It seems bizarre that 20 years in we have no WP:MOS-Albania or MOS:Albania, WP:Albania is just the wikiproject with no style guide, and there are 4 discussions of Albany, New York, but none of Albania or its placenames in the archives here... but here we are.

Every single Albanian placename has an indefinite (any given Paris) and definite nominative form (the specific Paris). You might think all placenames are necessarily definite all the time but somehow they aren't and—this being the Balkans—somehow it's political. The subject has bizarrely never come up in the archive for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albania. This comment thread on Tirana (def. with Tiranë indef.) seems to be the only thorough discussion anywhere on the project... and it comes to no conclusions except to note that it seems like definite forms are more common for female Albanian names (=normal Latiny -a endings) versus indefinite forms being more common for male Albanian names (=leaving off the is and us and whatnot from the roots). There's also an accusation of racism and colonialism for preferring one of Albanian's own native grammatical structures... the correct one.

This UK guide notes that Communist Albania preferred definite names (since... y'know... they refer to a single specific place) and therefore free Albania has generally preferred to use indefinite names... (since... uh...) except in certain cases where it was just too weird. The old US gazetteers deferred to the Brits in the 1950s; presumably they wouldn't now but aren't easily accessible via Google Books. The basic CIA info seems to be random.

This leads to the exact same name for the exact same place being given in both forms: Himara for the Himara/Himarë District and Himarë for the Himara/Himarë Administrative Unit. No, agreement with the words for "district" and "unit" have nothing to do with the difference. It's exactly the same name, just presented inconsistently. Can we come to an agreement to always prefer the definite forms? Always prefer the indefinite forms except in truly egregious edge cases (Tirana isn't becoming Tiranë anytime soon)? or at least throw up a guide explaining what's going on here? — LlywelynII 07:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

If it makes any difference, OpenAI thinks

For proper names of cities in Albanian, the definite form is generally used. This means that the noun is preceded by the definite article "the," which is "i" in Albanian. For example, the city of Tirana would be referred to as "the Tirana" in Albanian...

Then again, it also thinks all pretty women are models and all ugly women are scientists, so it's obviously working from a techbro-heavy corpus... — LlywelynII 07:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• I think it's a good idea to at least add a section about Albanian place names to this WP:NCGN. And you're right that the Himarë/Himara issue should be corrected (my proposal: move Himara (the article about the larger municipality/region) to Himarë, and leave the town at Himarë (town)). The grammatical concept of definiteness in Albanian is very different from the ones in English and French, so examples like "a Paris" and "the Paris" cannot convey the same meaning as they would have in Albanian. Both the definite and indefinite forms are used in Albanian in different contexts. It makes sense to choose one of them to be consistent. As far as I know, the only place with a widely used name in English in the definite form is Tirana, all others are commonly written in the indefinite form in English, e.g. in Encyclopaedia Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedia (check Vlorë, Shkodër, Gjirokastër, Durrës, Berat). So that could be the naming convention for Albanian: use the indefinite form unless there is a more widely used other name in English (e.g. Tirana). Markussep ^Talk 10:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

You seem to have though this through. Feel free to start MOS:Albania, even if there is nothing more to it that what you have posted here. This is my first time hearing of such a grammatical issue, but since you proposed it and described your reasoning, I support your idea of preferring definite forms. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Markussep: 1) Right, but our current articles on definiteness and on the Albanian language don't currently explain how that works. They should and we need at least some explanation of what Albanian grammatical-a-Paris is even trying to say, because it doesn't make any sense. 2) I'm 100% certain that the main ENGLISH form is always going to be -a before -ë in English sources. Findings like this will happen every time for feminine placenames. There needs to be an actual source and criterion for why we're going to ignore that. — LlywelynII 01:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• I think Markussep is right, a brief note on the difference and the history at this page would be helpful, and that can be expanded and split as needed later. I don’t think we should be prescribing either form at this point, especially as it could get political. Also, LlywelynII, I think you have a typo around the Him / Ham of Himarë (etc) in your comment. — HTGS (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I suggest to Llywelyn that you re-write your initial request, keep it focused and to the point, and cut out all the superfluous language. My guess is a lot of editors will get half way through what is currently their and switch off. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yep, fixed. — LlywelynII 01:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Probably the articles about definiteness in the Albanian language should be expanded, but that's not in the scope of this naming discussion. "Vlorë" does not mean "a Vlorë" (that would be "një Vlorë"), it's a form used in some grammatical contexts, and "Vlora" is used in other grammatical contexts, for instance after some prepositions. There's nothing political about that. This discussion is about widely accepted names in English usage. Reliable sources like encyclopedias and dictionaries overwhelmingly use the indefinite form, see Encyclopaedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, Collins and also this UNDP report. It's also the advice of the PCGN LlywelynII quoted above. The CIA Factbook map has all indefinite forms (e.g. Vlorë, Korçë), except Tirana. So my proposal is to add a section about Albania to WP:NCGN, saying:

"When a place does not have a widely accepted name (e.g. "Tirana"), use the indefinite Albanian name (e.g. "Vlorë", "Durrës")."

Markussep ^Talk 11:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Mostly good. I think the ngram suggests that any given feminine placename will have "WIAN" using the -a form when people care, but presumably they won't much? Similarly, the articles seem to be at definite forms on the Albanian Wikipedia itself (e.g. Himara). For whatever reason, though, yeah, that's a pretty authoritative list you've got there, from US and UK dictionary/style guides plus US and UK gov't plus an agency under the UN aegis. The only things I could imagine gumming up the works at this point would be if the NY Times, Chicago Manual of Style, or the UN itself came out strongly on the other side. Seems unlikely. So, a new Albanian section just above the Belarus one to cover this?

Two minor points: WP:COMMON WP:ENGLISH is overwhelming anywhere and doesn't need to be excerpted here. I think we're better off just saying Apart from Tirana, use... and anything that actually turns out to be a major exception will announce itself quickly enough and be worked out on the merits. Tirana isn't even really the way it is because of an exception within Albanian grammar; it's just an English or Latin name like Albania, plus it's too major to be hard to spell.

Second, no, the whole idea of "definiteness" here is too weird and should be noted at Albania and Tirana at minimum. "It's different from what definiteness usually means" and "there's some grammar" needs to be explained better. It's part of the scope here since it's been so badly handled up to now. We're doing the geographic names, but this will come up in every single article (e.g. administrative divisions of Albania) where there's a need to provide the Albanian form of any noun. It will also impact every one of these articles because it's not as simple as "the indefinite form is the English name". They both exist; both need to be mentioned; and that'll involve some explanation or (better) discussion to link to about what it means. — LlywelynII 16:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

We could rephrase it to:

"For places in Albania, use the indefinite Albanian name (e.g. "Vlorë", "Durrës")."

I'm omitting the Tirana case now, since indeed widely accepted names are already in the general guideline. I'll post this version at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albania, for comments. The encyclopedic definition of definiteness is really not in the scope of a naming convention. Maybe someone who is knowledgeable about Albanian grammar can help here. Markussep ^Talk 20:19, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Does this page only deal with naming titles of articles. It seems to be the case let me know 2603:8090:C00:543E:985A:7DE9:C982:B7BC (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Phil Bridger - Did you mean "No"? Per 1st sentence of the Lead, and "This page in a nutshell".

What does seem to be ambiguous is whether the General Guidelines (3) is referring to use of names in article content only where the article title has the same name. Davidships (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• We have a policy that specifically governs Article titles (see: WP:Article titles). Our various Naming Conventions (NCs) do discuss titles, but focus more on article text. Now, most of the time, the names we use for article titles will be the same as those used in article text (and vise versa)… but not always. When there is a difference, follow WP:AT for the title and the appropriate NC for text. Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  Wut? First sentence in this article: “This page describes conventions for determining the titles of Wikipedia articles on places.“ AT contains the general policy, guidelines and naming conventions for WP article titles. Area-specific naming conventions for titles are laid out in separate pages like this one does for titles of articles about places. —-В²C ☎ 15:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Strange. There's no full stop after "places" on my screen. It continues ".... articles on places, and for the use of place names in Wikipedia articles."

Anyway, I came here through the Help menus to find guidance on the use of common-English names of places in particular historic events in articles which are not about the places themselves (eg ship biographies, or List of shipwrecks by year articles), and hoped that I had found it. In the meantime I discovered MOS:GEO, tucked away on the main MOS page, and although most of it is just a précis of this page, there is also pertinent guidance there. May I suggest that one of the established editors of this page adds a link to MOS:GEO at an appropriate place here. Davidships (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

In 2014, apparently as a result of a discussion at Talk:Chihuahua City#Requested move, it was established that Mexican state capitals with the same name as their states be named ____ City, for example Aguascalientes City, Campeche City, and so on. However, I believe these article titles are neologisms that are not used outside of Wikipedia and the articles would be better located at ____ (city).

In the RM, comparisons were made to cases like New York City and Mexico City, but these articles are fundamentally unlike those examples. They are unlike cases like Mexico City or Guatemala City because in those cases the "City" is part of their official names in Spanish (as "Ciudad de ____"). They are also unlike cases like New York City or Panama City, because though those cities do not have City in their official names, they are widely known by those names in English. I could find no widespread use of the name "Chihuahua City" in English. The city is widely called simply Chihuahua in both English and Spanish, therefore the word city should be the disambiguator instead of part of the title. This would be in keeping with similar situations in other countries, for example Cork (city) and Chiba (city).

As the consensus from the RM has been listed on this page, I think it's better to try to overturn it here and not on the talk page when so many articles are affected. Pinguinn 🐧 14:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I've no objections to using "....(city)", where city isn't a part of the official name. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Pinguinn, I agree that those titles are neologisms and don't reflect real-world usage. There's a current RM at Veracruz (city), if anyone feels like weighing in. Moscow Mule (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Pinguinn, I agree with what you said above, and Moscow Mule, I've weighed in at that RM and generally agree we should be using parenthetic disambiguation rather than descriptive titles, uncommon names, or outright neologisms, for titles of articles about subjects that have common but ambiguous names. On that note, if you (or anyone else) could weigh in at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Clarifying_"also_commonly_called"_but_not_"obscure"_in_NATURAL, that would be appreciated. Thank you. --В²C ☎ 17:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

For the moment, it doesn't seem that Veracruz (city) is going anywhere. Is there an appetite to align the rest of them with that article (and Puebla (city))? If so, how would we go about it? A multiple-but-linked RM? Moscow Mule (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Though I’m not sure what you mean by “multiple-but-linked” RM. It would be a normal multi-page move request. See WP:RMPM. —В²C ☎ 23:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

В²C: WP:RMPM -- great. Exactly what I meant, despite being unaware of the existence of such a thing. Moscow Mule (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we should compile a draft here? A comprehensive list of current titles and the corresponding proposed new one for each? --В²C ☎ 20:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I was preparing a move request as you replied: listing placed on Talk:Aguascalientes_City#Requested_move_29_January_2023. The affected articles would be

• Aguascalientes City → Aguascalientes (city)
• Campeche City → Campeche (city)
• Chihuahua City → Chihuahua (city)
• Colima City → Colima (city)
• Durango City → Durango (city)
• Guanajuato City → Guanajuato (city)
• Oaxaca City → Oaxaca (city)
• Querétaro City → Querétaro (city)
• San Luis Potosí City → San Luis Potosí (city)
• Tlaxcala City → Tlaxcala (city)
• Zacatecas City → Zacatecas (city)

Eleven of them. I think that's the lot. It can be edited to include any I might have missed, I suppose. Moscow Mule (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

A discussion at Talk:Phoenix, Arizona#Requested move 1 February 2023 may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Can't we just standardise on WP:COMMONNAME (or if that doesn't exist, local name) for everything, with disambiguators (that should be the country name in the first instance) used if needed? I know I've never read through this whole page, and I doubt that many others have. I was motivated to post this here by the realisation that we have guidance for naming of neighbourhoods in New York City. Should we really be creating rules for such specific things? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Simplify a MOS page?

Heretic! Burn the witch! Blueboar (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Please see the RfC above. --- Tbf69 P • T 16:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

COMMONNAME is one strategy in support of recognizability, one of the 5 naming criteria. Let's not throw out the others. Dicklyon (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Please could an admin close the Request for comment on USPLACE?  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 14:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi CityUrbanism. I'm not an admin, but I can recommend WP:Closure requests as a way of doing what you want here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Now closed by MelanieN. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Should articles about UK places feature ceremonial counties as prominently as they currently do, e.g. for disambiguation purposes? A.D.Hope (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

My position is that Wikipedia has got ahead of itself a little with the English ceremonial counties. The ceremonial counties are simply areas to which the lord-lieutenants are appointed (as reflected in their full name, 'counties for the purposes of the lieutenancies'), which is quite a minor ceremonial function. On articles about English places, however, they are often featured prominently in the lead and infobox and used for disambiguation.

Anyone who has edited anything to do with English local government will know that it's complicated. There are multiple types of local authority and county and they do change sometimes, which can quickly become confusing. In this context I can understand the appeal of using the relatively stable ceremonial counties, but I don't think the practice is helpful as it inflates their importance. Kendal may still be ceremonially in Cumbria, for example, but Westmorland and Furness is now the more important body as it's the local government area.

Instead, I believe it would be better to follow the example of many articles on Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish places and use only the current administrative area and historic county in the lead, using the former for disambiguation. Some examples:

• Melrose is a small town and civil parish in the Scottish Borders, historically in Roxburghshire.
• Flint is a town and community in Flintshire, Wales, lying on the estuary of the River Dee.
• Ballymena is a town in County Antrim, Northern Ireland.

It's worth noting that both Melrose and Flint use their current administrative areas for disambiguation in the article title, not their Scottish lieutenancy area or Welsh preserved county respectively.

As I say, I can understand how the ceremonial counties have taken on this inflated status on Wikipedia. They don't change much, editors have become used to them, all that sort of thing. Consider, though, if it would be logical to use the shrieval counties in the same way as we currently use the ceremonial ones. They're very similar, but it seems obvious to me that the shrieval counties serve a minor ceremonial function and would not be appropriate to use as a primary disambiguator in a title. It's time to treat the lieutanancy counties in the same way. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes generally the ceremonial counties are the most identifiable way of referring to places in England. In Scotland and Wales unitary districts are generally used but in Northern Ireland ceremonial counties AFAIK are normally used. The other 3 UK countries have unitary districts covering the whole countries while in England we have unitary districts, 2 tier counties as well as London boroughs and metropolitan boroughs both of which appear to operate at the country level yet apparently aren't legally counties unlike unitary districts[1]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure why ceremonial counties have come to be regarded as the 'most identifiable' way of referring to places in England, honestly. The lord-lieutenants aren't very prominent, and as far as I know the ceremonial counties are only the areas to which they're appointed.

  If the ceremonial counties had a greater administrative role then I'd see the argument for using them as prominently as Wikipedia does, but since their role is minor it seems logical to use local authorities (regardless of whether or not they're counties) and historic counties instead — local authorities because they're the current local government entities, and historic counties because they have a reasonable level of recognition and are geographically stable. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  There's a difference between England and it's other outlying neighbours.

  England is larger and has more coverage then the other countries.

  Lets say that Lancaster said Lancaster, England and not Lancaster in Lancashire, England. It would confuse the readers as there's multiple Lancaster articles.

  Same with York. Yorkshire, New York, City of York and Yorkshire and Humber among other uses. It's better to use the county and country because it helps readers none British to understand better.

  DragonofBatley (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  My point isn't that counties should be removed entirely, but that local authorities are more appropriate than the ceremonial counties in this context. To use your examples, that would give something like:

  • Lancaster is a city in Lancashire, England.
  • York is a cathedral city in England, in the historic county of Yorkshire.
  • York is the primary settlement in the City of York unitary authority in England. It is in the historic county of Yorkshire.

  A.D.Hope (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  Historic counties are anything but geographically stable. Because historic counties can have multiple definitions, you'd have to decide what date you want the historic counties from. For example do you use the boundaries from before or after the Counties (Detached Parts) Act 1844? Also using them would just be confusing for the many towns which have changed counties over the years. I support the current consensus of the ceremonial counties, they aren't perfect but they're better than the alternatives. Eopsid (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  Historic counties are way more stable and unchanged compared to ceremonial counties (the latter which have only existed for less than 30 years by the Lieutenancies Act 1997!). Official UK government publications continue to inform that historic counties continue to exist and were never abolished.

  This confusion, where members of the public (quite understandably) edit pages to update local government changes/ceremonial county changes, will continue to happen on Wikipedia every single time new legislation changes these volatile boundaries. Hence why using ceremonial counties/local government areas as reference points will never be sustainable. I would support using historic counties as the basis for defining geography in the UK. Administrative areas/ceremonial counties are unstable, and will continue to be constantly chopped and changed by legislation going forward in future. Acapital (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  Can you please define historic counties for me? What stable boundaries are we using for them? Eopsid (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  Go and search on Ordnance survey, the gov.uk website, or something. They produce maps of the historic counties online, it’s not difficult. Acapital (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  It's my understanding that the historic counties are generally taken as they were in 1889, which is when they were superseded by what are now called the administrative counties. Where this isn't the case, being more specific would arguably make for a better lead, for example:

  • Little Compton is a village and civil parish in the Stratford-on-Avon district, in south Warwickshire, England, and is located about three miles east of Moreton-in-Marsh. Until 1844 it was an exclave of Gloucestershire.

  A.D.Hope (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  So your definition of historic counties are the ones between the Counties (Detached Parts) Act 1844 and 1889? Only 45 years. Thats only 20 years more than the ceremonial counties. I wouldnt call those much more stable boundaries. Maybe we should instead define historic counties using the boundaries from 1889-1965. They lasted longer... I don't think ceremonial counties having the potential to change boundaries and having to update articles is a bad thing. Change is inevitable and Wikipedia should reflect that. Eopsid (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  Change is inevitable, which is why I don't think we should shy away from using administrative areas as the primary means of describing a place's location.

  The historic counties never ceased to exist, according to the traditional county groups and more recently the UK government. That means that they've now had the same boundaries for 179 years, as far as I know, and by their very nature they're unlikely to change. This makes the historic counties useful as a secondaty descriptor.

  Interestingly, since making my last comment I've done a bit more reading and discovered the 'Historic Counties Standard' developed by the Association of British Counties (a group which has been endorsed by the UK government). The Association specifically criticise Wikipedia for not having a standard approach to the historic counties, so it's probably worth us paying attention to their proposal. It could provide the basis for a consistent treatment of the historic counties, eliminating the problems you mention. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  Alas we don't let fringe pressure groups decide Wikipedia policies. G-13114 (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  What about the counties corporate like the County of the City of Coventry. Coventry was a county in itself longer than it was part of Warwickshire. G-13114 (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think that's a dismissive and unhelpful attitude to take. The Association of British Counties can't force Wikipedia editors to do anything, but since they've created this resource we may as well make use of it. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  We have been through this historic counties nonsense far too often before. Can we PLEASE not go through it again. This pressure group has no status, their definitions of historic counties are fluid to suit their agenda. Historic counties are just that – historic. Not again, please. Nothing has changed since the last time this was raised. Or the time before. Or the time before that. Except that they've become even more historical. Like Hundreds. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  Their definitions may be fluid, but ours don't need to be. Wikipedia's treatment of the historic counties is inconsistent, so I don't see the harm in using the Association's publication as one source to help us create a more consistent standard.

  I think it's also worth pointing out that my main point is about changing how we use the ceremonial counties, this is a bit of a distraction. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  Interestingly there is a fringe pressure group on Wikipedia already who suggest in another RFC that reading a map (where one could glean county boundaries) is Original Research. I would link to it but that could be construed as canvassing. –Fredddie™ 21:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  Labelling them all as fringe pressure groups couldn’t be more false and dismissive. The government themselves keep reiterating the historic counties exist, and were never abolished. I’m sure you cannot possibly say the government is a fringe pressure group. Ignoring the fact of the existence of historic counties, and their continued importance in cultural identities across the UK, is clearly just dismissive.

  Look at the mess in how Wikipedia county articles are written. You have Yorkshire, where the county page infobox clearly shows its current status as a historic county, then shows a historic county map and the historic county flag. Then you have Oxfordshire where the infobox shows it is a ceremonial county, includes a map of the ceremonial county, then incorrectly includes a map of the historic county of Oxfordshire.

  Such inconsistency! No wonder members of the public (quite understandably)feel the need to edit pages to correct county information, only for the edits to be reverted and referred to talk pages. This will continue as long as Wikipedia policies continue to ignore the historic counties. Acapital (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly, this inconsistency is one of the things I'm keen to address. I really do think that the way Wikipedia treats ceremonial counties, although surely developed with good intentions, has ultimately only confused things further.

  The current administrative areas and the historic counties seem like the natural entities to focus on, at least in the leads of articles about locations. Things like lieutenancy areas and shrieval counties can be mentioned in the body. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  So let me just point this out for those saying HC still exist.

  When was Greater Manchester, Merseyside, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, Cumbria, West Midlands County, Greater London, Herefordshire and Rutland created?

  Between 1940s-1990s? All these are official counties metropolitan or unitary authorities.

  Rutland and Herefordshire are unique in being unitary authorities and counties with no districts or single unitary authorities other then the county council .

  Now if we need to delve into hc boundaries let's try and keep it simple.

  Do people who live in Manchester primarily southern and northern Manchester still identify with Cheshire or Lancashire? Same with Wirral and Liverpool. Cheshire and Lancashire? Older ones do but not younger ones.

  Lancashire still exists in these counties through history and heritage but not local government. Like West Riding of Yorkshire still exists through historical but not local government.

  West Yorkshire is one combined authority like Greater Manchester West Midlands County and Tyne and Wear.

  But Cumbria and Lancashire are not they. One is a smaller shell of its former county and the other was formed from multiple counties and hundreds being Cumbria.

  Cumbria and Humberside is there a comparison? Yes and no, Cumbria has not been abolished and still remains a county of ceremonial and higher lieutenancy like the Duchy of the House of Lancaster. But Humberside is long dead and buried but not its name in radio and local emergency services but the former settlements are back in Lincolnshire and East Riding of Yorkshire as unitary authorities.

  So Westmorland and Furness and Cumberland are not counties but local authorities. Cumbria continues to exist the same as it did before being split only thing is the loss of its district's and boroughs as well as county council. But is Carlisle still the largest settlement and county town of the county and unitary authorities? Yes it is

  Like Chester is for Cheshire despite the county being unitary authorities and Lancaster is for Lancashire despite Preston being the administrative centre and Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool being seperate unitary authorities.

  Cumbria exists and that's the end of it. Not been abolished like Lancashire hasn't and Yorkshire but only changed.

  DragonofBatley (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  Cumbria does exist, but now as a ceremonial county. My point is that ceremonial counties aren't that important, and so shouldn't be prominent in articles about English locations. Historic counties aren't important either, administratively speaking, which is why I wouldn't use them as a primary geographic frame of reference.

  Local authorities are the best thing to use as the main geographic frame of reference for a place, because they're both important and current. Ceremonial counties aren't important and historic counties, for all their cultural value, aren't really current. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  So, you are saying that whether a county exists or not depends on whether or not local people “identify” with the county? That is just trying to introduce subjectivity to the discussion, and should be avoided entirely. This should be a factual website. Fact is… that historic counties were never abolished. They continue to exist. The Government has confirmed this. Fact. Whether you like it or not, historic counties exist and were not changed by local government reorganisations. This is a fact. It doesn’t matter how you decide to interpret ceremonial counties or administrative areas or whatever. Historic counties exist and were never abolished… Fact.

  Besides, you generalise people and populations, which weakens your point greatly. Have you conducted a survey of how people identify to their counties, and correlate this to age groups? Just go to the places that you mention, and you’ll find that many many people still identify with their historic counties, regardless of age group. In many places around the country, such as East London (Essex) or Manchester/Liverpool (Lancashire), many people still identify with historic county boundaries. Similarly in Cumberland and Westmorland. But this subjective point should not even be a point in this discussion anyway.

  Please keep to the facts. Acapital (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  So what are facts then? Local Authorities are not counties they are that. Authorities or local government. Counties which are historic might not have been abolished but they sure aren't fully recognised from a metropolitan and local government side.

  Do we see for instance and here is fact not opinion, Greater Manchester Combined Authority use Cheshire, Lancashire or West Riding of Yorkshire when promoting the Greater Manchester area? No we don't, local councils will have websites or plaques dedicated to the settlement history and county changes but that's it.

  Merseyside is another, does the wider Mayor of Merseyside call Liverpool Lancashire and Wirral Cheshire? No they do not but they would recognise the heritage and city history when part of Lancs. So Merseyside don't use Lancashire or Cheshire for their respective sides of the river Mersey like Warrington and Widnes are formerly Lancs but not Cheshire.

  historic counties don't exist as solo entities anymore and if we really want to delve into Historic counties never changed, actually that's false as anything because they have.

  Let me throw three examples both fact and proof HC are not defined:

  1: Measham a village in Leicestershire, was once in Derbyshire but got moved to Leicestershire in 1897.

  2: Bristol was once part of Gloucestershire and Somerset but became seperate from them when King Edward III made it a city and county in 1542 when it became seperate from Gloucestershire and Somerset. Nobody identifies as Gloucestershire or Somerset now.

  3: Quite an established one, Newcastle upon Tyne became seperate of Northumberland in 1400. Became a city and county in its own right despite Gateshead North Tyneside and South Tyneside as well as parts of modern Northumberland built around the city. Now it's part of Tyne and Wear but was long a city before Bristol and other cities aside from York Canterbury Lincoln and Chester I assume among others.

  But those three prove and actually contradict nicely that HCs are not well established and it doesn't matter if people argue hundreds of years etc.

  Historic counties have always been subject to change like Manchester bought the land that now houses Wythenshawe. Salford became a city right opposite Manchester. Carlisle was a city and county before joining Cumbria and York and Lichfield with Coventry Birmingham etc were counties and cities before their modern counties.

  Can we just keep it consistent and use Cumbria in the article leads. It's not too much to ask or do. Plus informative as people know more about the county and not places fully like Alston Keswick etc unless they been there. DragonofBatley (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  At least you partly recognise historic counties weren’t abolished. But more importantly, why do historic counties need recognition from local authorities (many of whom are not even named after counties, e.g unitary authorities)? Who cares what an authority thinks about geographical counties. They may be responsible for emptying the bins, but why does that mean they suddenly replace counties.

  None of your examples actually helps to show the fact that historic counties do/do not exist. That’s a fact. Who cares what the Greater Manchester Combined Authority or Mayor of Merseyside decide to promote. If the media suddenly stopped referring to all news in London, does that mean London as a city ceases to exist? Nope.

  On the other side, why do you not refer to what the Government publications promote? The Government have consistently reiterated and publicised the continued existence of historic counties. Why is that source ignored? Probably because it doesn’t agree with your subjective point of view! Acapital (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'd just like to remind you two (@DragonofBatley) that this discussion is primarily about the ceremonial counties and what to do with them. We can always deal fully with the historic counties later if it seems necessary.

  You're also being a bit antagonistic toward each other. This is only Wikipedia, don't forget! A.D.Hope (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thats your interpretation of things (non factual but your entitled to the deer in headlights feeling). I actually want Cumbria to remain in the articles along with the UAs. There's my stance on the issue and to quote @A.D.Hope. I'm not being agnostic, I'm saying historic counties have changed and are not set in stone 🪨. There's my opinion. If either of you want to carry on engaging with me, I have a talk page but note it is monitored by some of the editors for context and help if I need it.

  I won't discuss further on this topic cause I'm not up for both WP:Personal and WP:War. I'm gonna go back and readd Cumbria to articles that you took it off of when editing them and adding the new UAs for the county and other editors agree should not have been removed in the first place.

  DragonofBatley (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for your input here, and for your work on the Cumbria articles. It is appreciated. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - It would be nice if this RfC offered an example of an article in which a ceremonial county is "prominently" displayed. NickCT (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  These discussions often fail to debate what is relevant for us WP editors. Whatever we use must be notable enough and be the majority used by reliable secondary sources. If there is rough equality between options we can then use our opinion on what and how to use those options. Londonderry=county and Derry=city is a simple and workable example of that. Lewisham is in the HC of Kent but to say would be wrong because that fact is not notable enough; Bromley is also in HC Kent, something that is notable enough, even if that notablity is only due to the postal address until 1996. Dover is unquestionably in HC Kent, and in all other versions of Kent. There are vast areas of England where the HC is not notable enough to warrant mention in WP. The local govt authority area is notable enough everywhere, even if it changes often. The ceremonial county isn't notable enough. Much of the repeated debate here is based on people's personal opinion. To insist the we should refer to Lewisham, Kent rather than Lewisham, London, is silly, but so is the insistence that HCs have been abolished. A far better word to use would be obsolete, where that is appropriate, such as with Lewisham. I am concerned at some entrenched personal opinions here which although understandable are not helping. For many people, any hint that two answers might be correct is impossible to handle: Lewisham and Bromley are in London or Kent, not in both! The two county name versions that appear to be the most notably used are the local govt area and the historic county. I think the best way forward would be to decide when and how best to refer to a place's HC in the article anywhere except the history section, where it probably should be used whatever. Mention of the HC in the infobox should be avoided because it will simply lead to edit wars about whether it is or is not relevant enough. The infobox should refer only to the local govt area. To end, the word historic in "historic county" does not mean in the past but not the present; it means having a rich history, which itself usually means having been in existence a long time. I am surprised this still confuses many editors. I notice the govt uses the term traditional county, which is clearer. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• No. Reduce mention of ceremonial/historic counties - I'm strugglging to understand this debate. It seems like some kind of weird Brit thing (and you guys are weird). As I understand it, the question seems to be whether it's important to mention that a town used to be inside some county, whose borders were changed or which no longer exists. My strong feeling here is that the answer is no. What matters is where a place is today, not where it was years ago. Being part of some no longer extant jurisdiction is typically something to cover in the history or geography section. Not in the lead or the infobox. NickCT (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  You misunderstand the issues NickCT, my friend. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Oh sorry. I was looking for a simple example and you sorta gave a wall-of-text. I took your "Lewisham, Kent" to mean that Lewisham used to be in Kent, but is now in London. Is that not correct? NickCT (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Hello! I'll try to explain things neutrally. Articles about English places currently tend to mention three things in their lead:

  • The local authority. These are the current administrative areas used for local government.
  • The ceremonial county. These are areas which lord-lieutenants are appointed to. The lord-lieutenant is the monarch's representative in an area.
  • The historic county. These stopped being used for administration in 1889, but live on as cultural areas.

  To give an example, here's the opening few sentences of the article on Sunderland. I've bolded the three areas:

  "Sunderland (/ˈsʌndərlənd/ (listen)) is a port city in Tyne and Wear, England. It is the City of Sunderland's administrative centre and in the historic county of Durham."

  In this example, Tyne and Wear is the ceremonial county (and the metropolitan county, but that's not helpful to get into here), the City of Sunderland is the local authority, and Durham is the historic county. It's current practice to put the ceremonial county first. If you have any more questions please just ask.

  A.D.Hope (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. This is a little clearer to my now. Quite frankly, I'm still pretty firmly in the no camp. The significance ceremonial and historic counties is going to be totally lost on non-Brits (I wouldn't be surprised if it was lost on a lot of Brits as well). Seems like including this stuff at the top in the lead is just going to confuse folks. NickCT (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment As an American with a strong interest in geography and maps, I have a fair understanding of the location of traditional counties in the UK (better than Mexican or Indian states, not as good as US states or Canadian provinces), and am also aware that how the UK is divided into local government areas has changed over the years. Mention of the traditional county or ceremonial county would help me picture, in general, where in the UK a place is located. Mention of the local authority is less helpful to me. - Donald Albury 14:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Do you have any particular preference between the historic and ceremonial counties? Are you aware of the difference between them, if you don't mind me asking? A.D.Hope (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  No preference. And, I am not as clear on the distinction between traditional and ceremonial counties as I should be. I suspect many Americans are less clear on the subject than I am. I will say that this discussion is about arcana that I suspect most non-UK editors do not worry about. Donald Albury 15:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  In summary:

  • The historic counties haven't been administrative areas since 1889, but still have some relevance as cultural areas.
  • The ceremonial counties are the areas to which lord-lieutanants are appointed. Lord-lieutants are the King's representatives in a county, but this is a largely cermonial role.

  The topic may be a bit obscure for non-UK editors, but it matters inasmuch as which is used will affect most articles about English places. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  If you want to understand the degree of relevance implied by "some relevance as cultural areas", note that I would be astonished if more than about 10% of under-40s living in Bournemouth know what historic county they're in. And if you asked "what county do you live in", the vast majority would name Dorset, the ceremonial county. Kahastok talk 15:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Unless you have a source on that I'm not sure it is worth noting. I would be interested in any studies about which county people in Bournemouth identify with, though. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  There won't be any surveys. The same reason there's no surveys about whether the Pope is Catholic or whether the world is round. For everyone outside the fringe, the answer is obvious - that Bournemouth is in Dorset. Kahastok talk 15:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Bournemouth is in the ceremonial county of Dorset, there's no dispute about that. My point is that the ceremonial counties are inappropriate to use as the primary way of locating an English place. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  And my point is that they are better reflective of common usage and therefore more appropriate than any other method as the primary way of locating an English place. Kahastok talk 16:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  What makes them appropriate? The ceremonial counties are only the areas to which lord-lieutenants are appointed, which is a minor function in the grand scheme of things. I don't think that makes them suitable to use as the main way of locating a place. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly this, agreed. Ceremonial counties have an insignificant role. Acapital (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly not this. Historic counties have been just that, historic, for over 130 years. Their function has been replaced by ceremonial counties in the understanding of the huge majority of people. That is why Slough is in Berkshire, not Buckinghamshire, that Bournemouth is in Dorset not where-ever, that Caversham (Reading) is in Berks, not Oxon. And so on and so on. The Lords Lieutenant and High Sheriffs of the various counties are mentioned regularly in local news. They are topical, real-world, here and now. If the infobox for a settlement needs a county, it should be the ceremonial one. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  Disagree. The replacement you talk about over 130 years ago, was not even for the creation of the ceremonial counties, which were created in 1997 for the purpose of lieutenancies. So if you want to say that, what were the counties between 1888 to 1997? Besides, historic counties were never abolished, as confirmed numerous times by reputable sources. Slough is in Buckinghamshire, not Berkshire… etc. Acapital (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  The word 'historic' does not mean what you assume it means, JMK. I do hope this basic misunderstanding isn't the main cause of what is happening here. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. Using local authorities leads to oddities like Chester not being in Cheshire, Derby not being in Derbyshire and Nottingham not being in Nottinghamshire. It also means using areas that are little-known nationally (Widnes is in Halton), that are tautological (Derby is in Derby) or that are ostensibly wrong (Twyford is in Wokingham). In some cases, it does not resolve the question (is Buxton in Derbyshire or High Peak?, is Deal in Kent or Dover?) In some cases, local authority boundaries change frequently (Taunton has changed local authority twice in the past four years).
  Of the two alternatives, the ceremonial county is likely to be better known and more useful as a geographical reference. The historical county is generally a trivia question, and also raises its own significant problems given just how many settlements straddle historical county borders. Kahastok talk 15:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  None of your examples strike me as odd:

  • Chester is in the Cheshire West and Chester unitary authority
  • Derby and Nottingham are in the City of Derby and City of Nottingham unitary authorities, respectively.
  • Widnes is in the Borough of Halton.
  • Twyford is in the Borough of Wokingham.
  • Buxton is in both the Borough of High Peak and Derbyshire.
  • Deal is in both the District of Dover and Kent.
  • Taunton is in Somerset unitary authority.

  These are all accurate descriptions of the local authorities those towns and cities are currently in, there's nothing particularly odd about them.

  When it comes to things like 'Chester not being in Cheshire', my preference is to use the historic counties over the ceremonial ones. The ceremonial counties just aren't that important, while the historic counties were important for several centuries and still have roles as cultural units (albeit more prominently in some areas than others). The few settlements which straddle the historic borders aren't much of a problem, Todmorden currently explains this in a single sentence — 'The historic boundary between Yorkshire and Lancashire is the River Calder and its tributary, Walsden Water, which run through the town.' A.D.Hope (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  So, to confirm, you believe that we should act as though Derby is not in Derbyshire, Cheshire and Berkshire don't exist and everyone knows where Halton is.

  And if we're going with historical counties, which are barely known by a large proportion of the population, we are going to have permanent edit wars over whether Bournemouth is in Hampshire or Dorset, whether Lewisham is in Kent or London or Greater London, whether Peterborough is in Cambridgeshire or Northamptionshire or both, whether Bristol is in Gloucestershire or Somerset or neither, whether Manchester is in Lancashire or Greater Manchester, whether Abingdon is in Oxfordshire or Berkshire, whether Stokenchurch is in Oxfordshire or Buckinghamshire and so on up and down the country.

  On one side will be the locals who know what county they're in, thank you very much. On the other will be the Wikipedians who have decided to insist that what's important isn't the county they're in now but the county they were in 150 years ago. Kahastok talk 15:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  If we're talking about the current administrative areas then yes, Cheshire and Berkshire don't exist and Derby isn't part of Derbyshire. Whether people know where the Borough of Halton is or not isn't much of an issue, because there will be a link to the article about the borough, just as there is now in the Widnes article. I'm not trying to be controversial, that's just how the local authorities currently are.

  I doubt there will be edit wars, because the examples you list aren't particularly confusing. When talking about the historic counties:

  • Bournemouth is in Hampshire.
  • Lewisham is in Kent.
  • Peterborough is in Northamptonshire, although it would be worth mentioning the Soke somewhere.
  • Bristol is divided between Somerset and Gloucestershire, although it's worth discussing how to treat counties corporate.
  • Manchester is in Lancashire.
  • Abingdon is in Berkshire.
  • Stokenchurch would probably be considered Oxfordshire, although that would be a legitimate discussion.

  The other areas you've listed aren't the historic counties those towns are in, so there's not much debate to be had on that basis. What you might have missed from further up the discussion is that the administrative areas would be the primary designation, so the historic counties would only ever be a secondary description. This is better than the current arrangement, where the fairly minor cermonial counties are the primary designation. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thereby you create precisely the situation I describe - where Wikipedia has decided to take the WP:FRINGE view that all the changes made to the counties in the past 150 years didn't really happen. Resulting in a situation where the county Wikipedia says a town is in is different from the county most of the townspeople think they're in. Kahastok talk 16:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  That is exactly the reason why the historic counties thing is never going to fly. I can't imagine the amount of friction it would cause if anyone actually tried to implement things like Birmingham is in Warwickshire etc. Please accept that this is never going to happen. G-13114 (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Birmingham's article does say that it was historically in Warwickshire, at the start of the third paragraph. It must also be one of the few articles not to explicitly name the ceremonial county in the lead (probably because it's the same as the metropolitan county). A.D.Hope (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  My view is that the current administrative areas should be the primary areas used to locate English places, so I'm not ignoring the changes of the last 150 years at all. I'm arguably going further than the status quo, which is to use ceremonial counties based on the 1974 reforms.

  If you want to argue that the ceremonial counties should continue to be used as secondary descriptors then by all means continue to make your case. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  You are mistaken here, the “new” administrative areas/ceremonial counties did not alter the boundaries of historic counties which continue to exist. The government themselves have confirmed and reiterated the continued existence of historic counties. Hence, there is a distinction between the types of counties, and this discussion is regarding which geographical basis should be used in locating settlements. It might be worth reading up about the different types of counties, before suggesting the locals knowing which county they’re in. Some of us “locals” know the distinction between the types of counties, and therefore we know that our county was not changed by the creation of administrative/ceremonial counties. Historic counties continue to exist. Acapital (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  [edit conflict] Exactly as you say: in your opinion. But in the real world, the Lord Lieutenant and Sheriff are important ceremonial posts in actual use today. These have real-world current relevance. The historic counties are just that, historic. Just like Hundreds. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Even if the posts were important, which I don't agree they are, are the counties attached to them the most appropriate areas to use as the primary way of locating English places? A.D.Hope (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. And you haven't said or done anything that demonstrates your case to the contrary. Kahastok talk 16:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think you're confusing lack of agreement with lack of action. I've laid out my case quite a few times now. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  re "leads to oddities" - Doesn't seem super odd to me. Kansas City is not primarily in Kansas. There are probably a million examples of this kind of thing in lots of countries. NickCT (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  I sometimes see past episodes of the TV show 'The Chase'. Where a UK place is located comes up regularly, either in a question, a contestant saying where they are from, or even something the presenter says. I have observed over time the total intermingling of the different meanings of 'county'. If the programme editors have any background control over what is said, it appears to be to avoid obvious confusion. It also looks as though there is an attempt made to keep 'county' for the historic counties, that now have no use except for cultural reference, and avoid using the word 'county' for legally created administrative areas. If this observation has any merit and if the programme is influenced by government pressure behind the scenes, it does look like there are initial steps being taken to sort of the mess created by the unrestricted use of certain terms, 'county' being the main one. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Intresting observation. Of course, for pretty much the entire rest of the world, a "county" is an administrative region. See my earlier comment about Brits being weird. Words like "county" or "country" mean different things to you guys.

  You should stop acting like you invented the language or something. NickCT (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Fair comment. In fact this whole RFC belongs at WP:WikiProject UK geography, except that it has been proposed and dismissed there a number of times already, so why it is considered appropriate to bother the whole project with a local squabble seems borderline disruptive to me. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Not every Wikipedian has an intricate knowledge of what has been discussed before, or where the perfect place to post a discussion is. It's worth bearing that in mind before making accusations of disruption. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  @John Maynard Friedman: As WP:ENGPLACE is a section of this page and says "Where disambiguation is required, [[placename, ceremonial county]] is normally used.", this seems the right place to discuss that sentence. Those with no knowledge of, or interest in, UK placenames can read the title of the RFC and decide to read no further. PamD 23:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Not the same thing at all.

  To take the analogy though. Imagine that Kansas were explicitly the state of Kansas City. Imagine that the borders of Kansas were defined based on the fact that it was the state of Kansas City, and that Kansas City remained the capital of Kansas. Imagine if, when asked what state they lived in, residents of Kansas City wouldn't dream of saying anything other than "Kansas". Imagine if, when you watched the local or national news and Kansas City came up, or when you heard a traffic report for Kansas City, they would routinely treat Kansas City as part of Kansas. We're beginning to get to where Derby is in Derbyshire, except that we can go on, because, while modern Kansas City is in a separate state from Kansas, Derby is not in any county other than Derbyshire.

  And before someone makes the point, no, that is not true of Abingdon and Berkshire, or Bournemouth and Hampshire, or Lewisham and Kent. Despite the fantasies of the Association of British Counties, it is the ceremonial counties that best reflect actual usage by real people.

  That said, the above discussion is quite firmly in WP:IDHT territory and I see no need to repeat myself. Kahastok talk 21:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Why must this discussion be so confrontational? What's the point of throwing a WP:IDHT accusation out there at the end? A.D.Hope (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Would you prefer if I referred to it as bludgeoning the process? Kahastok talk 21:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  No, as that could be uncivil. I've been perfectly polite to you even though we disagree, you should extend the same courtesy. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  You have personally replied to every single message in this discussion that disagreed with your position, a position that you expounded upon in detail before anyone else posted anything. I suggest you go away and actually read WP:BLUDGEON before dismissing it because it describes your behaviour here pretty accurately.

  And it is disruptive. It doesn't matter if it uses polite words - that's the whole point of sealioning after all. It's still disruptive.

  We know what you think. You've told us. At length. Over and over again. Other people are allowed to comment and they are allowed to disagree with you. Kahastok talk 22:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Absolutely people are allowed to disagree with me, I've never disputed that at all. You've made plenty of comments yourself, so rather than get into a further argument why don't we both just leave this discussion alone for a couple of days? A.D.Hope (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  I grew up in Connecticut. The town I was in could be said to be part of New England or sometimes the New York metropolitan area. I would never think to start an intro about my hometown with, "X is a town in New England", or "X is a town in the New York metro area". I would always say "X is a town in Connecticut". That's because Connecticut is largest sub-national administrative region in which my town was.

  I don't understand why the same rules wouldn't apply to British towns. Why isn't Derby just a town in East Midlands?

  Regardless, I actually think the real answer to this question is simply to reflect sources. The question we should all be asking is; do RSs more often introduce Derby by saying "A town in East Midlands" or "A town in Derbyshire"? Then we should just reflect that. NickCT (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• As an American, I am not sure what the specific distinctions are between the “Ceremonial” counties and the “historical” counties… but both are far more recognizable to me than the modern designations. All should be mentioned, but for disambiguation purposes I would opt for either ceremonial or historical. Blueboar (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

In my view, it wouldn't make sense for WP too deviate from the norm regarding settlements vis-a-vis counties - that is, the ceremonial county is almost always the answer to a question about what county a certain settlement is in. I'll put money on it - if you ask the average person in Derby if their city is in Derbyshire, the answer would seem so obvious to them, i.e. that Derby is in Derbyshire, that you would likely make a mockery of yourself, irrespective of the fact that, yes, Derby is a county itself for administrative purposes, but not for ceremonial purposes, which is the much more commonly used "county" for geographical references. WP's national and international readership should also be considered - for example, whilst Ilkley is administratively part of the City of Bradford, to the average person in the South of England and the United States (for example), Ilkley and Bradford are worlds apart, so its easier to identify the town as part of West Yorkshire (the more widely known ceremonial county) than Bradford, which is likely seen by most people as an urban city, regardless of the outlying rural areas that it might administratively incorporate. So whilst I don't think that we should abandon the current usage of ceremonial counties as they're widely used for geographical references, I'm all for spreading awareness about local authority areas, as they are functionally more important than ceremonial counties, and do affect people's lives whether they're aware of it or not via council tax, highways, public health, social services, housing, school admissions, etc. The outlying towns and villages of the City of Bradford, City of Salford, City of Milton Keynes and Borough of Swindon may want nothing to do with the "cities" that administer them and much rather refer to their settlements using "Town/Village, County" but the influence of their respective councils shouldn't be ignored. As for historic counties, they make exist in people's hearts and minds and some government documents, but functionally they are defunct, and the modern ceremonial counties are much more relevant today. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I think using the ceremonial county as the default county is the only real option. The local administrative area have names that are too variable and often not clear to a wider audience. The HC is excellent as the default in most cases but it falls over due to its having no relevance to vast population bases, such as Lewisham, Kent being in GL with almost no reference to being in Kent anywhere (unlike Bromley I hasten to add). However, the default reference county/big local area isn't the problem. The cause of these endless debates is the black and white treatment of counties as stated in the guidelines for treatment of counties. A town can obviously be in more than one region but some editors think that is an impossibility. The notion that Bromley could be in Greater London and Kent sets them off in perturbations. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

For articles about individual buildings (or building complexes), should a disambiguator be comma-separated or placed in parentheses? The guidelines don't address this case explicitly. I keep seeing both being used, even in recent page moves, so it's not clear to me if there is an established consensus or recommended practice on this.

Just a random selection of examples: parentheses are used in the disambiguated articles listed at Church of Santa María and Church of San Salvador, and most of the ones at Union Station, whereas comma-separation is used for the articles at Selimiye Mosque and most of the "presidential palace" articles (e.g. Presidential Palace, Helsinki and Presidential Palace, Warsaw, etc, but contrast with Presidential Palace (Nanjing)). Blue Mosque has examples of both (e.g. Blue Mosque, Istanbul and Blue Mosque (Amsterdam)), and for royal palaces that aren't disambiguated by "of X", there's examples like Royal Palace, Oslo and Royal Palace (Belgrade). And so on.

Feel free to let me know if I should ask this at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation instead, or if there's an earlier archived talk about this. Thanks for any advice, R Prazeres (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I think this is country specific which convention is used. Keith D (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

It is my understanding that commas are preferred for human places: suburbs, cities, states—those lines which we have imposed on our globes, and as opposed to natural geographies. I would put buildings into that category. I also recommend notifying WT:DAB of this discussion, as there are many people who spend more time thinking about this than I do. — HTGS (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I've just posted a notice at WT:DAB too. My rough impression is that comma separation would make the most sense too, but it seems less obvious than it is with states and settlements. R Prazeres (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

My reading is that WP:TITLEDAB suggests, but doesn't mandate, parentheses. Adding a disambiguating term in parentheses after the ambiguous name is Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title. Commas are preferred in certain situations such as administrative subdivisions: London, Ontario rather than London (Ontario). I don't see a guideline anywhere recommending commas for buildings, but then I don't see one explicitly recommending parentheses either. There may be exceptions if sources refer to the building using a comma to distinguish it, or if there is a big sign on the church gate reading "Welcome to the Church of Santa María (Ateca)". Certes (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I would normally say comma but yes it seems most countries use brackets. In England for churches the location is often part of the common name but comma disambiguation is generally done for most buildings even if it isn't common usage. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Another point in favour of comma is that a qualifier in parentheses generally describes the topic by naming a class of which it is a member, but commas don't. Santa Maria (building) is expected to be a building but San Lorenzo, Florence isn't expected to be a Florence. We can even use both forms, as in San Giorgio Maggiore (church), Venice. Certes (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

As I stated above, I prefer the comma, but I am happy with either, so long as there is a global standard. Blue Mosque, Istanbul and Blue Mosque (Amsterdam) is less than desirable. Shall we make the call? — HTGS (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Wellll.... it's borderline, but OK. But what is pulling the trigger? A full-dress RfC? Herostratus (talk) 04:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I have proposed moving certain pages that are in subcategories of Category:Censuses by country. A disagreement has arisen as to whether country name or demonym is more appropriate. Contributors here may wish to comment. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Has any consensus emerged for the naming of Pennsylvania townships? I see two nonconclusive discussions from 2011 (mess a and mess b). A breakdown of how it stands now:

• 1472 with county disambiguator:
  • 719 necessary for disambiguation
  • 753 unnecessary for disambiguation, at least currently (surely some share names with former and/or renamed townships, but with rare exceptions, a hatnote would suffice)
• 75 without county disambiguator:
  • 72 in form 'X Township, Pennsylvania'
  • 3 home rule townships that questionably self-classify as different forms of municipality:
    • McCandless, Pennsylvania
    • Mt. Lebanon, Pennsylvania
    • Penn Hills, Pennsylvania

I don't have a particular preference between including the county by default, as with most other states (NJ being the only exception?), vs. excluding the county when possible, as Pennsylvania townships are somewhat unique and are used more in common parlance than those of other states. But I do see both options as vastly preferable to the current status quo (non-uniform, unilateral moves, often back-and-forth, while proposed moves get rejected due to the language on this page), in line with this page's language ("Any change in convention should be determined on a statewide basis."). Star Garnet (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that (because of "Any change in convention should be determined on a statewide basis." and WP:CONSISTENT) we need to settle this. I guess I would lean to laving the county off per WP:CONCISE, except where it is required for disambiguation from a non-township place of the same name (or another township of the same name in another PA county for that matter). Looking at how this sort of thing is handled elsewhere (e.g. placenames in Ireland, which may represent towns/cities, "townlands", parishes, civil parishes, baronies, or something else), we are not disambiguating them except as necessary. The average reader doesn't know what classification a place is or what county it's in before they get to our article about it, so "pre-disambiguating" them all by such a name is dubiously helpful.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

For new township articles in Kansas, I use "NAME#1 Township, NAME#2 County, Kansas" for new township articles that I create, but what works best for Kansas may not be what works best for another state, because each state has different types of entities that were defined by each state government, per this U.S. Census Bureau document. My preference is townships and counties should have the word "Township" or "County" in their articles names to make it obvious they aren't a community (city / town / unincorporated community / ...), but I really don't know what's best for Pennsylvania thus is why I'm just passing along what I do and my thoughts, but I'm not going to vote nor mandate something for your state. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sbmeirow:: That's great you're working on Kansas townships! I made quite a few of the base articles about 15 years ago but ran out of steam before getting through all of them. I think your pattern is the correct one for Kansas. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Orlady, ErikHaugen, Huwmanbeing, LtPowers, Dohn joe, Born2cycle, Bkonrad, Dicklyon, and InvadingInvader: Pinging the active editors from the discussion 12 years ago and a few others that have shown interest in an attempt to generate discussion at least. I also just saw that a village pump discussion occurred last month showing pretty broad support for a blanket change to the township-naming policy here. Star Garnet (talk) 06:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

As noted above, I would prefer concision over a long-winded form of consistency (i.e., don't add county unless necessary for disambiguation). And it would be better for PA and other jurisdictions to be treated similarly rather than doing something "magically special" for one US state.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Disambiguate only when necessary. Everywhere. Always. Simple. Consistent. —В²C ☎ 06:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that for townships the contrived consistency of always including the county name is not needed and these should only be further disambiguated beyond state name where needed. older ≠ wiser 10:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguate only when necessary. Omit the county name if there is only one township of such name in the state. This is probably what will come about anyways because of the current state of affairs open the VPPR discussion, whichwould override the discussion here since it's a much broader consensus (see WP:Local consensus). InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Include the county name only when necessary to avoid ambiguity, but also make generous use of disambiguation pages. A large share of the Pennsylvania township names that are used more than once are used in several counties, so a relatively small set of disambiguation pages (such as the ones for names like Jefferson, Jackson, and Washington Township) covers many of the dab instances and should effectively guide folks to the right place (assuming there's a disambiguation hatnote on each of the individual pages). Regarding disambiguation pages for PA, I think the Pennsylvania situation where the same unusual name is applied to a variety of different kinds of places makes it desirable to have generic disambiguation pages like Mahanoy. I am bothered to see that St. Clair, Pennsylvania has a hatnote pointing only to St. Clair, Blair County, Pennsylvania and not to a dab page that also covers the townships whose names incorporate "St. Clair" (Upper St. Clair Township, East St. Clair Township, West St. Clair Township, and possibly others). - Orlady (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with all that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Star Garnet:: Thanks for raising this for discussion; I definitely agree that having each state follow an agreed-upon pattern for its townships is far better than having them hodge-podge. Since townships vary so much from state to state (both in function and in how sources identify them), a single blanket rule for all probably wouldn't be successful, which is one reason WP:USPLACE advises that they be handled on a state-by-state basis.

I think WP:COMMONNAME is probably the most relevant factor to consider. Like you said, townships in some places may be identified as X Township, State, or sometimes X Town, State, little different in practice from how populated places like towns and cities are known. This seems most common in parts of the northeast. In such cases the townships also tend to be named more like actual towns: mostly unique across the state with only limited repetition. (In New Jersey, for instance, name repetition is only about 11%, or 28 out of 241.) Pennsylvania may fall into this category, but I haven't looked at it in detail; have you seen what sources tend to do?

On the flip side, there are a number of states where sources almost never identify townships without reference to their county, unlike the state's cities and towns. In part this seems to be because the townships are less prominent, to the point that many residents may not even know what township they live in, so when they're referred to at all it's as mere subdivisions of their counties. It's also due to the fact that using a township name without the county name simply wouldn't make sense due to the extremely high proportion of repeated names. In Ohio 65% are duplicated (884 of 1362); in Indiana it's over 70% (707 of 1008). If most need the county added no matter what, then it makes sense to add it for all as a matter of consistency, particularly if that's how they're commonly identified anyway. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

After reviewing the older discussions, I'm not sure I have any strong feelings either way. Including the county name for all townships seems to create unnecessarily long titles, but it does have the advantage of consistency given the number that need disambiguating. There are good arguments both ways and I don't know if there's any compelling logical way to decide between the two. Powers ^T 21:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

We have had a long-running debate on Wikipedia for almost 20 years over the level of disambiguation to include in article titles. My understanding of WP community consensus is that we currently do not include unnecessary detail. This is why New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, and others were shortened over my objections (and the objections of many other American editors who are accustomed to seeing the state name along with the city name in formal written American English). The current issue on Apple Campus is that if we go to "Infinite Loop campus," whether "Apple" is necessary because no other corporation has an "Infinite Loop campus". Coolcaesar (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Please don't jump up on extraneous soapboxes. "Come see this other discussion" notices like this are supposed to be neutral, not "join my title-styling holy war" canvassing. Any time you bring up a bogus and nationalistic argument like "and ... many other American editors ... are accustomed to seeing the state name along with the city name in formal written American English" you're just going to get people to ignore you as tendentious. It's obvious to pretty much everyone in the Anglosphere (since they're all exposed to lots of American media) that American media, including "formal" publications, routinely refer to New York [City], Chicago, and Los Angeles without appending "New York [state]", "Illinois", or "California", respectively. And plenty of us were around for those old debates and know entirely well that they had nothing to do with alleged "formal written American English" expectations; the argument for putting these articles at Chicago, Illinois, etc., was based on a WP:CONSISTENT-policy reasoning that all the American city and town names should have exactly the same format, which ran up against WP:CONCISE policy which says not to have titles be longer than necessary, and WP:DAB guidelines which say the same thing more narrowly with regard to adding disambiguators. And no one is fooled by "many other ... editors" claims; if lots and lots of users agreed with you, there would be a hue and cry to change the guidelines and policies, and they probably never would have said what they say in the first place. "[A] long-running debate on Wikipedia for almost 20 years over the level of disambiguation to include in article titles" is not actually happening; what there is in reality is set of well-accepted and stable policy and related guidelines, about which a vanishingly small number of editors are unhappy and refuse to drop the stick. The implication that there is a lack of consensus to be leveraged is simply false. If you think otherwise, feel free to open a WP:VPPOL proposal to change the relevant policy and guidelines (I predict a WP:SNOWBALL of opposition.)

To get to the on-topic matter: The RM discussion buried in the above "call to arm" has already closed in favor of Apple Infinite Loop campus primarily on grounds of WP:RECOGNIZABLE (there are very few sources that refer to just "Infinite Loop campus" without also specifying "Apple".) It is important that these micro-policies within WP:CRITERIA are in a particular order: recognizability generally trumps concision, which in turn is usually considered more important that consistency. We run through the CRITERIA tests in series, top to bottom; we don't pick them at random and apply only, or particularly favor, the ones that only lean toward the name we might invididually like better.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)