in 1889 or 1974 and the current councils.

Taking Shropshire as an example, the first county council was established in 1889, then abolished in 1974 and replaced by one with essentially the same boundaries. In 1998 Wrekin District Council became a unitary authority, reducing the area governed by Shropshire County Council, and in 2009 Shropshire County Council became a unitary authority. The above can be explained in a single article, and is arguably more easily explained in a single article than three – Shropshire County Council (1889–1974), Shropshire County Council (1974-2009), and Shropshire Council.

Where there isn't clear continuity we can decide on a case-by-case basis. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Combine tier 1 and 2 and case-by-case decisions for tier 3. In pretty much all the tier 1 and 2 cases, the new unitary councils are effectively a continuation of the former county council but absorbing the district functions. Re Waggers' comments about notability, I would be amazed if councils are not independently notable. In many cases they are the largest employer in the area, are one of the most important organisations in the area given their powers, and get nearly daily coverage in the local/regional press. Number 5 7 11:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would note that Cambridgeshire County Council isn't split between the 1965-1974 gap however Huntingdonshire County Council and Huntingdonshire District Council are separate. Northumberland Council was split years ago but due to the council in the end keeping "County" in the name the articles were merged. It seems at least ignoring the Welsh ones noted by Stortford that the only reason for creating separate articles for unitary authorities seems to be due to dropping "County" from the name which goes against WP:NOTDIC. Yes when it comes down to things like parishes etc we split if the names are different from settlements but if there is a name change we treat it as a continuation not a new topic like Marlingford and Colton. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Stortford: Regarding the Welsh county councils I'd point out that Carmarthenshire County Council, 1889–1974 is a short article that may more effectively be merged with Carmarthenshire County Council, Pembrokeshire County Council, 1889–1974 is a bit longer though but could probably easily be merged. Note that Denbighshire County Council and Flintshire County Council don't have separate articles. It look like Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire councils unlike Denbighshire and Flintshire cover the same area as the older councils and unlike Wiltshire County Council/Wiltshire Council and Herefordshire County Council/Herefordshire council also have exactly the same name not just similar names. The time gap is anyway far less than Cumberland and probably doesn't have much importance today anyway. If there was a significant amount of info it might be better to keep separate but there isn't. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
- I wouldn't disagree with merging the Welsh ones with the same name but a time gap - the Flintshire and Denbighshire examples show that an article focussed on the modern body but with a paragraph or two on the old iteration for context is perfectly adequate. Stortford (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Merge the articles, with a separate section for the old authority, and then redirect the original page to that section so it can easily be found. Unless the page is big enough to fork, then we should keep it separate.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
An interesting point may be if the area the council covers has a separate article or not. In terms of tier 1 only County Durham, North Yorkshire and Shropshire have separate articles however note that although when their councils became unitary authorities they kept the same boundaries they have different boundaries to the ceremonial counties. Tier 2 Buckinghamshire doesn't have a separate article and in terms of tier 3 Cumberland and Dorset have separate articles. In terms of other areas with similar names North Riding of Yorkshire (and North Riding County Council) is separate from North Yorkshire (and North Yorkshire Council) and West Riding of Yorkshire (and West Riding County Council) is separate from West Yorkshire (and West Yorkshire County Council). North Riding of Yorkshire/North Yorkshire have similar boundaries but West Riding of Yorkshire/West Yorkshire are quite different as effectively West Riding of Yorkshire was almost split into West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire while most of the North Riding of Yorkshire became North Yorkshire. I'd suggest however due to at least some difference in boundaries and names its appropriate to keep separate articles for the current/former Yorkshire counties and their councils. One could argue that if we have decided to split the county articles it makes sense to split the council articles due to that suggesting they are distinct. On the other hand it could be argued like UKDISTRICTS that if we split both old and new counties and councils there is more of a risk of duplication and that one of the other should be done similar to the fact most local authorities like Maldon District Council go to the district with the exception of those like Eastbourne Borough Council where there is no separate article on the district from the settlement. I'd argue that the 1st option likely applies that is to say we are more likely to split council articles if the county articles are split. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Consensus

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

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

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

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

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

Works for me. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have a niggling worry about including "article content" in the list of factors to consider. The existing contents of an article shouldn't usually be considered when deciding whether a subject is sufficiently notable to have an article of it's own. So I'd suggest switching "article content" for "significant coverage in reliable sources" or similar. We would hope that in most cases the two things are identical (if there's sufficient coverage, it'll be reflected in the article content) but that isn't always the case. Otherwise, all good! Waggers TALK 09:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would say that redirect pages should be created to redirect the reader to the correct page, so articles are not written by editors whom cannot find the older named authority. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Broadly yes - I wouldn't single out 1974 though as a large part of the point of this policy tweak is to catch the more recent changes to unitary authorities, plus it's a UK-wide policy so don't forget the equivalent reforms in Northern Ireland were in 1973 and in Scotland were in 1975. "Same name" might also need clarifying - I'd take that to mean same geographic name (e.g. North Yorkshire), but others might interpret it to mean "North Yorkshire Council" is different to "North Yorkshire County Council" because of the extra word, contrary to the consensus above. Stortford (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good article reassessment for Coatbridge

Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)Reply

Geography question: what's a spate river?

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply

RfC on Cornish flag

Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)Reply

Workshopping Possible RfC

Latest comment: 6 months ago75 comments6 people in discussion

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

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

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

English, ceremonial, "Shire county", examples: Devon, Suffolk and Berkshire

English, ceremonial, Metropolitan county, examples: Greater Manchester, West Midlands (county)

Former counties of England (those that no longer function with an administrative role), examples: Avon (county), Westmorland, Middlesex

Counties of Scotland, examples: Cromartyshire, Renfrewshire (historic)

Former counties of Wales (those that no longer function with an administrative role), examples: Glamorgan, Denbighshire (historic)

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

@Sirfurboy, it also omits the council areas of Scotland ("counties" mean "historic"). I'd assumed Northern Ireland is not included to ensure the traditional counties at least are consistent across the entire island of Ireland and under the scope of WikiProject Ireland. Although the modern "districts" could be included here.

Well the "preserved" counties aren't "former" technically, so I don't think they're actually included under that, "former" being only "historic". Although some counties in Wales are GA, so may be little need to standardise it if it seems to be working without it, especially due to the vast differences of counties and county boroughs in Wales. But if we need more, best to add new guidelines for those county types, than combine into a general guideline with less room to adapt. Dank Jae 11:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

More or less the entirety of the county guidelines are in need of reform, Sirfurboy, but it's very tricky to find a consensus to do so. This isn't anyone's fault in particular, just the result of many competing (but valid) opinions and the fact that a change in one area often has knock-on effects, turning an apparently simple issue into a bit of a minefield. 'County fatigue' is a thing, I can attest to that.

The flags discussion you mention is a good example. It began with me proposing a guideline about how to cover English county flags, then became a more general discussion, and was then watered down to a bullet point. I think I'm right in saying that everyone involved agreed that some form of guidance would be helpful, but consensus on the form of words proved elusive. A.D.Hope (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

To give a more helpful answer, I would strongly discourage you from trying to fix the county guidelines before opening an RfC on county flags. The county guidelines have proven very difficult to change and will become a distraction. There is currently momentum to discuss the flags, which we should take advantage of; I also believe it will be possible to write a UK-wide guideline, therefore removing the need to deal with the various types of county.

You may want to read the discussion on county infobox collages as an example of a recent, successful change to the guidelines. It was quite an involved process, but by focussing on a well-defined topic and with good (if I can blow my own trumpet) management of the discussion it went well. Although it initially only applied to English ceremonial counties, it was later successfully applied to Wales thanks to @DankJae. I think this is a good argument for crafting a good guideline even if it isn't immediately applied everywhere, as it provides a good foundation to build on.

I'd be happy to help in setting the parameters and managing the debate, but appreciate that I'm heavily involved and so might not be the best person to do so. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, counties are difficult, and a successful RfC ideally needs to be simple. But there is a principle here of precedence that might need resolving. We could have an RfC that has a few options (e.g. remove the flag sentence from English ceremonial counties guidance OR add it to all English county guidance or confirm the status quo, for instance). But that still leaves Welsh administrative counties to have flags, and they all do. Which is a little incongruous when they have a lot of shared history with English counties.

The question is whether that one should be parked, pending a different RfC, also keeping it simple, that provides a common guideline for all counties (of Great Britain - NI doesn't seem to be included), with the other guidelines acting as exceptions. To be honest I am somewhat in agreement that I do not have the time or stomach for that one, but if we did have that one, then that would be the place for general guidelines about flags.

I'll wait to see what others have to say. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sirfurboy, the main issue with the county flags is whether the modern flag is for the ceremonial or historic county. This difference is much more apparent in England where counties changed over time continuously, but in Wales they were fully abolished, with some restored like Pembrokeshire later, near identical to the historic county, while the Flag of Flintshire is at Flintshire (historic) but not Flintshire, so no, not all Welsh counties have a flag. If we regard county flags to be purely on the historic counties, then they can easily be worked for Wales which has separate articles for historic counties, or some historic counties were resurrected almost exactly, whereas England was much more complicated and continuous process. I don't see any issue with Wales having some of them, as local government is different in Wales. Dank Jae 19:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

You see, part of the problem is that the distinction between historic county and ceremonial county is a false one for most of the counties. Some counties are historic only. Middlesex no longer exists, and Sussex and Yorkshire have been divided, and others like Surrey and Kent have a different extent to what they had historically, but the historic county of Surrey is simply Surrey with a pre 1965 border. (And some other stuff - I'll avoid the pedantry). This is why Surrey, Kent and, of course, Cornwall don't have separate articles for their historic counties. The border change is historical detail about Surrey and Kent, not a different type of county. So the guideline allows flags for historical counties (Sussex, Yorkshire) but not for ceremonial counties where the historic border is the current border (Cornwall), or, indeed, ceremonial counties that have lost some territory (Surrey, Kent). I don't think that makes sense. I also don't think we would want to fix that situation by creating articles for the historic county of Cornwall, Surrey, Kent etc. as though such a county exists as a separate entity from the current ceremonial county. That would be counter to other advice in these guidelines and established consensus, that we do not take the position that historic counties still exist within their former borders. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just to add some context to what DankJae said above, the majority of the county flags which appear on Wikipedia are those registered with the Flag Institute, a charity dedicated to the promotion of flags which also maintains a flag registry. The institute only recognises the historic counties, so it won't register flags for counties like Merseyside or Gwynedd. By and large these flags have been designed fairly recently (although many include older symbolism), often through local competitions. Some are registrations do recognise older flags which are popularly used, however, including that of Cornwall. The Institute and its registry are not "official".

The fact that the institute only recognises the historic counties puts it at odds with our own guidance, as you note in your comment. It means that, for example, the flag registered by the institute for Lancashire does not represent the same area as our article on the contemporary ceremonial county. This is the case for a surprisingly large number of counties – you can use this tool to compare the historic and ceremonial borders within England. In my opinion it is inappropriate to use these flags in the ceremonial county article infoboxes, which should focus on the ceremonial county, but including them in the body is fine.

It's also worth noting that, as far as I'm aware, the official status of most of these flags is debatable. The Department for Communities and Local Government did take to flying them at one time, and some local authorities fly them. Nevertheless, they're not official in the same way as the banner of arms of an authority, which is the flag form of the coat of arms granted to it by the College of Arms, and which belongs to the authority. While I'm not sure it would gain consensus, I'd be tempted not to include a flag in the encyclopedia at all unless there's evidence of it being widely used in the 'real world', rather then simply being registered with the Flag Institute. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Incidentally, the last paragraph is also the reason why I've removed the coats of arms which were formerly in many English ceremonial county article infoboxes; they belong to the council they were granted to, not the county-at-large. In some cases the council whose arms were used didn't even cover the whole of the ceremonial county, for example Shropshire. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

How are you feeling about the RfC, Sirfurboy? No pressure, just your general thoughts. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

What's the difference between the proposed discussion and the previous one? We seem to be going round in circles! Is the previous consensus (if indeed there was one) of not including flags in the infobox no longer accepted? There's always going to be exceptions to guidelines. Cornwall is one IMO, though I was not of that view previously. The case for Cornwall was astutely signalled by DankJae in the previous discussion, but was not taken further. The guideline could be restated to allow strong cases for exceptions, akin to the infobox images guideline. Rupples (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Cornwall discussion demonstrates that the previous consensus – no flags in any infobox – is not accepted. An RfC will allow the issue to be explored more fully, hopefully resulting in a stronger, more stable consensus regardless of what the result actually is.

You note that the guideline could be restated to allow exceptions, which would require a discussion anyway. It may as well be an RfC. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

But why not just change the guideline to a sensible compromise now that opposition has been raised and see if that sticks. Be bold! Rupples (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm very reluctant to be bold in this case. Firstly it's presumptuous, as I don't know exactly what the community wants, and it could imply underhandedness or WP:OWNERSHIP of the guideline. I can understand you not wanting yet another discussion, but it allows everyone a say and help keep things above board. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

If the existing 'no flags in infobox' guideline is not accepted, shouldn't it be removed until a new discussion resolves the issue? There seems little or no basis now for its enforcement. Rupples (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hard cases make bad law. Willingness to make an exception in an extreme case should not be taken as a desire to rescind the basic principle. NebY (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well that's just it. We know the guideline is contested in relation to Cornwall, but not the rest of the ceremonial counties. Resolving that is best done through an RfC, not the actions of a single editor. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Don't dispute this. I may be mistaken, but there seems to now be a question mark over what consensus there was to put in the guideline from the first discussion. Although no opposition was raised at the time, re-reading that discussion gives me the impression that it was only A.D. Hope, Waggers and myself who approved of it. Rupples (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

OTOH, I participated and my criticism of the first drafts was, I think, taken into account in the final version, to which I raised no objection. The straightforward way forward is to leave that text in place but hold a formal structured RFC on the matter, not to subject ourselves to a period of anything-goes edits and article-by-article disputes. NebY (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree that we don't just want to open up to a free for all. I think I still have two concerns regarding the status quo:

Cornwall appears to be a clear exception to the broad rule, primarily owing to its historical nature and the widespread acceptance and use of the flag.
Some counties have historical county articles because the counties have been extinguished (e.g. Middlesex), and these articles have flags on.

I am in broad agreement with you and others that the flags from the flag institute are problematic. But in that case, I would like to extend the prohibition on use to all county articles, including the historical county articles. On the other hand, I think that the prohibition should be on flag institute flags rather than flags per se. If a county has a flag that is strongly historically associated with the county by name and regardless of minor changes in borders, that flag should be allowed. If a flag is a recent unofficial invention, it should not be allowed. More succinctly, it would be no flags except Cornwall! (Except I am not quite sure about the status of the flag of Yorkshire. The symbol is old, but associated in history with York. I am not sure if it was a pre flag institute flag of Yorkshire or not. Some reading is required.

But in essence I think tweaks rather than reversions are called for. It makes no sense that Sussex has a flag and Surrey does not. So should this be extended to historic counties? but with caveat that exceptions exist (or we can deal with the exceptions by RfC - except RfCs are time consuming so ideally we could cover it all off in one, if the issue can be worded simply). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Are we discussing only England or will a prohibition extend to all the Welsh and Scottish county flags and coat of arms? Further, is the discussion limited to positioning images in the infobox or extended to elsewhere within the county articles? Also, there's the question of emblems. The Sussex flag is apparently based on an emblem going back to 1611. Are we distinguishing between flags and emblems? Rupples (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

1. I agree we'd do well to have one rule that covered articles on past, present and future counties.

2. We wouldn't exclude flags merely because they're registered with the Flag Institute! Rather, registration with the flag institute cannot be either a necessary or sufficient reason for inclusion. That is, we would not include a flag merely because it's been registered with the FI and we don't have sufficient faith in the FI to assume their registry is complete.

3. We could simply say that flags are not included except in exceptional cases with talk-page consensus (a limited form of WP:IAR) or we could save some repetition in discussions and even save some editors the effort of trying to gain consensus if we laid out the exceptions to start with. Broadly speaking, I'd suggest we want to see either

a. adoption by an official body such as a county council or lieutenancy (if Lord Lieutenants have ever adopted a county flag - does anyone know?), OR

b. longstanding widespread popular use, by which I would exclude eg late-C20 / C21 newspaper campaigns such as one I saw giving readers a choice of flag but no option of none, followed by FI registration and sales shortly after, but no evidence of widespread popular use.

4. This would apply to depictions of flags in the infobox whether using the |flag= parameter or as the main subject of another image. NebY (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I partially agree with this. In my ideal world, the guideline would be something like:

Flags should only be included in a county article if there is evidence of the flag being in widespread, popular use over at least a decade. Registry with the Flag Institute may form part of this evidence, but is not enough on its own.

Where a flag is included in an article, it should be placed in the body, with appropriate accompanying text explaining its origin and use. If the flag warrants a standalone article, make sure this is wikilinked.

I'm still not convinced about including flags in the infobox. Even the most popular aren't official, and the infoboxes of several types of county are, strictly speaking, about them as official administrative units. Putting them in the body seems like a reasonable compromise – I'd note that I did the same with the various council coats of arms and that's caused barely an issue. Flags just seem to be a more emotive topic, which I can understand. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

You omit my (3a) adoption by a county council etc. Is that because you wouldn't see that as sufficient evidence, or because you know that no councils etc have ever adopted flags, or something else? NebY (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not intentionally; I intended my comment as a general setting out of my position, rather than a direct response to you.

However, as far as I'm aware no council has fully adopted one of the flags in popular use. They largely don't need to, as if they need a flag they can fly a banner of arms of their own coat of arms. Lancashire County Council, for example, sometimes flies its banner of arms from County Hall in Preston.

Having said that, the 'popular flag' has been flown on Lancashire Day. I'd possibly characterise this as 'recognition' rather than 'adoption'. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

So your preferred outcome amounts to no flags in county infoboxes and probably only Cornwall's in the article body, unless sources found describing a flag's "widespread, popular use over a decade"? (Sources found seemingly satisfy this condition for Cornwall.) Rupples (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, flags other than Cornwall's will almost certainly make the cut. Speaking anecdotally, I've seen Yorkshire and Lancashire many times 'in the wild', as well as several of the Welsh flags. Essex and Kent's also have fairly long histories.

The intent isn't to exclude flags for the sake of it, but for our coverage of them to reflect their status. The bar for inclusion isn't that high – there are quite a lot of articles like this about Lancashire flag being flown. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your proposed wording places a bar on article content but gives no clear reason — unlike the infobox "ban" guidance which gave the sound reason that its context could be misleading without further explanation in the article body. Whether the flag is recent or has a longer history is neither here nor there. Take Aberdeenshire (historic), a recently designed flag, at the behest of the lord-lieutenant: its design and how it came into being is explained and reported on in reliable sources, e.g.[1]. Why exclude it from the article body? At present, I agree with your second paragraph because this would help stop random placements of flags in articles with no context added, but disagree with the first stipulation. I fail to see why it's thought necessary or desirable for flag images to have to pass this additional bar for inclusion. Rupples (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Guidelines shouldn't explain their reasoning, in my opinion, as their purpose is to be instructions rather than essays. I added an explanation to the current infobox guidance as a compromise, but a link to the discussion which led to the guideline would be my preference.

Aberdeenshire's flag looks to be a 'Flag Institute' flag which involved the Lord Lieutenant and the Lord Lyon in its design competition. It isn't the Lord Lieutenant's flag and, as far as I can tell, it hasn't been officially registered with the Lord Lyon. It might catch on in popular use or it might not, but it's only been ten months since it was chosen so it's impossible to tell what will happen in the long term. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

What's the intention here; is it to put forward a single suggested guideline to a formal RfC or to offer a number of options? Rupples (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

That is part of the reason for a workshop phase. To see what is needed. However, an RfC must be stated simply. The number of options should be small. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

The discussion seems to have moved on from county flag images in infoboxes to a wider guideline (or instruction according to A.D.Hope in a reply to me above). The default position would prohibit all flag images from the infobox as well as depictions of flags and related text from the body of county articles (ceremonial, historical and others) unless an exception is gained through consensus or there is a pre-determined exemption in the guideline. Is this a reasonable summary/conclusion of what contributors to this discussion are seeking? Rupples (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

It would make sense to expand the discussion to county flags in general, I think. In terms of what is being sought, on my part I'd prefer a guideline phrased to allow any flag to be included in the article body which meets the criteria of being reliably shown to be in widespread use. I would not support flags in the infobox.

Just to note, all I meant above is that the guideline should be written as an instruction rather than getting bogged down in the whys and wherefores. It should also link to the upcoming RfC, to allow later editors to easily read it and understand the reasoning behind the guideline. That's just my preference, I'm happy to go with the general consensus. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Widespread use or popularity as the determining factor for inclusion in the article body is I think unworkable and an unnecessary restriction on article content. Rupples (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

It was not my intention that we would extend the guideline to page content. In general I am wary of a guideline that says what is and what is not legitinate content for a page. That should be a decision for page editors. Guidelines could suggest, but I don't think they should prohibit. Infoboxes, however, are misunderstood and often way too much is shoehorned into them. They lack context and they are not meant to be a substitute for page content. Let's stick to the infobox guidelines. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not necessarily opposed to your position on prohibiting page content, but I expect the arguments for or against a flag will be similar from article to article. On that basis I think a general guideline would be useful, rather than having lots of little discussions across the many county articles. It's not even a proper prohibition – guidelines aren't binding and WP:IAR always applies, after all. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is interesting you say I expect the arguments for or against a flag will be similar from article to article. I'm not aware of existing arguments/reversions/edit wars over flag images/text placed in the county article bodies — I recall querying this with you in the first discussion and from memory your reply was the problem was confined to inappropriate flags being placed in the infoboxes. Rupples (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is it interesting? There hasn't been any attempt to remove flags from the article bodies, so why would there have been any discussion, reversions, or edit wars? A.D.Hope (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Great to hear there's been no attempt to remove flags and associated text from the article bodies and hence no disruption. On the first question, the reply is not only interesting, but revealing: - I think a general guideline would be useful, rather than having lots of little discussions across the many county articles. Rupples (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

In what sense revealing? I'm not trying to hide anything about my intentions, so if you have a concern please do say. I'll do my best to address it :) A.D.Hope (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

My last two replies state my concern, plus the fact we're now rehashing roughly the same arguments as the first discussion. To illustrate, there was a problem with infobox collages because certain editors were adding too many images, some of which were difficult to view and of poor quality. A guideline to prevent this was discussed, agreed and successfully implemented and led to a much improved set of images that benefited the county articles. The context issue about ceremonial county infobox flags was reasonable grounds for putting in that guideline. There isn't the same problem with flags in county article bodies because there's space for a sourced narrative to explain and describe the image. The situation seems stable so a guideline is unnecessary, restrictive and imposition of changes may lead to instability for seemingly no tangible benefit. That's it :) Rupples (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

My personal feeling is that, although the situation is stable, if a flag doesn't really exist outside the Flag Institute's flag registry then it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia; it's a bit misleading for us to imply it's used to represent a county when it isn't (or only rarely is) in practice.

At the moment I'm reluctant to get into a full discussion about the above, because this isn't the RfC, just the bit before an RfC, and it would be tiring to go over the same topic twice. I also don't mind if the RfC doesn't cover flags in the body, as often a narrowly-focussed discussion has more chance of success than a broad one. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

If we're discussing raising the bar on including flags at all to basically WP:GNG itself, then List of British flags, Flags of cities, towns and villages in the United Kingdom and List of English flags#Ceremonial counties which relies on the Flag Institute, as well as other database sources, should be re-done and possibly largely cut. And as mentioned in the first discussion many flag articles going to AfD, with the remaining justifying using the flag at all. I've seen fictitious flags added to articles over the past few years, as well as very limited used ones, like banners of arms for a council made to represent the place, like Colchester (there for a short time). The Flag Institute while not evidence of "officiality", does display the flag clearly to verify its design over possible WP:UGC, so valued but yes not indicative of use. But if we are being more critical of actual and recognised use, maybe flags should be removed entirely unless overwhelmingly proven they are commonly used (evidenced by an strong article), which may be rare (in "official" use).

Of course, such would be controversial, and I think it goes overboard on any real benefit, but there should be some guideline on flags overall too, to stop fictictious or rarely used flags being added, which isn't helped by the fact they are file named "flag of" on commons pushing fictional flags to the top of search results. The Flag Institute is at least respected and only uses flags that at least are recognised somewhat, so probably why it became the "official unofficial" source at this point. Dank Jae 14:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think these are all valid points which are worth discussing more fully. I'll hold back for now, though, as I don't want to pre-empt the RfC any more than I already have. A.D.Hope (talk) A.D.Hope (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure how else we could do it, if we're trying to apply some sort of standard. The flags are not official and registration with the Flag Institute isn't enough to warrant inclusion, so evidence of actual use is the main measure we have left.

I don't think it's unworkable. For the Lancashire flag, for example, there are several news articles about it being flown in various parts of the historic county. That's all we really need in terms of proof. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to comment on one of the considerations referred to by Sirfurboy in the green-shaded box at the top of this discussion. In respect of the individual countries, I wonder whether it would be preferable to let the England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland wikiprojects determine their own guidelines. In reality, this seems to be a devolved matter, so a top-down UK-wide approach isn't necessarily desirable and may be more difficult to get agreement on. There may have to be 4 separate discussions, but the discussions could uncover aspects unique to an individual country that only come out when considered on a country-by-country basis. The case needs to be made why consistency across all the UK counties overrides real-world devolution. Rupples (talk) 14:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Local government is devolved and past government reform acts only applied on each UK nation. One could argue historic counties pre-date devolution, but I think the main issue is that right now the approach to historic counties overall differs between each nation. Wales and Scotland have historic county articles while most of England do not.

Ofc, I don’t see the current status quo in Wales to be problematic for a guideline aside using the unofficial Cardiganshire flag for Ceredigion. Guidelines on the verifiability and notability of flags should probably be Wikipedia-wide. Dank Jae 15:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Tbh, I think the “no historic counties” rule should be exempted/modified to Wales because of either how different or similar they were. And the fact that it’s already ignored and seems beneficial to keep the status quo as the mergers would just be too messy and between two unrelated entities that happen to share a name. Dank Jae 15:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think I'm in agreement with @DankJae. We're essentially discussing notability and verifiability, and the same basic principles are going to apply regardless of whether a flag represents an English or Scottish county. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
. . . but not Welsh, so there's already differentiating circumstances. Are we discussing notability? WP:N states notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article ... These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article .... I put a link into the notability guideline in the previous discussion, but it doesn't seem to have hit home so have quoted the relevant passage. Rupples (talk) 16:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
English, Welsh, and Scottish counties, for the avoidance of doubt. The guideline called 'notability' doesn't apply here, but we are discussing the notability of the county flags. The guideline has a poor name, in my opinion. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think having county flags entirely was disputed, so makes sense to only include flags if they have an article, like what we do with notable people lists only include those with an article. And a flag article should hopefully be notable, clarify what the flag is used for and by whom to then justify/criticise its use on a county article if we can’t do “one for all” and need to consider each flag individually.

Back onto the original topic, just saying the approach to historic counties already differs between UK nations on Wikipedia so makes sense to do it for their flags, out of practicality. Dank Jae 17:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@DankJae Why just consider flag images, as opposed to other images? Should all images in county articles be restricted to those portraying subjects that have their own article? Why are county flags seemingly being singled out? Now, disputes over what flags are depicted in Northern Ireland I can understand — but elsewhere? Rupples (talk) 18:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Rupples, county flags are singled out because they’re being disputed, if there was clear consensus for or against we wouldn’t be in this situation. Other images in articles are largely specific. Dank Jae 19:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

We ought to be discussing the issue raised by Sirfurboy on whether there should be a single guideline on excluding flag images applying to all UK county article infoboxes and exceptions. The question I posed was an attempt to refocus on the original issue. If editors wish to significantly broaden this to a discussion on the inclusion/exclusion of county flags in county articles as a whole, it's probably best to open a separate discussion. Rupples (talk) 17:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Sirfurboy, when do you propose opening the RfC? It's been a week since this discussion opened and I fear we're starting to tie ourselves in knots a little.

I don't really mind how the RfC is framed, but I think one about flags in infoboxes has much more chance of reaching a conclusion than anything broader. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry if the above seems dismissive, Rupples, it wasn't my intention. You're right to re-focus on the original issue, I'm just keen to move from this preliminary discussion into the actual RfC – possibly too keen! A.D.Hope (talk) 19:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Ceremonial counties are really an English thing, and to my knowledge Cornwall is the only English ceremonial county article which currently has a flag in its infobox. The remainder were mostly removed by myself, the last after the discussion which led to the guideline being amended to prohibit infobox flags.

Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland were not affected by that discussion. The flags registered for the historic counties of Scotland and Wales are often used in the infobox of whichever article covers the historic county, typically either an article about the historic county (e.g. Flintshire (historic), Aberdeenshire (historic)) or the contemporary local government area which covers its area (e.g. Pembrokeshire, East Lothian). To my knowledge the articles about the Northern Irish counties don't contain flags, but it's not my area of expertise. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Although Wales and Scotland also have lieutenancies just as per the ceremonial counties of England. The terminology differs though. In Wales these are the preserved counties, and in Scotland they are lieutenancy areas. Yorkshire, Sussex and Middlesex were ceremonial counties, but their lieutenancies are extinguished, making them historical. They do have flags. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Although another big difference between England and Wales is that the ceremonial counties of England are, for a large part, also the administrative counties, whereas the preserved counties of Wales are not. So yes, there is a difference between England and Wales. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The link to the lieutenancy areas/ceremonial counties is a bit misleading. In England we use the lieutenancy areas as the basis for our county articles, but it's a matter of convenience as much as anything – they're in current (albeit fairly minor) use and quite stable, unlike the other sorts of county.

It's (mostly) the historic counties which have had flags designed for them, it just happens that when it comes to England many of the ceremonial county articles also cover the historic county and so are where a flag representing the historic county should be included. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

That was largely the previous discussion, and now its being tested. Plus it's only "English" as ceremonial counties are treated differently in Scotland and Wales, and a Britain-wide guideline wouldn't work, ceremonial counties in Wales do not have flags, they don't exist. The main issue that started the debate was many of the flags are likely for historic counties not strictly the succeeding "ceremonial counties", how strict we should overlap the two is the main issue up for debate, as well as recognising modern usage. Dank Jae 00:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

We can't have a flag on all ceremonial counties as not all ceremonial counties have a flag. For instance, see this answer regarding a flag for Greater London [2]. I think the RfC options could be:

Status quo
Remove the recently added guideline regarding flags, allowing flags in all county infoboxes, but not mandating. A matter for page editors.
Extend the prohibition of flags in infoboxes to all county articles of all types in England [optionally: and Scotland and Wales]
Replace the guidance with something like "flags in county infoboxes are discouraged, but may be included when an editor consensus at the page demonstrates sufficient sourcing of a flag that is recognised and used in the county, and displayed and associated with the county by its people."

That last one would definitely allow Shetland and Cornwall to continue having a flag on their article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is option (4) not a more detailed version of option (2)? I'm a bit wary of offering three general options and one which is detailed, it seems unbalanced. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am happy to cut any unnecessary options, but there is a difference. 2 removes any mention of flags in infoboxes, whereas 4 would suggest they should be avoided unless there is strong reason not to. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I see the difference now. Maybe option (4) should be rephrased something like 'Amend the guideline to discourage flags in county infoboxes, but allow them by editor consensus'. The aim is for all the options to follow the same format, if you see what I mean. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that's fine. The discussion above mentions the quality of sourcing though. I would like to capture that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

It might be worth having a second discussion about that, or even having that discussion first – decide if we need a guideline about which flags should be in the articles, and then where they should go. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

To flesh out the above, I'd suggest:

A discussion (not necessarily an RfC) about how we use county flags, paying particular attention to flags which have been added to the encyclopedia because they're registered with the Flag Institute, but for which there is not much evidence of actual use.
The infoboxes RfC
Using the outcome of both of the above to help resolve the original dispute at Talk:Cornwall

I appreciate that the above adds an extra step, but does it seem reasonable to you? If the wider 'flag legitimacy' (for want of a better phrase) debate isn't resolved before the infobox discussion then I predict it overshadowing the latter and making it more difficult to reach a conclusion. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Discussion outline

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

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

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

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

It might be an idea to notify Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology about these discussions, once they are set up. Rupples (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Rupples. I've now notified heraldry and vexillology, and I've also notified the four national WikiProjects and the talk page of Cornwall, since the latter is where the overall debate started. If you can think of anywhere else to publicise the discussion please let me know and I'll do so. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good stuff! Thought of the vexillology project as comments from that quarter might bring a different perspective. Don't think it's necessary to place a notice on each county project — quite a few seem inactive. The ones that might be worth notifying individually are the historic counties such as Yorkshire, Middlesex, Sussex and those where the flag has been in existence for a long time, Kent springs to mind. Perhaps scan through List of United Kingdom flags#Counties for the more "traditional" ones — no obligation though. It's a bit of a minefield, take Cheshire the wikilink above says in the Date column, 2013, yet List of English flags#Historic counties states 1938 and Bedfordshire says 2014 and 1951. Rupples (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Brighton and Hove

Latest comment: 6 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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)Reply

@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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Good article reassessment for South West Coast Path

Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)Reply

Good article reassessment for Northallerton

Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)Reply

combined authorities on infoboxes

Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)Reply

Acton Bridge copyright

Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Royalty categories and places

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Have to say I agree with you, these are definitely trivia at best. Give there appears to be no reliable sources that say the events mentioned actually happened, its unverifiable. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wards

Latest comment: 6 months ago12 comments10 people in discussion

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

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

A, wards are treated as notable under WP:GEOLAND and considered legally recognized and should have separate articles from settlements of the same name namely Speke and Speke (Liverpool ward) are separate articles. This is similar to Parliament constituencies which always have separate articles even if the have the same name as a settlement or boundaries as a district.
Arguments in favour, wards like constituencies have electoral roles and thus are likely to be considered legally recognized, the wards have census data and will often have an order to create or reform them. Because they tend to have contrived boundaries and change frequently unlike parishes which tend to remain stable for long periods and correspond to natural boundaries it may make them unsuitable to combine with settlements.

Arguments against, many sources for them are primary sources and it doesn't appear they have the same importance as constituencies. Sources discussing the area etc that is more than trivial mentions may be hard come by. For urban ones in unparished areas often there is no census data or other formal boundaries for suburbs that were newly built as part of the larger town as opposed to villages that were absorbed into the town.
B, wards are treated as notable but should be combined with settlements of the same name namely Chalkwell deals with the ward of the same name with the exception of those that have a parish of the same name with different boundaries for example Boxford parish[3] and Boxford ward[4] have different areas so should be split. This may also cover cases like Wampool where a ward is named after a hamlet which thus only has a tiny population compared to the ward.
In favour, the more rural areas with parishes are more distinct and already have data for the parish which suggests splitting may be a good idea. As noted for recently built suburbs there may be no other formal boundaries etc so using the ward boundaries even if unstable or they exclude part of the suburb may be more effective.

Against, it may still be more effective to cover wards in governance or "ward" sections of parish articles.
C, wards are treated as notable but should be combined with settlements of the same name namely Chalkwell deals with the ward of the same name. Unlike B this also includes those with parishes with the same name but different boundaries. Like with Scotforth/Scotforth (parish) we would create separate articles if the ward excludes all of the suburb of which Brockley may fall into.
In favour, as mentioned it may be more effective to cover wards in settlement/parish articles especially if there isn't much content in the articles.

Against, as mentioned in the Castle Hill discussion ward facts may be unsuitable due to the instability and arbitrary nature of boundaries.
D, wards are not presumed notable and must pass WP:GNG in order to be notable and otherwise should be merged into related articles or deleted.
In favour, as mentioned many independent sources that would show notability are often difficult to find.

Against, as noted wards like constituencies have electoral roles and thus are likely to be considered notable.

Discussion

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

I think wards come under WP:GEOLAND 2. Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it. The smallest British legally recognised division is a parish. Wards are just sub divisions, unless they meet GNG and meet Wikipedia:V, should be either deleted or merged into the main article (i.e. parish). In the case of Westborough Ward and Milton Ward both are primary sourced, and without any secondary refs, in fact all the election data is unreferenced. In the case of Westborough this can easily fit into the Westcliff-on-Sea article as it is within its legally recognised borders defined in the local plan, however Milton falls within both Southend on Sea and Westcliff-on-Sea. Therefore I would vote d based on the above.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
D. First of all thank you User:Crouch, Swale for setting out a number of options. Obviously wards are populated but I wouldn't describe them "settlements" as such. A ward might cover a single settlement; some might cover more than one settlement; others might cover part of a settlement. Ward names and boundaries can frequently change. In most cases they are names given to areas containing roughly an equal number of voters within a local government district or parish and used for local government elections. They are not areas used for local governance, so my interpretation is they do not have the legal recognition required for presumed notability under GEOLAND. There are articles that have election results going back over many years, which some readers likely find of interest. The problem is they largely consist of data i.e. the election result and boundary changes, though there could be commentary but it hasn't been included in the article. The problem with these is they would not make a suitable merge to the same-named article on the settlement because of UNDUE weight e.g. Allerton (Liverpool ward) and Allerton, Liverpool. I think it's preferable wards are treated on a case-by-case basis under the GNG. Although we're discussing the UK here, I think we also need to consider that wards exist in other countries and ask ourselves why UK wards should have presumed notability, when those in other countries appear not to have. Rupples (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
D, but the whole topic of wards seems to be distinctly inconsistent at present. If wards are of interest to readers, I would think a list of wards for any given council would be an asset. Looking at the two cities cited above, there is no list of the wards of Southend, as far as I can see, while there is a list at Liverpool_City_Council#Council_wards. Do we expect readers to look for wards? There is an article Dingle (Liverpool ward), but it is not mentioned in Dingle (disambiguation). There is City Centre North (Liverpool ward), but no redirect from City Centre North. There is no entry for Lancaster Rural North, in which I vote. It would be helpful if it was a redirect to Lancashire County Council, and if there was a list of wards there. Ah, I now find List of electoral wards in Lancashire (by following a link at the bottom of the "Council elections in Lancashire" navbox): why isn't it mentioned in the article on the council, which just tells me there are 82 divisions? Why aren't there redirects from the ward names? PamD 22:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi Pam. Definitely agree if we were to have wards, Lists are probably the way forward. Someone started to think about it, as there are Categories set up but as some wards have not been set up, they don't appear.

Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've now linked List of electoral wards in Lancashire#County council as a "See also" from Lancashire County Council#Elections, which seems a useful connection. PamD 16:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

D. Not independently notable, much too subject to change, often retaining the same name but with different CPs, even neighbourhoods. Belong as subsections in the relevant LA page. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

D. I've noticed a few wards pages as I've been working on the pages for districts and elections, and I've always thought they're an odd thing to have pages for. Whilst not census tracts in terms of WP:GEOLAND, they are analogous to them. The boundaries are reviewed every few years because the overarching objective is electoral equality, not community identity. Even where they share a name with a geographic community (village / suburb etc.), the ward will only rarely and co-incidentally be a good fit for the community. A page about a ward is therefore inherently contrived - there's not much you can say about it other than the election results, which can be quite adequately covered on the local authority elections pages. Stortford (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

A As the policy states, populated, legally recognised places are notable. Wards are established by acts of Parliament/Statutory Instruments so they are legally recognised. If consensus is against independent notability, then GEOLAND would need to be changed to reflect that. I agree a lot with what Pam says re lists of wards. That would probably be the most useful focus before seeking to develop individual articles which may well become redundant depending on list quality. This isn't just an issue for the UK though. There are wards articles for Brisbane City Council, Ottawa City Council and Toronto City Council (these are ones that I know of, there may well be others). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
D Wards are subject to change at Boundary Commission reviews. As the Boundary Commission's boilerplate text says in their consultations and recommendations, When carrying out an electoral review the Commission has three main considerations: • Improving electoral equality by equalising the number of electors that each councillor represents. • Ensuring that the recommendations reflect community identity. • Providing arrangements that support effective and convenient local government. Our task is to strike the best balance between these three considerations when making our recommendations. To do this the BC will adjust boundaries and the numbers of councillors for wards, and even listen to local opinions about ward names, but it's impossible to find an appropriate number of communities of suitable sizes to satisfy all three considerations. As a result, communities and wards are not coterminous and though residents may engage with their councillors, it's questionable whether they feel any identity with their ward, see it as defining their community, or regard the boundaries as anything but arbitrary and changeable. The significance of the wards is that they return councillors, of which there are about 20,000 in England alone[5] - those councillors are not inherently notable and neither are the wards that elect them. NebY (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
D Wards are arbitrary and keep changing. So articles would not be particularly useful and would require a lot of maintenance. JonH (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
D - GNG trumps everything and I'm generally against notability criteria for different types of subjects in general on the basis of WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP. Waggers TALK 15:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

County flags: discussion 1

Latest comment: 6 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

Discussion A: flag inclusion

Discussion B: flag areas

General discussion

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

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

I'd generally agree with Stortford above. The constant addition and removal of the flags from the few county articles I follow a bit tiresome, to be honest, and I'm not really convinced by the argument that "the article is about this particular definition of the county, whereas the flag applies to this definition" – the articles generally cover all definitions of the county in question. For the record, the Derbyshire flag (where I live) is fairly well known and well used. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

On your first paragraph, it's worth mentioning that a lot of the county flags are modern creations; some only really exist in the Flag Institute's registry, others have been adopted more widely. The dates they were created can usually be found through the Flag Institute itself or British County Flags. I am a bit sceptical of some of the Institute's dates, but their veracity can be considered on an article-by-article basis; we're more concerned with the overall principle.

I broadly agree with your second paragraph, which echoes what I wrote above. When a flag is included we should clarify the area it's supposed to represent. For Hertfordshire, I believe this would mean explaining that the flag is the county council's banner of arms, which it has released for general use. This presumably means that it represents the area of the non-metropolitan county governed by Hertfordshire County Council. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Minster town

Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)Reply