Template talk:Infobox UK place/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Suggestion to add "historic county" parameter to template

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose the addition of a 'historic county' parameter to the 'UK place' template.

The 92 historic counties of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have never been altered by the myriad boundary changes and re-namings of local government entities that have occured in the UK throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. For more information, please see the work of the Association of British Counties: https://abcounties.com/.

To reflect this geographical and historical fact, I suggest that a "historic county" parameter should be added to the Infobox 'UK place' template. The historic county already appears in the Infobox for some UK place articles, although this information can currently only be added where the Infobox template is 'settlement' (which allows bespoke parameters) as opposed to 'UK place'.

"County confusion" (as the ABC terms it) has primarily occurred since local government reorganisation in the 1970s, the reorganisations that established now defunct local authorities such as 'Avon', 'Humberside', 'West Midlands' and 'Cleveland' that were administrative-only and were never intended to alter the historic counties in any way. The addition of a 'historic county' parameter would record the correct historic county of many settlements for posterity, while at the same time raising awareness of the UK's correct geography and heritage.

--Songofachilles (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as clutter for almost all articles. The ceremonial county is good enough. In those very few articles where boundaries that ceased to be used 126 years ago are still notable, the information can go in the body. This looks like an attempt to reopen a campaign that failed to achieve consensus about ten years ago. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The historic counties (as shown at Template:England Counties 1851 Labelled Map) are not useful to show in the articles infobox. This information could be added in articles though as part of the history of the place if not already there. -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  John Maynard Friedman; WOSlinker —Thanks for your thoughts. The 'ceremonial county' (or 'preserved county' in Wales) is not good enough in my opinion: it is meaningless (Tyne & Wear and West Midlands are both 'ceremonial' counties). The boundaries of the historic counties never "ceased to be used": these entities remained unchanged by new administrative bodies that appeared (and disappeared) over the last century or so. You are conflating administrative 'counties' (including areas covered by county councils, metropolitan boroughs, unitary authorities, etc.) with the historic counties. As the government stated on 1 April 1974, upon implementation of the Local Government Act 1972: The new county boundaries are solely for the purpose of defining areas of … local government. They are administrative areas, and will not alter the traditional boundaries of Counties, nor is it intended that the loyalties of people living in them will change.

  For example, the town of Christchurch is in the historic county of Hampshire. In 1974, for administrative purposes only, it came under Dorset County Council (and see the quotation above). Since 1 April 2019, Christchuch no longer comes under Dorset County Council for administrative purposes, instead being part of the newly established unitary authority of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole. I (now, especially) see no good reason to refer to Christchurch as being in Dorset merely because for four decades it was administered by an authority named 'Dorset County Council', when it has been in Hampshire since around the sixth century A.D.

  In short: the confusion that exists around counties, though never the government's intention, will not cease to persist unless, as a very first step, the historic county can be allowed to be recorded in reference works such as Wikipedia.--Songofachilles (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  We have definitely been over all that before (see the archives of this page and of WT:ENGLAND), and pushing this matter could be seen as a case of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Redrose64 Personally, I think comparing a good faith suggestion to record something that many people consider to be an important aspect of the geography and cultural identity of the UK to seeking to "Expose a popular artist as a child molester; or [v]indicate a convicted murderer you believe to be innocent" (WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS) is very wide of the mark. However, your thoughts do give me an insight into the kind of thinking that the previous advocates of this cause that you mention were up against. Songofachilles (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  User:Songofachilles, that kind of reply to a wp:good faith response is hardly conducive to a discussion between adults. More importantly, I see that you have already started to insert Historic County into infoboxes, as you have done at Bournemouth and many others. Please stop these edits while discussion is underway as it is poor practice in any case and furthermore it would be a pity to have spent all that time only to have it reverted. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  John Maynard Friedman That is noted about not editing while discussion is underway; thanks. Although, talking of being adult, you accuse me of making edits that I did not make. I added, yesterday, the new(ish) unitary authority (Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole) to the Infoboxes for Christchurch, Poole and Bournemouth (the historic county was already referenced in this article). The only article in which I have added the historic county to the Infobox is the article for Highcliffe-on-Sea. The many edits you may see on my contributions page for places in Somerset were merely to change the incorrectly capitalised reference to 'Unitary Authority' to small caps. All other text additions about the historic county that I have made (7 in total) are made in the body of the text, as you yourself suggest above. Songofachilles (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Songofachilles:, in that case, I admit to having jumped to a conclusion. I withdraw the allegation and apologise for having questioned your good faith. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  @John Maynard Friedman: Apology accepted. I would also just point out, to direct this thread back towards its original topic, it would not have been possible for me to make such edits even if I had wanted to. This is because the 'UK place' template does not permit the addition of bespoke parameters; hoping to amend this fact was the purpose of my original suggestion.

  That was a deliberate decision, since it has been observed that those infoboxes that do permit customisable parameters attract all kinds of indiscriminate junk. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support There is no reason not to support this, as all information is readily verifiable in the Government's own Index of Place Names Any opposition to this is dogmatic and definitely not NPoV. Owain (talk) 11:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support There is official recognition of the importance of the historic counties, lately in an MHCLG paper 'Celebrating the historic counties of England'. In that Guidance, 'local and national partners' are encouraged to promote the historic counties. (In Scotland it's hardly necessary as the counties are often preferred use anyway.) It would help these initiatives if the historic county were given in a line in the infobox. Hogweard (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support: a good example is how letters are addressed and how strongly some residents feel about this: Dagenham is still Essex as well as part of London, Milton Keynes is still Buckinghamshire, Stockport is still Cheshire and the locals will tell you they are certainly not Lancastrians nor Greater Mancunians. Also the example of Middlesex, or the capital of Surrey being Kingston-upon-Thames despite being in Greater London. There's probably hundreds of other examples that I am not familiar with. People in the UK really strongly identify with the historic counties, as part of their identity, culture, language, much more so than the current administrative divisions. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  It may be how some letters are addressed, but it is not correct, and so is a bad example. The Post Office have not required counties in addresses for over fifty years, and for at least thirty years have advised against their use. Try using the Postcode Finder and see whether you can find an address that includes a county after the town or city. I've tried several, and can't find any - even for similar addresses in different towns that are in widely-separated areas, such as High Street, Newport - which might be on the Isle of Wight (e.g. postcode PO30 1SS), in Shropshire (postcode TF10 7AN) or in Wales (NP20 1FQ). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Milton Keynes is still in Buckinghamshire, but in the ceremonial county, not the part controlled by Buckinghamshire Council. Likewise Bedford and Luton are still in Bedfordshire, even though there is no such county council any more but there is certainly a Lieutenant.

There are of course special cases but these are best handled in the body of the few articles concerned. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@User:Redrose64 surely the fact that it is widespread despite the fact it shouldn't be is very telling surely. @User:John Maynard Friedman I think you will find that it is much more than a few articles concerned and seeing as I believe you are from the region, then what you said is common knowledge; Luton and Bedford will be considered Bedfordshire for all eternity even if the councils are not named so nor whether the administrative borders change. It is also linked to issues regarding devolution or things like federalisation and why the English regions failed. Point is, as per nomination and the other posts, is that the historic counties are still considered very significant, regardless whether one concurs whether they should be significant or not. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Support strongly–[1] So should they be re-added under the name as traditional county. Chocolateediter (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

There is overall more support for the initial proposal than opposition. Please can somebody more familiar with the correct procedure than I indicate what the appropriate next steps are? Songofachilles (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Would suggest a broader advertisement than this. Holding a discussion only on the talk page of the template itself might exclude the feedback of editors who take part. It certainly flew under my radar until some changes were reverted. A true RFC is probably the better way for this to have been conducted. Koncorde (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Newer editors such as myself rely on your help to float potential changes according to the correct procedures. I'll look into how to put an RFC in motion. Songofachilles (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Support A patently obvious and non-contentious way of minimising the endless edit wars. Those that oppose this suggestion are acting with a hidden agenda in my opinion. I am surprised I had not seen this page before, so my thanks to JMF for pointing it out.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Strong Support The historic counties are used in various aspects of life, not just in county cricket. It is used by administrators, players and organisers of sports as the governing bodies, in the majority, using the same borders as the historic counties. If Wikipedia is to fulfil its role to provide knowledge to the people then the historic counties must be offered to those seeking information on this area of British life. Ceremonial counties are NOT the same as the historic counties and can be altered or changed on Parliament's whim. The unchanging boundaries of the historic counties are used by local historians, genealogists and the UK Government's Office of National Statistics. NOT to use the historic counties is to drive away many followers of Wikipedia who use it as a source for geography, history and so much more. It is a 'must'. Thank you.

Support. Historic counties are not only relevant to the history of the county but also for people undertaking research about a specific place. For example genealogy, where county records for a town or village may differ from the current administration. __Looke__ (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Strong oppose The geographical history of a place is important, but reducing this to a single field is going to encourage misleading and unhistorical over-simplification. Different areas of Birmingham, for example have been at different times parts of Warwickshire, Staffordshire and Worcestershire, some areas have moved backward and forwards between them several times. Coventry has been in and out of Warwickshire multiple times over centuries. Putting "Historic county: Warwickshire" in an infobox for either - which is what a field like this would encourage - would be actively obscuring this history. JimmyGuano (talk) 05:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Strong Support Historic Counties were never abolished and continue to exist, as evidenced in many UK Government statements, including one from Eric Pickles, then Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government on 23 April 2023. Here, he acknowledges that, although a significant number of counties were ‘administratively abolished’ by the government in the Local Government Act 1972, England’s historic and traditional counties still exist, and are recognised by the government. (See more Government statements supporting historic/traditional counties here.) It therefore makes no sense that such an important piece of UK geographical information is omitted from the template, which was actually amended to include Historic County earlier this week but, within days, reversed. It seems to me entirely sensible to include the historic/traditional county in the template and I suggest this is executed without delay.24may1819 (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Strong Support Adding historic counties to the template would be adding them as they are TODAY, that is why the word is historic (important throughout time), not historical (something in the past). This is actually what the many Government statements about the importance of historic counties refer to. So, using the latest 2021 information from the UK Government on historic/traditional counties is a sensible way forward in including this important, currently omitted, information. 24may1819 (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Strong oppose and remove There is no such thing as a fixed historic county for each location and presenting this as such is incorrect. The field should be removed as it is incapable of summarising the history of each location. MRSC (talk) 04:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Also note this change is being used to rewrite articles to give primacy to this data field in the text itself. [2] MRSC (talk) 05:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Strong Support and reinstate MRSC On the contrary, there IS a fixed historic county for each location, as outlined above and in many recent UK Government documents. Historic counties are basically those that pre-date the invention of local government in 1888, when the confusion that now exists on what constitutes a 'county' began. (All of this information is readily verifiable in the Government's own Index of Place Names) As traditional (historic) counties are both described and promoted by the UK Government, it makes no sense whatsoever to suggest that this information should not also be available on wikipedia. 24may1819 (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Elevation

Was kind of surprised to find that despite having a vast number of parameters, this infobox does not appear to have one for elevation. I'd have thought that elevation is a fairly fundamental attribute of a place, on a par with coordinates, and the equivalent infoboxes for other countries do seem to have it. Have I missed something somewhere, or is it really missing. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I knew I'd seen max and min elevation figures for City of Leeds, but on checking I see that it uses the "settlement" infobox rather than this one. PamD 06:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Cannot see any mention of elevation. Would be easy to add if that is what people want. Keith D (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Well obviously I think it would be a good idea. Cannot speak for anybody else. - chris_j_wood (talk)

@Chris j wood and PamD: I have put something in the sandbox if you want to try it out and see if there are any problems. I have used similar parameters and location to {{infobox settlement}}.

For basic elevation

• |elevation_link=
• |elevation_point=
• |elevation_ft=
• |elevation_m=
• |elevation_footnotes=

For a maximum elevation

• |elevation_max_point=
• |elevation_max_ft=
• |elevation_max_m=
• |elevation_max_footnotes=

For a minimum elevation

• |elevation_min_point=
• |elevation_min_ft=
• |elevation_min_m=
• |elevation_min_footnotes=

Keith D (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Keith D: Thanks for this, but it's not quite working - see this where the max elev is displayed as the min. (Yes, I realised too late that I shouldn't have tested it on the live file, upsetting people's watchlists - should have copied the article into a sandbox. Self-trout.)

I wasn't sure what you expected for the "point" or "link" fields, which don't seem to be in the {{Infobox_settlement}}.

I see that the reference displays alongside the measurement rather than the field name, so it's different from the Settlement infobox, which seems unfortunate - surely we should offer the reader a consistent experience where there's no good reason not to - compare Leeds. PamD 15:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, I've just added "area" to the infobox in Silverdale, Lancashire (I remembered it's given in the nomis info, and it seemed useful to include), and sourced it, and I see the reference shows against the value, so I'm not sure what's standard here. PamD 15:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@PamD: Thanks for spotting the error, I did not change max to min for the metric version when I copied the code. I made that fix now.

Both the point & link fields are in {{Infobox settlement}}. The link field is to add a link to the word "Elevation" in the basic set so you get a link to an article describing it, probably not used much but I was being consistent. The point field is used to indicate where the reading was taken, could be the name of a hill or some other place in the entity.

The positioning of the reference was to be consistent with the population field in this infobox that goes after the field rather than in the headings column. ({{Infobox settlement}} also puts the population reference in the header column). Keith D (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

It's inconsistent within the Leeds infobox, see the location of refs for the GDP values. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Area

I noticed PamD's reference to 'area' above, in particular using the ONS (via Nomis) to source it. I'm a little worried by this, because the 'area' as defined by the ONS is the 'actually built-on' area, so it doesn't include public open space. This gives a misleading figure for density. I wonder if there is any (generic) alternative source?

Of course this is only ever really going to become an issue if someone decides that it would be a great idea to make a bot to do it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• @John Maynard Friedman: Where does that info come from? At https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/localarea?compare=E04005204#section_9 it says:

Area

"For area measurements, census statistics use Standard Area Measurements (SAM), created by ONS Geography for key geographies in the UK using standard methodologies. SAMs are land measurement figures defined by topographic boundaries (coastline and inland water) as at the end of 2011.

"Area measurements are in hectares - the metric unit of area defined as 10,000 square metres or approximately 2.47 acres - there are 100 hectares in 1 km2.

"Each area measurement used in census results is calculated by aggregating the SAM (measured to two decimal places) for each output area that has been best-fitted to each higher area."

No mention of "built-on". PamD 18:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Places separated by open space > 200 metres are not deemed contiguous, which is the criterion for a single built up area – and thus obviously this open space (>200m wide in every direction) is not included. [ref: somewhere on the ONS site from years back.] Thus see, for example, the NOMIS map of the Milton Keynes urban area at UK Census (2011). "Local Area Report – Milton Keynes built-up area (E34005056)". Nomis. Office for National Statistics. (admittedly an edge case because of its unusually high ratio of public open space). The 1967 New Towns Act designated area was almost 8,900 hectares (22,000 acres), which was filled long ago and has since been expanded out of. The NOMIS figure for the area is 6,520 ha (16,100 acres), which is certainly consistent with the map if the open space is excluded. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: I'm not convinced that your quote about defining the area of a "built up area" has any relevance to nomis's data about a civil parish. Compare the maps in the two records for Silverdale parish and for MK BUA. PamD 06:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Adding link to Silverdale parish on nomis: https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/localarea?compare=E04005204. Map includes lots of Morecambe Bay, certainly not built up. PamD 08:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@PamD: Yes, you are correct about CPs. I noticed that the mudflats (?) are included in Silverdale. I also looked at Walton, Milton Keynes, a CP that contains a large balancing lake and a linear park. Nokia reports these in its area. https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/localarea?compare=E04001275 These are excluded in the BUA definition. (!)

Well as I began by saying, it is not a problem until someone makes it one. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

So your worries, in opening this section, are now calmed. Success. Fascinating map of MKBUA. And yes, Silverdale extends out onto the sands, which are passable at low tide on wonderful guided walks led by the Queen's Guide to the Sands who knows where the channels are wadeable and how to avoid the quicksands - a strange and splendid place. PamD 09:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in the geography/geology that explains the MKBUA map, see Milton Keynes#Parks and environmental infrastructure. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• There is a more general point: many articles start "XXX is a village and civil parish...": it might be useful if the "area" field could be annotated to show that it's the area of the civil parish rather than just the village. PamD 09:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree, especially for rural parishes, any automatically calculated density could be very misleading. Silverdale, for example, probably has a higher density of snipe. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Although they won't always be just the civil parish. Lowestoft, for example, is a case where it might make sense to report both the civil parish and the built up area - certainly just looking at the parish area would be misleading. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The administrative areas (whether thats parishes or unitary authorities) are the way to go with defining area, not the built-up areas. If the built-up area expands beyond its admin boundary, that is captured in the neighbouring area. The bigger issue is the extent of the realm. About half of Bristol's total area is always underwater. ONS do provide data clipped to Mean High Water, and we should do the same.--217.32.153.153 (talk) 05:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Emergency services

Why bother with this information? Sure its valid and easily verified, but is it useful or insightful? Does any other country include this in infobox? The majority of UK places make no mention of this in article. This is unsurprising: No one really cares the Met or Thames Valley turn up after you call 999, as long as they turn up. It also smacks of repetition (especially for Scotland), as the forces are based on local government districts.

For that matter, the healthcare trust is more interesting than the ambulance service. For example, the government's covid data shows how many hospitisations in each NHS trust area. As hospital catchments do not reflect local authority boundaries, this data is also less predictable.--217.32.153.153 (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree that it's unnecessary in most cases - and tend to turn it off. I do wonder if that should be the default case or not? But then, there may be really good reasons that I'm unaware of why this was included in the first instance. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Another example of infobox bloat. We have many village articles where the infobox is longer than the article. Personally I think it just should be removed but as a minimum the default should be 'hide', [But that may not work on mobiles, which the majority of visitors use.] --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion to add "traditional county" parameter to template

I propose the addition of a 'traditional county' parameter to the 'UK place' template.

The 92 traditional counties of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (also known as 'historic counties') date back 1,000 years in many cases. They were not altered by either the creation of local government in 1888 or in subsequent administrative boundary changes throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. For more information, please see the work of the Campaign for Historic Counties.

To reflect this geographical and historical fact, I suggest that a ‘traditional county’ parameter should be added to the Infobox 'UK place' template. The ‘historic county’ entry existed until fairly recently and has since been removed. One reason given by those who oppose the inclusion of ‘historic county’ is that it creates confusion.

It is for this reason that I suggest the parameter ‘traditional county’ rather than ‘historic county’. The word ‘historic’ (something important through time) is often confused with ‘historical’ (something from the past) and so the use of ‘traditional county’ rather than ‘historic county’ would avoid this.

Another reason given by those who opposed the inclusion of ‘historic county’ is regards to which definition of a county is to be used for this purpose. I completely understand this but the answer is very simple - use the information given by the UK Government on numerous occasions over recent years.

This includes statements such as this one from Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government on 23 April 2013. Here, he acknowledges that, although a significant number of counties were ‘administratively abolished’ by the government in the Local Government Act 1972, England’s historic and traditional counties still exist, and are recognised by the government. (See more Government statements supporting historic/traditional counties here.)

Traditional (historic) counties are basically those that pre-date the invention of local government in 1888, when the confusion that now exists began. (All of this information is readily verifiable in the Government's own Index of Place Names)

As traditional (historic) counties are both described and promoted by the UK Government as important geographical and cultural areas that massively pre-date any form of local government, it makes perfect sense that this information should also be available on wikipedia. 24may1819 (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Right now, this is probably a bad idea. There's an active case at WP:ANI which is covering this ground. You might want to take a look there first to get a feel for how this might appear. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

This is just a re-hash of the existing discussion with a different name; using a different term doesn't change the issue. It throws away one of the few points that actually has genuine consensus support: "Historic counties" being the best term.--217.32.153.153 (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Eric Pickles? Seriously? The man was a standing joke as Minister for Communities and Local Government. The fact he promoted a quaint ahistorical idea while he was a minister might be of interest in his biography, but not elsewhere. Narky Blert (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Narky Blert Your post is a classic example of the kind of snarky and unhelpful comments that have so impeded intelligent and sensible discussion around the historic counties on WP. In case you're planning to contribute to future debate on this (or on any issue, actually), please do bare this in mind: it doesn't matter what your personal opinion of a source, in this case a former UK government minister, is (and, only to reinforce my point, I'll state that I'm not a fan either). What matters as WP editors is that we report reliable, verifiable sources. The ONS and the OS are two such sources that recognise the historic counties and debate here moved on long ago from claiming that they are, as you put it, a 'quaint, ahistorical idea.' —Songofachilles (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I'd characterise the debate about their quaintness as resolved. And, as I've said a number of times, the party politics being played with the idea of historical counties is something that does need to feature in quite how seriously we take them: the only reason they are acknowledged by the ONS and OS is because Pickles' department appears to have told them to do so. We can park that for now, of course, but the political aspect to this is important. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

That is unlikely given that, since the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007, the UKSA (of which the ONS is the executive office) has been a non-ministerial government department, accountable to Parliament only and not subject to any ministerial control. But in any case, even if historic counties were or are (further) recognised by some form of, for instance, government decree, that wouldn't render it invalid as a concept. I could write more on how an elected government, like it or not, does indeed have the power and ability to affect many things in all areas of life, but I won't insult yours or anyone else's intelligence or waste my own time any further... —Songofachilles (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree, 'historic county' was suggested above with good reason and is the best term to use (i.e. a verifiable, reputable source uses it). Views obviously differ on the merits of the recent deletion of the parameter from the template, but we are where we are and I agree that this whole issue needs a thought-out re-framing and a new approach so that hopefully more or less any editor who has a view can be happy with any future results.—Songofachilles (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of this 'suggestion' will go precisely nowhere until the discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard concludes. Park it for at least a month and then use WP:UKGEO to propose it. Pushing it now is at best counterproductive and has the potential to lead to wp:topic bans. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• The ANI report has been closed with a general agreement that a more centralised discussion (not an RfC) would be appropriate. Black Kite (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Since they are now going back to the tactic of editing article introductions to put the past in the present tense I'd support pursuing a topic ban at this point. MRSC (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Open another ANI? WP:UKCOUNTIES is quite clear. This suggests a deliberate attempt to circumvent the previous ANI decision, that the topic be discussed as a broad principle at WP:UKGEO before any further changes. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC) revised --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Who is "they"? Please stop insinuating that everyone who supports the concept of historic counties is part of some secret league that plots away together. I was at the forefront of the above RfC (I proposed it) and I'm not aware of anyone who is making the edits referred to by MRSC and, to my knowledge, there are no coordinated discussions going on elsewhere. Please move on from your petty accusations and accept that this issue is just important to some people (just as opposing it is important to you). —Songofachilles (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I have just come back to this one. If there is an ongoing consultation in some mysterious part of the bowels of Wikipedia known only to initiates, I have not seen it. Is there a link? Hogweard (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

See Multiple abuses of process and subsequent mass automated edits in contravention of denied bot request ANI thread (Link in second line of the closed RFC). Looks like a mass rollback is expected and the templatee returned to it's previous state. Sciencefish (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Why bother? Any contribution questioning your decision has been deleted from it.

I would like to ask: some contributors dismiss the possibility of historic counties as an entity despite all the citations, including official statistics, court judgements and official pronouncements from the government. What would it take to convince the Wikiarchy? An Act of Parliament? Or would that be dismissed as mere politics? A unanimous resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations perhaps? Seriously though, what are you waiting for?Hogweard (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

A government press release or "official statistics" (whatever that is) are meaningless. As are press releases from local authorities. An Act of Parliament would be good, although some reliable sources from scholars would work too. I'd like to see these "court judgements" you refer to; how exactly can a court adjudicate on the "historic county" status of a place when AFAIK there is no law that would require courts to make such a determination? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant of the above question, however, this obviously has no place in an infobox as per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Perhaps in article prose, but I think that can be hashed out on the appropriate article or project talk page. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

And no-one has "dismiss[ed]] the possibility of historic counties as an entity". What has been said repeatedly is that any proposal must be made in the appropriate place (wp:UKGEO), given adequate time for discussion, demonstrate consensus and be closed by a genuinely disinterested editor. Given the evidence presented at the ANI (and accepted there) of abuse of process, you can hardly be surprised to find that every i will have to be dotted and every t crossed.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, John Maynard Friedman, that's not true at all as many editors above (including yourself) have done so. Here are a few examples of the ways in which historic counties have been described above by opposing editors: "boundaries that ceased to be used 126 years ago" - you (30 July 2020); "indiscriminate junk" (31 July 2020); "There is no such thing as a fixed historic county for each location" (28 June 2021); "the historic counties are only significant in some sports" - you (6 June 2021); "the historic counties are just that. History. 125 years ago. Completely meaningless to a modern readership" - you (7 June 2021); "looks like political nudging by the Tory governments rather than any recognition that these things are still relevant on a day to day basis […] From that perspective I'd argue very strongly from holding off doing anything that suggests that they have any official status" (8 June 2021); "misleading historical fiction" (28 June 2021); "This historic county stuff is absolute garbage [...] Traditionalists need to get real. Historic counties (a neologism) are ex-counties, former counties, just like ex- and former boroughs [...] It's fantasty psuedo-geography for weirdy beardies" (8 July 2021). But then again, on 25 June 2021, you also wrote: "I accept the consensus reached on the RFC", so it seems as if you're having some difficulty remembering what you/others have written and argued during this discussion. —Songofachilles (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

No, the difference is perception of significance. The fundamental difference of view between us is the importance and therefore prominence of the HC information. Where I live, the Anglo-Saxon Hundred is particularly interesting for topology reasons but I wouldn't expect everyone else to take the same view and it would be wp:undue in most articles, let alone the infobox. I consider the historic county to be another interesting curiosity, not critical information or of particular historical value (compared with enclosures or the industrial revolution, for example) - they were just another device to extract more rent from the peasants. As of today, they don't exist and it is wrong-headed to pretend otherwise. The preponderance of opinion (which matches WP:UKCOUNTIES) is that it is incidental information that may be of interest in context in some articles: not to be sprayed everywhere indiscriminately. [By they way, I assume your extracts are from comments by many editors: I don't need to descend to ad hominem remarks.] --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Please could you explain to me how you square your statement that "no-one has 'dismiss[ed]] the possibility of historic counties as an entity'" with you also saying "they don't exist and it is wrong-headed to pretend otherwise"? (An entity is generally defined as 'a thing with distinct and independent existence.') And correct assumption: my extracts above are indeed from comments by several editors (I marked the ones which you made in bold with you). They are not ad hominem remarks at all; they are direct quotations from yours and others' contributions to the debate and therefore (I assume) represent your position(s). —Songofachilles (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd reconcile those statements with by looking at a fuller quote: "As of today, they don't exist and it is wrong-headed to pretend otherwise.", does not conflict with the past existence of historic counties. Quoting out of context like this, particularly from your opponents, is a first step towards constructing a straw man, and is not helpful regardless of your intention.--217.32.153.153 (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

My intention here is to refute claims from some opposing editors that their position has been consistent throughout this debate, as I do not feel that that has been the case and it's important for said editors to appreciate this if we are to go forward in any meaningful or constructive way on this.—Songofachilles (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Just because you can find an apparently contradictory quote, it doesn't mean the person has an inconsistent opinion. If you only quote that person once, you can't demonstrate a contradiction at all. For example, you quoted MRSC once: Their opinion on the matter is very clear, and is consistent with the quote you gave. With enough effect I expect I could find quotes from you that also apparently show inconsistent thinking. Its not a worthwhile task.--217.32.153.153 (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Neither is engaging in discussion with editors who back-track and/or conveniently forget what they wrote a few months earlier. —Songofachilles (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I live in Birmingham, England. You'd probably say that the HC was Warwickshire. But where I live - indeed, a large part of Birmingham - was in Staffordshire for centuries, until 1928, in Warwickshire from 1928 to 1974, has now been in the modern West Midlands county longer than it was in Warwickshire. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

The ANI case referred to above appears to be the one now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1075#Multiple abuses of process and subsequent mass automated edits in contravention of denied bot request. @Blue Square Thing: Please don't just link to WP:ANI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Following on from the last stages of the discussion here and on ANI, I have started discussion on WT:UKGEO. Pings for @Songofachilles, Redrose64, Roger 8 Roger, Owain, Blue Square Thing, John Maynard Friedman, Markbassett, Thryduulf, Crouch, Swale, LG02, Sciencefish, PamD, Hogweard, Peterjamesb, Deathlibrarian, Cosmicsqueaker, BristolTreeHouse, SportingFlyer, Lookesmiley, MRSC, PlatinumClipper96, JimmyGuano, Keith D, and Mhockey:: all involved in previous discussion. Note that the new discussion is not meant to be in any way a vote, and majority rules simply do not apply on WP (A belief in the majority may have led to the incorrect close of the RFC here).--217.32.153.153 (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't have time right now to read all of the above and certainly not the howevermany ANI discussions. Can someone summarise for me please what has change since the last time this was discussed? If nothing has then I don't understand why anybody things another discussion will arrive at a different outcome. Thryduulf (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: The above got the historic county added to infobox, but was removed quickly at ANI due to it falsely claiming a consensus (when no consensus was more accurate). The key thing to come out of it, and the objective of the thread over on UKGEO is to actually codify the guidance properly. So instead of having interminable discussions saying "we rejected this last year, and the year before that and..." we can say "here's the guidance, it tells you what to do". Its possible that will overturn existing guidance, but I doubt it.--217.32.153.153 (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks @217.32.153.153 for kicking off the discussion. —Songofachilles (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I was going to make a similar comment to what Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) wrote. Anywhere that's near a county boundary/boundaries could have a history of counties it's been part of. Instead of trying to include a list in an infobox, it would be better to add comments in the history section of relevant articles to say which counties the settlement had been allocated to over time. The "Middle Ages" section in the Carlisle article pretty much does that. --Northernhenge (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The majority of folk who are still alive, still use the common historic that was in place before 1975, certainly in Scotland anyway. They are the common name and I use them in all Scottish articles. I don't know about England, Wales or Northern Ireland, but I did hear them used fondly coversation when I lived in London for 15 years. They are more prized than the artifial constructs like the a unitary councils that were established in Scotland 1996, that were political mechanisms essentially to save money and bore no relation to how folk lived. and how they felt about it. Often they also make it harder to geolocate stuff. It is absurd and slightly odd not have a field in the infobox to support it. In letters, I always put the county. Everybody does in Scotland. It is the common name. scope_creep^Talk 20:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• For a bit of light relief, there's a nice video on YouTube about all the county changes. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Complete overhaul?

Why do we continue to use such ugly and uninformative infoboxes for UK places? Most other country-specific infobox templates are much more aesthetically pleasing and also more detailed - such as including an elevation, mayor (for towns and parishes where applicable), area and density widely used (I know they already exist but are rarely used), flags for sovereign state, country and county, population shown as parish total then urban and metro for larger places where applicable, demonym etc.

I know many of these are used on the template for districts/major cities, but why not for all settlements? Perhaps a complete overhaul of the UK place infobox is needed, taking inspiration from other country-specific templates. Green450 (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

You'll want to start by reading this 2019 discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Hampshire and Isle of Wight updates required

Hi all,

Following on from a previous discussion a few months ago regarding the fire service parameter for the Isle of Wight, I have noticed that Hampshire also requires a similar update, as the infobox (e.g. at Cosham) still links to Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service rather than Hampshire and Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Service. Could the piping/displayed text also be updated to say “Hampshire and Isle of Wight”.

Also, could the Isle of Wight parameter (e.g. at Cowes) also be slightly tweaked to avoid a redirect, as it currently goes to Hampshire & Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Service, rather than Hampshire and Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Service i.e. replace the “&” with “and”.

Many thanks Elshad (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Elshad (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Overlink

Per MOS:OL, shouldn't United Kingdom, England, Sctoland, Wales, and Northern Ireland not be automatically linked (and perhaps others?). --IWI (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 May 2022

The article List of law enforcement agencies in the United Kingdom, Crown dependencies and British Overseas Territories was directed to List of law enforcement agencies in the United Kingdom, Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories. Rkt2312 (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Terasail^[✉️] 15:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Addition of parts

Sorry forgot to note here. I have added parts processing to the sandbox version as a result of discussions elsewhere. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Infobox UK District, User talk:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes#Infobox and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Infobox template.

I have added places to {{infobox UK place/sandbox}}. You can see it in the first example of Template:Infobox UK place/testcases (just under Sovereign state). You can try it out yourself, details of parameters are in {{Infobox settlement}} documentation – see |parts=, |parts_type=, |parts_style=, |p1= to |p50=. Default is Places rather than Borough. Keith D (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I have put the parts processing live. Keith D (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion of patron saints

I would like to propose the addition of a patron saint parameter to the infobox. Would anybody support or oppose this suggestion? Vesuvio14 (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, infobox is an 'at a glance' summary of the most important data in the article. IMO, this is just clutter. If it really is still a big deal anywhere (and so detailed in the body), it can go in the lead. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The OS_grid_reference parameter

How does the OS_grid_reference param work, please. On Hatfield Chase, the actual reference is in blue, because it is processed somehow, and I think it appears on OpenStreetMap when you click the "Map all coordinates using: OpenStreetMap" option, but it appears as #1, which is not very helpful. For Template:coord, there is an option to name it, using the "|name=Tunnel Pits" param. Could there be a similar option for OS_grid_reference? The other option would be to supress it in the "Map all coordinates" option, since it points to the same place as the coord, and in this case to the same place as Tunnel Pits from the POI table. It is all a bit messy. Bob1960evens (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Either you mended this or I'm missing something. Where does the #1 appear?

After I click on SE734040 in the infobox I can click through to OpenStreetMap with no trouble. -- Wire723 (talk) 10:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The problem occurs when you click "Map all coordinates using: OpenStreetMap". It shows a list of points, all neatly named, from the POI table, and in a separate list at the top, the unintelligible "#1" (which I think is the grid ref) and "Tunnel Pits region: GB type city", which comes from the coord template, which has a "|name=Tunnel Pits" parameter. It seems to affect all pages which include the {kml} template and an infobox with an OS_grid_reference in it. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I have submitted a question at what may be the right talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I see what you mean now. The GeoGroup template defaults to processing all coordinates mentioned in the page, including those from the infobox. I added a parameter to restrict it to this section which gives the desired effect. -- Wire723 (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Bob1960evens, I'm not sure why you made this edit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Redrose64, I added the name param to the coord template so that it displayed some useful text on the OpenStreetmap view, rather than the unintelligible #2. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, it breaks the format of the URL query string. Without that parameter, the geohack URL is valid:

• https://geohack.toolforge.org/geohack.php?pagename=Hatfield_Chase&params=53.528_N_0.893_W_region:GB_type:city

but adding |name=Tunnel Pits yields this URL:

• https://geohack.toolforge.org/geohack.php?pagename=Hatfield_Chase&params=53.528_N_0.893_W_&title=Tunnel+Pits_region:GB_type:city

where everything from the second ampersand onwards is malformed. This is what it should be:

• https://geohack.toolforge.org/geohack.php?pagename=Hatfield_Chase&params=53.528_N_0.893_W_region:GB_type:city&title=Tunnel+Pits

essentially, the _region:GB_type:city part is being treated as if it were part of the link title and not part of the params sequence where it belongs. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I've raised a thread at Module talk:Coordinates#Incompatibility vetween coordinsert and the name= parameter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I have just noticed this text on the Usage section of the {kml} template:

Inline coordinates can be associated with a name using {{Coord}} with the |name= parameter, such as:

{{coord|1|2|type:landmark|name=Interesting uncharted point in the sea}}

However, do not use the |name= parameter when the coordinates are within a parent template or table which emits a microformat, such as an infobox.

This may be relevant. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

That guidance should be tested before it is trusted, since it does not appear in the documentation for {{coord}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Nicknames

I would like to propose the additions of etymology, nickname and motto to this infobox, as are used at Template:Infobox Settlement. Would anybody have any opinion on this? Vesuvio14 (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose as an open invitation to WP:TRIVIA. The infobox should be an 'at a glance' table of the most essential info about a place. These are not essential, if relevant they can go in the body. IMO, {{Infobox Settlement}} is a useless mess because it is so undiscriminating. Less is more. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose as low-relevance clutter. And specifically: nicknames can be many and varied, cf List of city nicknames in the United Kingdom; hard to find sources to demonstrate which ones are in common use. Motto is often attached to the city council (etc) not the place. -- Wire723 (talk) 06:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding colours to differentiate between settlement type

I propose adding colours to the infobox in a similar manner to Template:Infobox Australian place, for the purpose of classifying the settlement type of a place at a glance. I think this would have the benefit of making the currently rather bland looking template a lot more interesting and colourful, similar to those of Australia. Benjamin Bryztal (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

There are a lot of different entries in the |type= field, but could work. May be you could expand with a table of type to colour. Keith D (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 November 2022

Greetings and felicitations. I'm afraid that while I can specify what I want changed, I don't know how it should be done. Currently there is a space between the data in the field "population" and that of "population_ref". E.g. "41,440 ^[1]" in Chelsea, London. This violates MOS:CITEPUNCT. Would it be possible to eliminate this space? —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC) DocWatson42 (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

It's the code for |data6=; it contains an explicit   (non-breaking space) and it was moved to that position by TheDJ (talk · contribs) with this edit thirteen years ago (line 65 in that diff). The link in the edit summary should be read as Template talk:Infobox UK place/Archive 8#Latest changes (October 2009). There has been a space of some kind ever since the code for population_ref was added by Jimp (talk · contribs) (who is no longer around) in this edit eighteen months earlier. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Thank you for the clarification. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 11:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth:This causes problems as you end up with the text butting up to the figures. The space should be present if there is clarifying text and not a reference marker. See North Rauceby as an example. Keith D (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I have fixed that misuse of the |population_ref= parameter. See the template's documentation for more information. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

That just removed the clarification of when the population figure applied. I would guess that 90% of the infoboxes do this and is useful. May be we need to change the documentation not remove detail just because a change in the template causes a problem. Keith D (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

 Undone for now until and unless this can be resolved. Seems that editors have sometimes used the |population_ref= parameter as a text reference, which would require a space between the population figure and the text ref. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 21:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Post Towns

Given that the use of Post Towns is deprecated by the post office and its use causes confusion about actual locations, should this parameter be deleted from the infobox? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Is it "deprecated"? That's news to me and not was the Post town article says: "their optical character recognition technology and Mailsort lookup tables check for the post town at the beginning of a line if the postcode is missing, unreadable or incorrect".  Dr Greg  talk  15:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Deprecated?. I thought the PO wanted the postcode and within reason couldn't care about the rest. Confusion, what confusion? Changing the guidelines without a very careful znzlysis of the wider implications would, IMO, create confusion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

If you have a correct postcode, the only other necessary item of information (apart from the name of the recipient) is the number or name of the building. If the postcode is missing or incomplete, the post town is mandatory. It is the postal county that is "deprecated" - except for non-unique post towns such as Bangor, Newport and Richmond. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary

Hello all. The Hampshire Constabulary has recently been renamed the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary, and therefore could the "police" parameter for all places in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight please be updated to reflect this? Elshad (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Promote Irish name above Scots

Currently for articles in Northern Ireland that use this template they often have both Scots and Irish names for the settlements. Scots always appears first which was fine when as Ulster Scots had more legal status in Northern Ireland than Irish. However Irish is now an official language alongside English in Northern Ireland and Scots is a recognised language so has a slightly lower standing than Irish. As a result of this I think we should change the infobox to put Irish ahead of Scots in the ordering. I believe this would only affect Northern Ireland related articles anyway due to usage patterns. Canterbury Tail talk 01:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I have modified the template's sandbox to move "Irish" above "Scots". See the sandbox version in this test case for the new ordering. I have no opinion on whether this is a good idea, or on the ideal ordering of these languages; I'm just a template editor. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Let's see if anyone else has an opinion on this for now. It's not something that needs to be pushed to live urgently. Canterbury Tail talk 07:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. No objections from me. XAM2175 ^(T) 10:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Aside from any arguments about the relative legal status of these languages, alphabetical order for the names of the languages in English makes sense. Warofdreams talk 21:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Change Welsh "Ceremonial counties" to "Preserved counties".

In 2013, @Robevans123: suggested that the term "Preserved county" should be used in place of "Ceremonial county" for lieutenancy_wales. There was no further discussion, and the field is described as "Ceremonial county" today. How would anyone feel if I changed it now?

For some background, "preserved county" is a term defined in the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994, and later used in the Lieutenancies Act 1997 .

A map of ceremonial counties is available through data.gov.uk. The web page it provides for it states that "A ceremonial county is an area that has an appointed Lord Lieutenant and High Sheriff and is used for ceremonial purposes in relation to the monarchy. These areas are referred to ... as preserved counties in Wales.".

Aoeuidhtns (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Aoeuidhtns (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Support. XAM2175 ^(T) 11:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Template-protected edit request on 4 April 2023

Change the labels for "lieutenancy_wales", "lieutenancy_wales1", "lieutenancy_wales2" and "lieutenancy_wales3" from "Ceremonial county" to "Preserved county". Aoeuidhtns (talk) 10:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)