Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography

(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK subdivisions (Wales))
Latest comment: 10 hours ago by Simon373737 in topic Unitary authorities
Learn more about this page

What's new

Articles for deletion

Proposed deletions

Requested moves

Did you know? articles
edit

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

Reached maximum of 5 out of 354

edit
In the News articles
edit
Main page featured articles
edit

Coventry ring road (2025-12-08) • Combe Hill, East Sussex (2023-01-11) • Brownhills (2022-03-03) • Abberton Reservoir (2021-09-05) • Shaw and Crompton (2021-08-15)

Reached maximum of 5 out of 71

Main page featured lists
edit
Watch


Archives

edit

Disagreement on Christchurch article re:settlement definition

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a dispute at the article for Christchurch, Dorset over whether, how, and in how much detail, the article should cover Bournemouth Airport – a major employer which was in the now defunct borough of Christchurch, but some distance outside the built-up area in a neighbouring parish. This is essentially a difference of opinion on how to handle the ambiguity around defining settlements. If you think you can help resolve this, join the discussion at Talk:Christchurch,_Dorset#Bournemouth_airport. Thanks, Joe D (t) 10:38, 3 April 2022‎ (UTC)Reply

Unitary authority disambiguation consistency

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago26 comments8 people in discussion

Following the discussion above, I'm wondering if a standard (unitary authority area) disambiguation would ease navigation of local government articles in England a lot.

So for instance

And so on. Thoughts? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 13:48, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

You might have a point about the discrepancy between Cumberland and Dorset, but the rest of it is an absolutely terrible idea. G-13114 (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Would you mind elaborating? Normally disambiguation of article titles tends to have a consistent format when possible. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 16:55, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Mainly because 'City of X' and 'London Borough of X' are official titles and so don't need disambiguation. Whereas Cumberland and Dorset need disambiguating from the historic county and ceremonial county respectively. G-13114 (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
But they are being used as forms of disambiguation. Unitary authorities with no need for disambiguation like Redcar and Cleveland, Central Bedfordshire, Newcastle upon Tyne and Blackburn with Darwen do not contain "City of" or "Borough of" in their titles. That format is very rarely used outside of Wikipedia- even on Leeds City Council's website they do not use the phrasing "City of Leeds" anywhere that I can see. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 17:57, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
"City of Leeds" is the name used for the borough in legislation (see legislation.gov.uk). You're right, the WP:COMMONNAME is "Leeds" and we'd put it there if there weren't another clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC already taking that name. As the topics need disambiguating, this official form makes neat WP:NATURAL title. Joe D (t) 18:35, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Actually that is not the correct name. It is very much like City of Chelmsford which the official district name is Chelmsford District. But we use WP:COMMONNAME on Wikipedia in most cases. So most people would call the district the City of Leeds. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
"most people would call the district the City of Leeds"
This seems extremely unlikely to me.
I just googled it and the only places I could find using the term "City of Leeds" were 1) Wikipedia, 2) a Wikipedia clone, 3) a swimming club, 4) a blogpost in which the term is pretty clearly used as a synonym for "Leeds" rather than as a reference to the local government area's extent... a few other very minor websites... but I found absolutely no sources at all outside of Wikipedia which use the term "City of Leeds" specifically to mean "the local government district which extends beyond the continuous urban area of Leeds". This appears to be solely an invention of Wikipedia. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 20:15, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Well my cousins ex comes from Bradford an he calls it City t Leeds. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
did you mean t'City of? :-^ 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
In the text of that legislation, the word "city" is lowercase. If you look at its text here it says In this Order — “city” means the city of Leeds. It is not a proper noun term "City of Leeds"- the capitalization in the legislation name is because almost all words are capitalized in the title.
Leeds is legally a city, and a metropolitan district, and its name is "Leeds". Not "City of Leeds". Chessrat (talk, contributions) 23:01, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
ONS, which use the actual legal names for all districts, call it Leeds . Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
WP:CRITERIA considers consistency the least important criterion in page naming, behind recognisability, naturalness, precision and concision. WP:NCDAB and WP:NATURAL apply this to disambiguation, favouring "natural disambiguation" wherever that can be done in a recognisable, precise and concise way. WP:TITLECON elaborates on the relationship between the consistency criterion and the others, making it clear that it's the least important consideration in article naming.
"Naturalness" means finding a natural form of words for the name that eliminates the need for any parenthetic disambiguator, as "City of...", "Borough of...", etc do (and if it weren't for the fact that spending our time arguing over article names and moving articles is almost always a pointless time sap that distracts from actually improving Wikipedia, I would be arguing instead for removing the parenthesis from these articles – "Dorset district" or "Cumberland unitary authority area" would be entirely suitable natural and concise forms which would also aid natural no-piped linking in articles). So we absolutely should not abandon natural article names just to enforce consistency.
Also, regarding Leeds and Lambeth, while metropolitan boroughs and London boroughs are sometimes colloquially considered to be just a variety of unitary authority, that's certainly not a universal understanding of the term, so those ones would clearly fail the recognisability test. Joe D (t) 18:29, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Indeed metropolitan and London boroughs have never been defined as unitary authorities in legislation, even though they have been somewhat similar in function to UAs since the 1980s. G-13114 (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I would say the current format fails both naturalness and recognizability as 1) the format in question is seldom-used in any sources outside Wikipedia and 2) it makes it less clear to average readers who don't know the details of English local government that "metropolitan borough", "metropolitan district", "unitary authority area", and "district" are all referring to the main unit of local government.
I appreciate your point with the definition of "unitary authority"; "local authority" might be better to avoid that issue (i.e. Leeds (local authority area)). But I think the current format is confusing and misleading.
Also worth noting this is very much uniquely a UK problem- in every other country in the world, the article on the local government unit covering a city is the same as the article on the city even if it also covers nearby rural areas (see Chongqing, Anchorage, Alaska, Lelystad, Berlin, etc). If you are a reader from anywhere in the world, looking for an article about a city, in any example outside the UK the article will be about the area under the governance of the city in question. But for some reason for British places specifically on Wikipedia (and I think only British places) you have the absurd situation that the article about the area that is officially Leeds is instead located at City of Leeds despite never being known by that full name and only ever referred to as simply "Leeds", whilst the Leeds article is instead about the continuous urban area.
Ideally I would support simply merging the articles for consistency with everywhere else in the world. But that would be a bigger process so I think at least changing the titles would be a good start to helping readers understand the remit of articles. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 19:14, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Leeds is the largest settlement in the current local government district called (City of) Leeds, but the two are not identical or coterminous. The district includes towns and villages with their own longstanding identities, and open countryside between them. The residents of Otley do not live in Leeds, although they live in the district of that name. I live in City of Lancaster district, but my village is not part of the city of Lancaster. PamD 16:28, 19 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
"I live in City of Lancaster district, but my village is not part of the city of Lancaster"
No, you live in the district named "Lancaster", which is a city and a non-metropolitan district. The district is not named "City of Lancaster", and indeed that term is often used just to refer to the actual built-up area of the city (e.g. Lancaster University says "Lancaster University lies approximately 3 miles south of the City of Lancaster" and this book also uses it to refer to the built-up city) Both terms are also used for the larger district (e.g. this press release saying both "The new mayor of Lancaster" and "the Mayor of the City of Lancaster").
The "City of" format is not effective disambiguation for that reason. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 19:40, 20 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose, "unitary authority area" is a bit long, and not an as recognisable term for it (over like "district" or "borough"), even if most specifically correct for some, just use the status for them (district, borough etc) (incl. pre-city status). There are no other articles to confuse it with requiring a longer disambiguation tag, and some aren't specifically covered by a "unitary authority" legally per above. Titles aren't for navigation, although may be worth a redirect for those actually under a UA. WP:NATURALDIS should be considered when possible, or simply being concise using shorter tags. Other discussions for the constituencies argued against having unnecessary long tags for the ideal of consistency. Still not sure why Cumberland has to have "(unitary authority area)" when the lead uses "district"? The "City of" ones are another discussion, while many discussions for mergers have stagnated. DankJae 23:12, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't object if someone put in a RM to move Cumberland (unitary authority area) to Cumberland (district). G-13114 (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
We certainly should not start using 'unitary authority area' in the titles. The intention of the present local government reforms is to make every district (that isn't a London borough or a metropolitan district) into a unitary authority. The present distinction between two-tier counties, non-metropolitan districts and unitary authorities will disappear. The one thing that all English local government areas will have in common is that they will all be local authority districts. So I think 'district' is a concise and more elegant term than 'unitary authority area'.
If City of Leeds is to be renamed, I would favour either 'Leeds (district)' or 'Leeds (metropolitan borough)' or similar. However, it is worth adding that 'metropolitan borough' is a Wikipedia only term. It is a metropolitan district and a borough. We just merged those two different things together because every metropolitan district is also a borough. Dgp4004 (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think after seeing the feedback from you and @DankJae:, I would support (district) i.e. Dorset (district), Cumberland (district), Leeds (district). Might open an RM if more people agree. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 13:28, 20 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
"If City of Leeds is to be renamed ...". Let me stop you there. I strongly oppose any such thing, whether it is City of Leeds, City of Carlisle, City of Lancaster, City of Milton Keynes or anywhere else. Those are the formal names of the boroughs concerned and it not for us to make up some alternative name because someone thinks it would be neater. And we should most definitely not pipe (let alone use the pipe trick) to create a WP:EGG like [[City of Carlisle|Carlisle]]. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree with JMF, The 'Borough of...' and 'CIty of....' titles should be left alone as they are natural titles and don't need any disambiguation. G-13114 (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
> it not for us to make up some alternative name because someone thinks it would be neater.
I agree that we should not make up some alternative name because it is neater.
> Those are the formal names of the boroughs concerned
No, the legal name of the Leeds metropolitan borough/city is simply "Leeds"- the term "City of Leeds" has no legal use, no WP:COMMONNAME use, is almost entirely only used by Wikipedia, and is not even effective disambiguation as the few places outside Wikipedia that do use it treat it as a synonym for "Leeds" rather than referring to the local government district (History Today, Zima Magazine). For that reason it is not an appropriate article title at all. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 15:06, 20 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough in that case, though it is the exception. So if it Leeds then let's just say just Leeds and it is too bad for places that are now in the Leeds urban area but were separate in 1974.
But "Leeds (Unitary Authority area)"? Seriously? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Following the discussion I do agree that Leeds (district) is probably better due to being more concise.
Looking through every other city to find the legal name- it looks like the City of York council does style itself that way so that one's probably fine, as do City of Bradford, Metropolitan Borough of Barnsley, Metropolitan Borough of Barnsley, Metropolitan Borough of Bury, City of Doncaster, Metropolitan Borough of Gateshead, Metropolitan Borough of Knowsley, Metropolitan Borough of Oldham, Metropolitan Borough of Rotherham, Metropolitan Borough of Sefton, Metropolitan Borough of Solihull.
It looks like in addition to Leeds, other councils which do not style themselves the way Wikipedia reports them currently are Metropolitan Borough of Dudley, City of Milton Keynes, Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale, City of Salford, City of Sheffield, Metropolitan Borough of St Helens, Metropolitan Borough of Stockport, City of Wakefield, Metropolitan Borough of Walsall, Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, Metropolitan Borough of Wirral.
As far as I can tell it's not the legal name for any of them but some of them choose to style themselves that way.
One thing I think worth pointing out is that on Wakefield District Council's website, they use the term "City of Wakefield" to refer only to the Wakefield urban area rather than the entire district, as a way of distinguishing it from the district- see here. "The Council serves a mix of urban and rural areas. Almost 70% of the district is designated as green belt. The City of Wakefield is the largest settlement. The district also includes the towns of: Normanton Pontefract..."
Perhaps the titles in the format of "Metropolitan Borough of X" can stay because at least for them it's clear what the article is about (if an unofficial term), but the "City of X" format as a way to refer to districts definitely seems to be original and not in line with sources for most of them, and should be changed. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 16:35, 20 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Parliamentary consituencies

edit
Latest comment: 30 days ago5 comments2 people in discussion

An IP editor has been depiping links to constituency articles which then get reverted by a couple of other editors, 10mmsocket (talk · contribs), Izno (talk · contribs) and ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs) without an explanation in the edit summary. Can I ask why? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes of course. It is block evasion WP:BE by a long term sock puppet Harry the house (talk · contribs) 10mmsocket (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
So if I depipe the links that would be fine? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
100% 10mmsocket (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Cheers Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Is this notable?

edit
Latest comment: 29 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi I found this page by accident Kingswood, Kingston upon Hull. Looking at it, its a housing development so does it not fall under GEOLAND? But then again it is represented under its own ward but wards are generally not notable under GEOLAND. Most of the refs are local press or ordnance survey. What is you opinion? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:46, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

It appears to be a residential or dormitory suburb of Hull. There are similar articles about such estates in other towns and cities, eg Great Hollands in Bracknell. Probably more notable than quite a few hamlets that consist of a road junction and less than 10 houses. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Great Hollands looks even more dubious. It has one reference and thats it. Again does it meet GEOLAND? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Unitary authorities

edit
Latest comment: 10 hours ago50 comments11 people in discussion

I have just been catching up with edits over the weekend. I notice that Chessrat has altered several articles to classify London boroughs and Metropolitan boroughs as unitary authorities, including new maps and tables. I thought this likely to be controversial and worthy of discussion as I am not convinced this is helpful myself. I have included some of the relevant diffs below for ease:

Dgp4004 (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

It is probably worth citing ISO 3166-2:GB which still classifies the types of upper authority separately as:
  • Two-tier counties
  • Metropolitan districts
  • Unitary authorities
  • London boroughs
  • City corporation
Dgp4004 (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Before seeing @Chessrat’s recent updates to the Unitary authorities of England article (which I have also been updating lately), I too had always understood that there were legally the following separate types of local authority in England: London Boroughs, Metropolitan districts, Unitary authorities, Two-tier districts, and two-tier counties (plus the City of London and Isles of Scilly). However, I’ve now read through the Structural Change Orders establishing the post-1992 unitary authorities.
None of those Orders use the term ‘unitary authority’ at all. These authorities are officially coterminous non-metropolitan districts and non-metropolitan counties which have a single council providing district and county services (with some differences for Royal Berkshire).
As ‘unitary authority’ is not a legally specific authority type in England, I think it makes sense to use ‘unitary authority’ as a generic catch all term for England’s single-tier local authorities, especially given the government’s current agenda to ‘complete the map’ of English devolution which involves making every local authority single-tier eventually.
Hope this helps. Simon373737 (talk) 06:21, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
The Office for National Statistics very much does use 'unitary authority' as a specific authority type in England and uses the term 'unitary administration' to include all single-tier local authority districts. 'Unitary administration' or 'single tier' would have been a more appropriate term if it is desirable to group UAs, Met districts and London boroughs.
The relevant definitions from the ONS's A Beginner's Guide to UK Geography (2023):[1]
Unitary Administration
The term ‘unitary administration’ is used in this context to describe all local authority districts (LAD) that form a single tier of local government (that is, all UK local authority districts except for English counties and non-metropolitan districts).
The term therefore covers unitary authorities (UA), metropolitan districts and London boroughs in England; UAs in Wales; council areas in Scotland; and local government districts (LGDs) in Northern Ireland. Note though that the term is not in common use and that it is a generic term, rather than one that reflects a specific geographic type.
Unitary Authority (UA)
UAs are areas with a single tier of local government (as opposed to the two-tier county: district structure). In practice the term is only applied to the UAs established across the whole of Wales in 1996 and to the UAs established in parts of England from 1995 onwards.
However, London boroughs and metropolitan districts in England, council areas in Scotland and local government districts (LGD) in Northern Ireland are all served by single-tier (unitary) administrations."
Some further extracts (figures are as of 2023):
  • "The current structure consists of 21 shire counties split into 164 districts, and 63 unitary authorities...Metropolitan districts were not included in the local government reorganisation, and have retained their post-1986 status, and in 2000 the London boroughs became subject to the London-wide authority."
  • "...there was one LEA in each unitary authority (UA), metropolitan district or London borough."
  • "LAD (sometimes abbreviated to LA) is a generic term used to cover non-metropolitan districts, metropolitan districts, unitary authorities (UAs) and London boroughs in England..."
  • "...responsibility for [registration districts] is held by the relevant county council, unitary authority (UA), metropolitan district, or London borough."
Dgp4004 (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
The way Wikipedia works, you look at sources first and then write articles based on what the sources tell you. You do not come to a predetermined conclusion and then cherrypick a small number of sources explicitly ignoring every source. I'm really not sure why you're trying to make a controversy out of nothing when the sources are so clear. Your extracts there appear to be selectively quoted so here is more context:
"UAs are areas with a single tier of local government (as opposed to the two-tier county: district structure). In practice the term is only applied to the UAs established across the whole of Wales in 1996 and to the UAs established in parts of England from 1995 onwards." - this does explicitly confirm that all areas which are not two-tier are unitary authorities, just that the word is not used as regularly in the metropolitan areas because they also have a more specific name.
"Prior to the local government reorganisation in 1995, there were 39 shire counties, split into 294 districts. The current structure consists of 21 shire counties split into 164 districts, and 63 unitary authorities." This is part of the "Local government reorganisation in England" section and explicitly only referencing the arrangement of reorganization in shire counties.
So yes, if you go into the details of that document it does concur with the FAQ prominently placed on the government's website that explicitly states that a unitary authority is any area that doesn't have two-tier government. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 11:38, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am not the ignorant troublemaker you have taken me for. I have not reverted your edits per WP:BRD because you have put a lot of work in and it should still be possible to retain many of the changes you want to see whilst still fixing the mix of terminology that has been introduced — and there may in fact be broad support for your changes. I have not reverted or altered a single one of your edits, so there's really no need to reach for the personal attacks. Citing the ONS's guide to UK administrative geography—perhaps the most authoritative source on such matters—is eminently sensible. And I quoted their definition of unitary administration and unitary authority in full.
So I would ask that you engage with my points in good faith. I have not denied that metropolitan districts and London boroughs are single-tiered unitary bodies. It should be perfectly possible to group them as such, if you think that is helpful to the reader. But the point I have made, and which the ONS makes, is that the term 'unitary authority' has a specific meaning in England, (and that is how we used it prior to the recent edits). The ONS therefore uses a different terminology to group unitary authorities, met. districts and London boroughs, which is 'unitary administrations'. Now, we don't always have to use the officially used terminology on Wikipedia, although I think we should wherever possible. So if you object to the ONS's 'unitary administration', we can consider other groupings such as 'single tier' for the infobox on Districts of England, for example. But I do not believe it is helpful to the reader to put London boroughs and Metropolitian boroughs into the tables of Unitary authorities of England. Dgp4004 (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
"the term 'unitary authority' has a specific meaning in England"
Yes, the specific meaning of the term "unitary authority" in England is "any local government unit which is not two-tier", which there are many different government sources for (including the ONS source that you linked to), and I included several of the reliable government sources in question in the article. I haven't yet seen an explanation of why you think those numerous sources should all be ignored- I would find it easier to respond if you could explain that?
If it was a matter that was up for debate then I would have started a discussion before making the changes, but it isn't. The local government reorganization FAQ does not say "London boroughs are sometimes considered to be unitary authorities"- it says "London boroughs are unitary authorities". Chessrat (talk, contributions) 12:52, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I thought I had explained myself well and provided an authoritative source in the ONS. The Local Government Association is stating that these are single-tier bodies, and it has used the term 'unitary authority' to indicate this in the source you have cited. However, I have explained that there is a specific meaning for 'unitary authority' in England, and the ONS has also explained the difference and why it does not use 'unitary authority' to describe London boroughs and metropolitan districts. The Office for National Statistics is the authoritative source on such matters. The Local Government Association, despite its official sounding name, is really little more than a pressure group.
However, clearly the ONS and I will not convince you, and I do not wish to dominate the discussion by repeating myself. So I will step back and let others have their say. Dgp4004 (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
If you consider the ONS to be authoritative, the ONS source you quoted explicitly said "UAs are areas with a single tier of local government (as opposed to the two-tier county: district structure)." They followed that by pointing out that in practice the metropolitan districts and London boroughs are more commonly referred to by other terms, but that doesn't change the fact that they are unitary authorities.
If the ONS, LGA, and Institute for Local Government aren't enough sources for you, here's some more sources:
Commons Library- https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/unitary-local-government-an-explainer/. "Many parts of England have both a county council and a district council. County councils run public services such as education, libraries, roads and social care, whilst district councils are responsible for matters such as waste, environment and housing. In other areas, a single ‘unitary’ council is responsible for all these services."
NHS- https://archive.datadictionary.nhs.uk/DD%20Release%20May%202024/nhs_business_definitions/unitary_authority.html. "Unitary Authorities are areas with a single tier of local government (as opposed to the two-tier County District structure). They are found wholly in Wales and parts of England."
Cambridge Dictionary- https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/unitary-authority. "in England, a town or city or large area that is responsible for all the functions of local government, so that these are not divided between two different authorities"' Chessrat (talk, contributions) 13:50, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Per this source from the LGA which unambiguously states:
Q: What is a unitary authority?
A: Unitary authorities are a single tier of local government responsible for all local services in an area. They may cover a whole county, part of a county or a large town or city. For example, Cornwall Council, Nottingham City Council and Reading Borough Council are all unitary councils. Large urban areas may have a unique form of unitary authorities called metropolitan councils, such as Oldham or Doncaster. London boroughs are also unitary authorities. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 22:29, 25 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
But we're dealing with two things aren't we: a descriptive term for a method of single-tier administration which could be used in Wales, New Zealand, England or elsewhere, and a specific term in England for a council with the combined status of a non-metropolitan county and a non-metropolitan district. My concern is that you have used the two uses interchangeably.
It's as though we start calling all the unitary authority areas 'non-metropolitan counties' and 'non-metropolitan districts' and mix it all up. We have to be really careful with how we describe local government in England or we just add to the confusion. Dgp4004 (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Sources are pretty clear that there are two types of local government in the UK- two-tier authorities and unitary authorities. I'm not sure how that is confusing. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 00:07, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Following your edits, what term do you suggest we use to describe a unitary authority that isn't a metropolitan district or a London borough? Because previously we've used 'unitary authority' in line with ISO 3166-2:GB. Are you suggesting 'other unitary authorities' (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2026_United_Kingdom_local_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1356106332)? And 'other unitary authority' in the singular? Dgp4004 (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
IFG uses "other unitary authorities". Chessrat (talk, contributions) 00:26, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
'The Borough of Darlington is an other unitary authority.' That sort of thing? Dgp4004 (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Not sure why any change to the current wording of the lede of the Borough of Darlington article would be needed? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 00:43, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I’ve used “non-metropolitan unitary authority” in the Unitary authorities of England article. I think this works. Simon373737 (talk) 06:29, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Dgp4004: I have just noticed that the City of London and Isles of Scilly are also unitary authorities, which confirms that there are currently a total of 132 unitary authorities (not 130), so I will change the "130" figure to "132" in line with sources: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/local-government-unitarisation Chessrat (talk, contributions) 23:51, 25 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Personally, I would pause and seek consensus now that you have been alerted that your edits are controversial and a discussion has begun. Dgp4004 (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Was simply a correction I had overlooked when updating the table earlier. I have added the source that there are 132 unitary authorities in England to the article- not sure how you could describe that as controversial. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 00:25, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Undue. They may look like a unitary authority, but they are not as they are only officially in the shires as per .Davidstewartharvey (talk) 05:16, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
That source doesn't ever say that. It separates out the unique types of unitary authority as that they are branded differently to other unitary authorities yes ("Unitary authorities and London and metropolitan boroughs"), but that is very clearly just a reference to public branding as it also refers to "District, borough and city councils" despite the fact borough and city councils are a form of district.
If you look at other reliable government sources that have been cited like the cited FAQ it is very clearly and explicitly stated that they are a form of unitary authority. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 11:10, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
So what part of "In some parts of the country, there’s just 1 (unitary) tier of local government providing all the local services. The 3 main types are: •unitary authorities in shire areas •London boroughs •metropolitan boroughs" doesn't say that?. They are all tier 1, aka control of the services provided, but as it states they are not all Unitary authorities. We should follow the correct naming for these.
And a passing note, under LGR, some of these powers will be removed and passed to the local mayor (Adult education budget for example), so technically they will be two tier anyway! Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for bringing this to a talk page, and for linking it on other talk pages. As someone pointed out, for us non-Brits the system is really confusing from the outset, so I would very much prefer that a consensus be reached before any more substantial changes are made.
I will not express an opinion on which wording is preferable, as I do not have clear sources to rely on, but it seems to me that several different issues are being discussed here:
  • What is the actual definition of a Unitary Authority?
  • Which of laws, orders, ISO standards and common usage should guide the article?
  • The need for both descriptive and specific terms as well as terms that can easily be incorporated into the running text.
  • The particularities of the City of London and the Isles of Scilly.
There may be other as well, which is why I would advise to being very carefully in explaining which part of the discussion you are engaging in and which problem you are trying to solve. Please note that we may have to resort to several differentiated solutions to resolve all of these issues.
It is also my belief that the ambiguity of definitions should be reflected both in the lead and the body of the article, so as to make clear to the reader that the matter is not clearcut. OJH (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm not convinced that there is ambiguity or that it's not clear cut- just that for some reason one editor wants the article to say what they want it to even though every source disagrees with them. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 11:45, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Just an observation here, which may or may not be of any use whatsoever: the "not two tier" definition is far from ideal. It could be argued that most London boroughs are governed both by the relevant borough council and by the Greater London Authority, thus two tiers. Under the upcoming local government reorganisation, it could be similarly argued that the new mayoral authorities constitute a "tier" along with the new (so-called) unitary authorities that are replacing district councils.
I suspect many look at the GLA + London borough structure and say "that's two-tier so they're not UAs" without realising the same would apply under the new non-London regional authority plus UA structure. So I think I'm agreeing with Chessrat here, that LBs are a form of UA according to the definition. Because if they're not, then neither are the "new UAs". WaggersTALK 13:43, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, the term "two-tier" is in reference to the division between county/district councils, not counting the parish tier or the combined authority tier. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 13:51, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
However existing UAs that dont operate under a Mayor/GLA do control everything. Southend City Council currently controls all of its services provided. It is only under LGR that it won't (Well the planned South West Essex Council). Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I believe government typically use the terms single-tier and two-tier in reference to Principal councils as defined in the Local Government Act 1972. Principal councils are explicitly only counties, metropolitan districts, non-metropolitan districts and London boroughs (so exclude parishes, regional authorities, combined authorities, strategic authorities etc). In practice, each of these other authorities could be considered a ‘tier’, but none are principal councils.
As this is England (and we make things needlessly complicated 😀), there is some confusion over whether the City of London and Isles of Scilly are principal councils or not. All agree that they are considered ‘equivalent’ to principal councils. Simon373737 (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Actually, I think Principal area is a more precise definition (the area that the principal council administers). Simon373737 (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
As a compromise, can I suggest re-naming this article to Single-tier local authorities of England (to compliment the Two-tier local government in England article)?
We could then create a separate (fairly brief) article named Non-metropolitan unitary authority to exclusively cover the post 1990s English unitary authorities (similar to the Metropolitan borough, Metropolitan county, and London boroughs articles).
I think this would avoid any confusion between English unitary authorities in general and the specific post-1990s authorities commonly known as unitary authorities (but not legally defined as such).
Overall, I think it is a good idea to have this article which links all of England’s single-tier/unitary local authorities in a single (or unitary 😀) article – given the government’s ambition to ‘complete the map’ of English devolution, which would result in every part of England being covered by a devolved strategic authority (with or without a mayor) and a single-tier/unitary local authority.
Thanks. Simon373737 (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
We already had a satisfactory division prior to the changes:
But with the addition of London and met. boroughs to the Unitary authorities of England article, and with the present moves to make every local authority single tier, the Unitary authorities of England article will become an enormous duplicate of the Districts of England article. Perhaps that is what is intended, I don't know. It's such a mess now. Dgp4004 (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
When two-tier governance is abolished in 2028 a lot of articles will have to be rewritten/merged/turned into historic articles. Yes, from that point every local authority district in England is expected to be a unitary authority as two-tier councils are planned to be phased out.
Until recently the list on Unitary authorities of England was incomplete as some unitary authorities weren't included so I added them to the list. I also added other information that wasn't included, like each unitary authority's population and what strategic authority they're a part of. Wikipedia is a work in progress (WP:COMPLETE) and when information is missing from articles, it's on every editor to make sure it's properly included. It is nonsensical to claim that it would be a more "satisfactory division" to leave an article incomplete. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 15:02, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think we have to accept that our past use of 'unitary authority' was inaccurate and that London boroughs, metropolitan boroughs, and the City of London and Isles of Scilly all fit the definition.
If 'unitary authorities of England' comes to be a duplicate of 'districts of England' then the two articles can be merged.
I do appreciate that English local government is complicated, but sometimes we can make it more complicated for ourselves by trying to make a messy system neat. Using the term 'unitary authority' for non-metropolitan county councils with the powers of non-metropolitan district councils (or vice versa) for the sake of brevity is one example. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree with this.
If we end up agreeing to use unitary authority as an overarching term for all single-tier local authorities in England, then we should try to use it consistently across articles (which is what @Chessrat has been working on by editing multiple articles).
If we do agree this conclusion, I propose using the term non-metropolitan unitary authority in articles that are specifically referring to the post-1992 unitary authorities (i.e. coterminous non-metropolitan district and non-metropolitan county areas or non-metropolitan district areas in Berkshire).
Hope this helps. Thanks. Simon373737 (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'd have to look into it more, but my initial feeling is that a neutral term such as 'local government area' would be better than a neologism, at least in the lead sentence of an article. The exact legislative setup can be explained in the body. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
"Local government area" is just about ok. "Unitary Authority area" is ugly as sin but is heavily used on WP. Does it appear anywhere else? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
"Unitary authority area" does crop up here and there, but to my knowledge we adopted it without any particular reference to external sources to avoid describing geographic areas as "unitary authorities". A.D.Hope (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Searching for "Unitary Authority area" site:gov.uk brings up a lot of uses on local government websites, often in reports by a council. It also appears as a search category at LexisNexis and an Ofcom analysis category. Of course finding instances doesn't indicate prevalence; almost any search term will give results.
Here's a pretty useless ngram - enjoy! NebY (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think you’re right to flag the importance of distinguishing between describing the local authority as an organisation and describing the area it covers.
I’m certainly guilty of using “unitary authorities” interchangeably to mean both things and I think this practice is very common, including on Gov.UK.
I think this discussion was primarily aimed at debating whether “unitary authorities” should be used on Wikipedia as an overarching term to describe all single-tier (principal) local authorities in England.
How to describe the geographic area of such an authority is a different, but connected debate. I’m comfortable with “unitary authority area” as a descriptor of the area covered. Alternatively, I’d be happy with “unitary council area”.
I’d prefer to avoid using “district area” or “county area” because (although technically correct) it’s confusing when many unitary authorities are both, many others are districts only, and two are technically neither! Some unitary authorities call themselves county councils (but most don’t), some have electoral divisions (but most have wards), and Rutland is a mix of the two (it is officially named Rutland County Council District Council and has wards).
I haven’t even mentioned the confusion between non-met county areas, ceremonial county areas, county council areas, and historic county areas. Welcome to England! 😀 Simon373737 (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
At the risk of complicating things further, a 'district' is a geographic area. A 'unitary authority' is a responsible body. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. How about non-metropolitan unitary area? I’m aiming to avoid saying either unitary district or unitary county to keep a simple (but still accurate) overarching name and avoid confusion (most are technically both districts and counties and that can be explained further into an article where needed). Simon373737 (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
The formal lists of local government divisions can be seen at the Ordnance Survey official election map (select the Boundaries tab) Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. Election Maps is a great site, but I don’t think Ordnance Survey’s chosen categorisations are any more or less ‘formal’ that those used by any other public body (ONS, Gov.UK, House of Commons Library, council websites etc).
The problem is inconsistency from all of the above. I think the safest option is to read the legislation establishing each authority area.
Election maps does have some quirks such as using the term ‘Counties’ to include two-tier non-metropolitan council areas and the GLA, but no other counties.
By sticking to the legislation, every principal (non-parish) local authority area in England is one (or two) of the following:
  • non-metropolitan county (where local government is two-tier or unitary)
  • non-metropolitan district (where local government is two-tier or unitary)
  • metropolitan district (where local government is unitary)
  • London Borough (where local government is unitary)
  • City of London (where local government is unitary)
  • Isles of Scilly (where local government is unitary)
It’s as simple as that 😀 Simon373737 (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Describing a geographic area as "unitary" is problematic in several ways, e.g. as a Wikipedia-only neologism, as a confusion of concepts - authorities can be unitary but geographical areas don't inherit that quality from their authorities, as not at all transparent - does it mean an area circumscribed by a single boundary? Or are you proposing to call a local government authority a geographical area? That's not going to sit well with editors and readers either. NebY (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
This is why I previously suggested a compromise title for the unitary authorities article of Single-tier local authorities of England. We could even go for Single-tier local authority areas of England (personally I think that’s a bit over the top).
To exclusively describe the geographical areas, there are already other articles for that such as Districts of England. Simon373737 (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
It's very complicated, and has been for a long time. For several decades before 1965, in England and Wales (taken together) there was a complex system of counties (two-tier) and county boroughs (single-tier). Counties were divided into borough councils, urban districts and rural districts. But it was reasonably stable: from time to time, a new co boro would be created, but no major changes. In 1965 we got Greater London; then in 1974 it was rationalised so that everywhere was in a two-tier county. But this lasted only until 1986, when some politicians felt that some councils were too powerful. Answer: abolish the troublemakers.
However, recent governments simply cannot stop meddling. It's costing the taxpayer millions. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:37, 1 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I’ve done some further reading into the Sui generis local authorities and, on reflection, I’ve changed my mind.
I no longer think it’s accurate to include the City of London or the Isles of Scilly on lists of unitary authorities. I therefore suggest we update the relevant articles, maps and tables to say England has 130 unitary authorities, not 132 (i.e. 62 non-met unitaries, 36 mets, and 32 London boroughs).
In particular, this will affect the “Unitary authorities of England” and “Local government in England” articles.
I think the “Districts of England” article can probably stay unchanged as it clearly explains that we’re following the ONS categorisation of the Isles of Scilly and City of London areas being Local authority districts (LADs).
I’ve learned that England actually has 4 Sui generis local authorities (see “Local government in England” article). The ‘LAD’ (and ceremonial county) of the City of London is run by 3 different Sui generis local authorities.
To (vaguely try to) simplify, the City of London Corporation acts as a de facto unitary authority for most parts of the City of London area, but in the ‘Temple (Inns of Court)’ part of the City, the Corporation is effectively the upper tier of a two-tier model. The 2 lower tier local authorities are the “Inner Temple Governing Benchers of the Inn” and the “Parliament of the Middle Temple” (https://web.archive.org/web/20170205193225/http://www.middletemple.org.uk/about-us/the-inn-as-a-local-authority). All very Sui generis!😄
Overall, I think it’s safest to say that England has 130 unitary authorities, 185 two-tier authorities, and 4 Sui generis authorities. 319 local authorities overall.
I’ll update the Local government in England article now (as it’s currently contradicting itself), but I’ll wait for comments before editing any others.
Thanks. Simon373737 (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Our Liberty (division) article is useful on the Temples. They're not a tier below the City of London; they're independent of it while permitting or authorising the Corporation to exercise various functions (sensibly enough - it would be far too tedious for them to manage them themselves).
The downloadable Commons Library research briefing "Unitary local government" (dated February 2025 on the web page but February 2026 in the briefing - the Wayback Machine archived a March 2025 version throughout 2025 so February 2026 seems correct) describes the City of London (as well as the Isles of Scilly) as unitary while remarking "In strict legal terms, there is no such thing as a ‘unitary authority’." It doesn't mention the liberties, which is understandable as they are so small and so exceptional, nor does it except the City and the 32 London boroughs from being unitary on the grounds that the Mayor of London has some power over them (e.g. the Mayor can compel them to refuse planning applications and can call applications in). Such considerations might ultimately stop the term "unitary" being useful.
All the above explanation might of course be mildly interesting but quite irrelevant; if a RS says the City and Isles are unitary and your deductions are in conflict with that, WP:OR insists we accept the RS. NebY (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for explaining.
I’ve updated the Local government in England article. I don’t think any of my updates are out of step with your comments.
The article already included the details of Inner Temple and Middle Temple in the Summary table section, so (as it was) the article’s sections were contradicting each other (i.e. whether there are 2 Sui generis local authorities or 4).
Logically, I think we should either say all 4 are unitary authorities, or none are – and say all 4 are districts, or none are (unless there’s a source saying otherwise).
Thanks. Simon373737 (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ↑ "A Beginner's Guide to UK Geography (2023)". Open Geography Portal. Office for National Statistics. 4 February 2025. Retrieved 14 May 2025.

Reliable source discussion about roostweather.com

edit
Latest comment: 26 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#roostweather.com about a source that is used to reference climate info & weather records on a large number of this project's articles. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

'Proposed local government reorganisation' subsections

edit
Latest comment: 22 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I had a discussion with @G-13114 last week about them adding or adding to 'proposed local government reorganisation' subsections to Cambridgeshire, Derbyshire, Devon, Gloucestershire, Lancashire, Leicestershire, Norfolk, Oxfordshire, Staffordshire, and Warwickshire. As this was inconclusive I'm hoping to broaden the discussion here.

In my opinion these subsections are premature as, while consultations have occurred on the reorganisation of these counties, no decision has been made and the secretary of state has not published the statutory instrument that will effect any reorganisation. We know from experience that a consultation does not necessarily lead to a prompt reorganisation of a county.

My preference would be to remove this content for now. This is particularly important for Warwickshire (and perhaps other articles), where the information is mainly about a 2020 attempt to reorganise the county that never happened and is not inherently notable in itself. The appropriate time to include reorganisation information in a ceremonial county article is after a final decision has been made by the UK government, as this is a good indication that the reorganisation will actually happen. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for raising this matter.
I don’t think there’s any inherent reason to exclude descriptions of local debates and campaigns about local government re-organisation.
I think a common problem is that these articles are not updated properly. There will be talk of a proposal made several years ago, then the article jarringly jumps to current proposals. Many old proposals were abandoned or just lost local momentum and didn’t go anywhere. Sometimes the old proposal gains momentum again, other times completely new proposals are made.
The 2024 and 2025 proposals should include links to the Upcoming structural changes to local government in England article, but all articles need to clearly distinguish the different timelines involved (e.g. the Warwickshire article you linked to talks about 2020 proposals that were debated locally then jumps to a map of the 2025 proposals that were formally submitted to government (we are now expecting to imminently hear the government’s decision on these).
I created those 2025 proposals maps so I’m pleased to see them being re-used in other articles, but I think the articles need to be updated to make the timeline clearer and distinguish between different locally debated options.
Hope this helps. Simon373737 (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

County/region definitions

edit
Latest comment: 13 days ago60 comments10 people in discussion

Several things have happened within the last decade which, I think, mean it's worth revisiting the way in which English county articles are written. I'm bringing them together into one wide discussion as I think it's worth discussing them all- the current article format was suited well for a few decades ago but is increasingly less so now.

1) Ceremonial counties are no longer the overwhelmingly predominant way of defining counties. This is because:

  • a) Their role as main units of local government in a county-district system has been phased out in large parts of the country and is being phased out entirely in the coming years, meaning that their only remaining use is lieutenancies/shrievalties.
  • b) There are now several unitary authorities like Buckinghamshire (district) which have different boundaries to the ceremonial counties but which are quite well-recognized as going by that name.
  • c) There has been a significant rise in the relevance of the historic counties, with county flags being adopted and recognized by the government, a historic county likely to officially return to the name of a local government unit soon (West Surrey and South Middlesex), and historic counties now appearing on road signs.

2) The regions of England are increasingly less relevant. They no longer have any significant government role, and are no longer in use as European parliament constituencies.

3) The strategic authorities are increasingly more relevant, being the highest tier of local government in England.

4) Metropolitan county status is now essentially completely irrelevant.

As a result I would propose the following changes to article structures:

1) Do not include metropolitan county status or region of England in the lede or the infobox. Mention that information elsewhere in the article body.

2) For the lede and infobox, prioritize mentioning ceremonial county, historic county, unitary authority, strategic authority, and (whilst they still exist in a two-tier system) non-metropolitan county. For instance have the lede of Greater Manchester begin "Greater Manchester is a ceremonial county and strategic authority in England."

3) Replace the "region" field of infoboxes with a "strategic authority" field where one exists (e.g. for South Gloucestershire, instead of Region: South West England, use Strategic authority: West of England)

4) Do not include the "It borders..." section of the lede, as that entirely depends on which definition is used so cannot be stated in unbiased wiki-voice.

5) Add a new "historic county" section to infoboxes, showing the historic county's flag, area and population (so for instance in East Riding of Yorkshire, below the "unitary authority" section of the infobox, have a new "historic county" section).

6) Clarify what type of county is being discussed when one is mentioned, if it could be ambiguous (e.g. "Weymouth is a seaside town and civil parish in the unitary authority and ceremonial and historic county of Dorset"; Christchurch is a town and civil parish on the south coast of the ceremonial county of Dorset". This is already done for some articles like Parliamentary constituencies in Lancashire, but it should be standard practice for all.

At the moment articles are still written as if ceremonial counties are still overwhelmingly the predominant definition and I think it's time to accept that that is no longer the case. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 06:47, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

The inbox Template:Infobox UK place id being merged into the general place infobox. It has been seen the wider community that there should not be regional differences for infoboxes. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:53, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I think adoption of Template:Infobox settlement makes a good opportunity to restructure the infobox to include more relevant information. Albeit I didn't intend for the infoboxes to be the main focus of this discussion- just one of several aspects. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 14:23, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
1) The ceremonial counties are convenient because they're stable. That makes them a good basis for covering the geography of England.
a) The ceremonial counties themselves have never been used for local government. They are made up of local government areas, though.
b) The confusion caused by this should be minimal, as we do try to differentiate in such cases.
c) The historic counties will probably always persist as cultural areas, but they're unsuitable to replace the ceremonial counties because they're not properly defined. Which of Worcestershire's many boundaries would you use? Would Crayke fall under County Durham or not?
2) I agree that the regions have become less relevant. I don't think there's a need for a wholesale change, but if someone prefers East Anglia or the West Country to the East of England and South West England that's fine.
3) The combined authorities are collaborative forums for the councils that participate in them. We need to be careful not to treat them as county councils or similar.
4) I agree that metropolitan county status can be de-emphasised. So long as they exist in legislation they should be mentioned somewhere.
---
1) Agreed.
2) It's simplest to simply mention that an area is a ceremonial county in the lead sentence. The combined authorities don't follow the county borders neatly, so it's better to mention them in the second para where context can be given.
3) The point of the 'region' field is to give readers a general idea of where in England a county is. It shouldn't be replaced.
4) Again, the 'it borders...' sentence tells readers where a county is. The ceremonial counties are defined in legislation, and there is no bias in saying that one borders another.
5) This would be difficult. Which area would you use? Where would you get the population statistics? How much infobox space would it take to list every historic county that formerly occupied the area of a modern ceremonial county?
6) Where it isn't clear from the context we should clarify what type of county we are talking about. Nowhere is currently in an historic county, though.
Overall, I don't agree with moving away from ceremonial counties as the 'main' type of county. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I concur with A.D.Hope's analysis. Specifically in response to you #1:
  • Ceremonial counties will be with us long into the future short of a recreation of the Commonwealth of England. That they have no administrative function is a bonus - stability. (Compare discussions elsewhere about instability of electoral wards compared to civil parishes.)
  • We have an established consensus that historic counties are not be be given any status, it was discussed to death, please don't open that can of worms again. The reasons why they are unused and unusable are clear. Yes, it is ok in the body (not the lead) of an article to say that (e.g.) Linslade was originally in historic Buckinghamshire but was transferred to Bedfordshire many moons ago. That factoid is just as much a historic curiosity as it would be to say that it was once in Mercia or Wessex or the Danelaw. To see it being used again is Merrie England marketing fluff, trivia.
It is not broken, it doesn't need fixing. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
In response to the first point 1, and to point 5, we can see that e.g. the Cornwall infobox , the information about the ceremonial county is first. But then the information about the unitary authority (with a slightly smaller area and population) is shown bellw it. It would be quite simple to add historic county information below thar in the exact same format that the unitary authority information is present.
For organizational purposes of articles I think it's fine to have the ceremonial county be the "primary" definition of articles — but the fact that both unitary authorities and historic counties are also very widely used means I think the ambiguity of definitions needs to be covered more prominently than it currently is. Historic counties now appear on road signs and have their flags officially recognized by the government (neither of those was the case 15 years ago) and are also of course used for sporting purposes, so readers (especially those not familiar with UK geography already) need to be informed that counties have different definitions for different purposes in the present day. Otherwise a casual reader might be misled into thinking that historic counties are solely something which existed in the past with no present-day role like Elmet.
This topic came to my attention when a few editors repeatedly changed the lede of the West Surrey article to "It covers the western portion of the ceremonial county of Surrey" whereas I had worded it as "It covers the western portion of the historic county of Surrey and the southern portion of the historic county of Middlesex" (which is far better for explaining to readers why the longer name is planned to be adopted for the authority). We need more leeway for using different terms based on context. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 21:44, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Why have we even got an article on West Surrey when it doesn't exist, and won't for nearly a year, and even the name is not settled yet? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:23, 6 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
The issue with providing statistical information on the historic counties is that, to my knowledge, no such information is maintained by the ONS or similar. We'd have to cobble it together ourselves, which is rarely a good idea. Similarly, because the ceremonial counties have better-defined boundaries than the historic counties it makes more sense to use them to give the location of contemporary places.
We do tend to mention the historic counties when they're used for some purpose or other, and in those cases the difference with any modern county with the same name should be stated if it's significant. On flags, although the Flag Institute is recognised by the government as an authority on flags, it remains a charity with no formal powers to make a flag official. We try to reflect this in how we talk about and present them. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
For the statistical information about historic counties it's best to use official sources, so here is the government's information page from 2019: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/celebrating-the-historic-counties-of-england/celebrating-the-historic-counties-of-england
They state that they "use the primary sources of the Local Government (England and Wales) Act 1888, the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889 and the Sheriffs Act 1887" to define the historic counties. Unfortunately linkrot means the Ordnance Survey page linked to is no longer available, but I think we have a fairly strong definition of which borders of historic counties are recognized by the government. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 12:39, 6 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
But there is no modern statistical information for historic counties. You assert that It would be quite simple to add historic county information below thar in the exact same format that the unitary authority information is present. Really? How? WP:NOR? You really must accept that this modern recycling of the historic counties is purely a marketing whizz, it has no practical application. The government's reuse of it is the political equivalent of "oh look! A squirrel!!", bread and circuses, costs very little as it has no consequential impact. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Please no more 'traditional counties' there's been a broad consensus about that for the last 20 years, please don't open up that can of worms again! G-13114 (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
On Wikipedia, we follow the use of WP:RS and if the practice of reliable sources changes, so do we to reflect the changes from sources.
As of 2020 the ONS states that the use of the historic counties is "recommended as a stable, unchanging geography which covers the whole of Great Britain". Chessrat (talk, contributions) 18:45, 6 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I just linked to the source for the modern statistical information— the government recognizes historic counties as existing under the boundaries as defined in 1887–1889 and that their boundaries were unchanged when the administrative boundaries were redrawn in 1972. Those are the boundaries which appear on road signs and under which the government recognizes the historic counties' flags. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 18:37, 6 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure the government's opinion in 2019 can be taken as a definitive ruling on what the boundaries of the historic counties are. Using the 1888 boundaries means recognising the loss of a substantial part of Middlesex to London, for example, and this is not recognised by the Historic Counties Trust.
Ultimately, it's a lot simpler to use the ceremonial counties than some version of the historic ones. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Every time that historic counties are used by the government it's 1888 boundaries— e.g. see the Ordnance Survey dataset from 2025 https://www.data.gov.uk/dataset/ad438b8b-44e6-441b-936b-e98358b9bc9c/historic-county — so I think it's quite clear that that is the official way of defining historic counties. The advocacy group isn't really relevant.
It may be "simpler" to use only one of the three widely-recognized definitions of counties, but it would not follow the practice of reliable sources to do so. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 09:50, 7 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Why are the 1888 boundaries so special? Why not use the pre-1844 boundaries? G-13114 (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Because the 1888 boundaries are the ones officially recognized by several different British governments as being the current borders of the historic counties? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 12:36, 7 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
They're not all that historic then if they're only 137 years old. G-13114 (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Do you have a WP:RS for your claim that the government-recognized historic counties are "not historic" or is that your personal opinion?
The official definition of the historic counties as they currently exist, used by the government, is the counties as they have been subject to minor changes over the centuries, but not including the more substantial changes to administrative boundaries in 1972, as:
"When the 1972 Act came into effect, it was said of the new councils created: They are administrative areas, and will not alter the traditional boundaries of counties" Chessrat (talk, contributions) 13:49, 7 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Can you please provide some examples of when the government uses the historic counties, and why this means we should use them as the primary type of county? A.D.Hope (talk) 11:29, 7 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
1) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-51120075 (2020)— indicates that ONS recommends the use of historic counties as a stable unchanging geography, with the BBC reporting that the historic counties are "arguably what the majority of people would consider the definitive list"
2) https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/England's-traditional-counties (2013)— collection of all government press releases relating to historic counties during the Coalition government
3) https://www.data.gov.uk/dataset/a0cb00e3-00d4-4b87-9a7b-95bcb8d0d87c/historic-county-borders (2026)— historic county borders dataset (2026)
4) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/celebrating-the-historic-counties-of-england/celebrating-the-historic-counties-of-england (2019)— guidance on use of historic counties
5) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60f99cd88fa8f5042fd6e81d/List_of_the_historic_county_flags.pdf — recognized county flags
6) https://www.gov.uk/government/news/historic-county-flags-raised-in-day-of-national-celebration (2021)— County flags officially flown by the government
Note that this doesn't mean it should necessarily be the primary type, but that it should at least have equal status nd that the ceremonial county should not be primary. Barnoldswick is currently in Category:Towns in Lancashire, but I would suggest renaming that to Category:Towns in Lancashire (ceremonial) thereby allowing a new Category:Towns in Lancashire (historic) to also be used for places like Barrow-in-Furness. Essentially, articles like Lancashire need to reflect that the term has multiple different definitions of borders depending on context. At the moment the lede and infobox of the Lancashire article are focused solely on the ceremonial county and don't reflect anywhere that it is a historic county with very different borders too (aside from a brief mention "until 1974 it included both Liverpool and Manchester") — but then when you go down to the Culture section there is absolutely no recognition of the fact that ostof the information in it is actually relating to the historic county.
The historic county is constantly treated as if it were something that no longer exists— any reader reading the Lancashire article would gain the incorrect assumption that Lancashire County Cricket Club covers the ceremonial county! Chessrat (talk, contributions) 12:34, 7 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
In these sources, which historic county is given for the following? Abingdon-on-Thames, Barrow-in-Furness, Bournemouth, Bowes, Gisburn, Huntingdon, Oakham, Peterborough, Uxbridge. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
From this source linking to this map.
the answer to your question appears to be that it's Berkshire, Lancashire, Hampshire, North Riding of Yorkshire, West Riding of Yorkshire, Huntingdonshire, Rutland, Northamptonshire, Middlesex. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 13:58, 7 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Link 3 uses data from the Historic Counties Trust, which you have already dismissed as irrelevant advocacy group.
Links 5 and 6 relate to the Flag Institute, which is also an advocacy group. What makes it relevant when the HCT is not?
Links 1, 2, and 4 relate to the desire of the previous Conservative/coalition governments to promote the historic counties. I'm certainly not denying this happened, but does the fact they felt the need to promote the historic counties not indicate that they are not the primary way in which people visualise the country or the entities they feel most attached to?
To stick with Lancashire as an example, the lead does mention that its boundaries have changed and covers its history before 1974. The 'history' subsection of 'local governance' goes into more detail about boundary changes, and the main 'history' section should use the relevant historic boundaries up to 1974. We're not ignoring that the historic counties existed. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia is not ignoring that the historic counties existed, but it is ignoring all reliable sources that they currently exist.
An advocacy group alone is not necessarily a reliable source but when used by the government it is a reliable source.
The BBC article (source 1) does explicitly say the historic counties are often viewed as the most authoritative definition; the BBC is a reliable source.
At the moment the Lancashire article treats the historic county as something which only existed in the past and is only covered in "history", and does not accurately report that the historic county still exists for many purposes. For instance in the culture and sport section, there is no mention that the country cricket team represents the historic county rather than the much smaller ceremonial county for example. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 14:13, 7 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure you mean to say An advocacy group ... when used by the government ... is a reliable source, as Wikipedia has its own criteria for RSs and they don't necessarily match the varying purposes of UK governments. NebY (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, an advocacy group may be an RS but would have to be discussed. Government sources like the ONS and Ordnance Survey are already well established as being RS. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 15:22, 7 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
This proposal starts with "it's worth revisiting the way in which English county articles are written" but turns out to be a proposal to include certain content in the infoboxes of articles about counties, settlements, authority areas and perhaps more. For that, we need to see that it's key information for each type of article, would be given due weight in each type, and would not lead to bloated infoboxes that ignore "The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." The inclusion of "the historic county's flag, area and population" in articles about modern counties, settlements and other areas which do not correspond to historic counties would also be outside the scope of those articles. NebY (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
My point is that English county articles should not be written as if the ceremonial county is the primary definition of "county" because there are plenty of sources that it isn't. Indeed I would argue that the ceremonial county is the least relevant of the county types— of the three types, the unitary authorities are local government units which are used for a wide variety of purposes, the historic counties are used for things like sport and which flags are shown and road signs, but the ceremonial counties are only used for ceremonial things like lieutenancies and very little else.
At the moment the infoboxes of "main" county articles prioritize information about the least relevant of the three county types, which is a mistake. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 15:16, 7 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't think you're going to find a consensus for replacing the ceremonial counties as the primary ones used on Wikipedia. They're stable, easily verifiable, and overlap enough with the other types to enable easy discussion of them.
You may well find a consensus for mentioning the historic counties more prominently where they are still used, for example in sporting or cultural contexts. You can see that this has happened already with Yorkshire, which is now described partly in the present tense as a cultural region.
I also think you will find a consensus for finding a way to better integrate the combined authorities into articles, something which is overdue. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps I worded it badly, I never intended to suggest historic counties taking priority as the primary ones used. Only to report on them equally e.g. having Dorset be an overview article that equally covers the three different but overlapping topics of Dorset (historic county), Dorset (ceremonial county), and Dorset (district). I'll draw up a draft article later with all of these principles in mind, and see what people think of it. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 17:02, 7 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Okay, having looked into different possible article formats I think a more radical change to article formatting is probably best delaying for 2 years until local government reform is over, for the simple reason that the presence of non-metropolitan administrative counties makes things a bit of a mess. Of course some of the outright errors relating to historic counties need fixing like the articles that incorrectly claim the historic counties no longer exist, but I think reformatting the articles more widely can wait.
When it comes to adding strategic authorities to infoboxes, would this require a modification to the template to do en masse? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 00:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Having an example to look at will help, I think.
As it currently stands, the WikiProject doesn't consider it an error to state that the historic counties don't exist – see WP:UKCOUNTIES. You'll need to build a consensus to overturn that guideline.
I could support amending the guideline to recognise that some historic counties are used as cultural regions, where evidence of this exists. For example, I have previously edited some of the county flag articles to include evidence of a flag being flown within the historic boundaries of a county. A.D.Hope (talk) 07:11, 8 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oh I hadn't even noticed the existence of WP:UKCOUNTIES- yes, fixing that error clearly takes priority over the other issues raised which are less urgent!
See User:Chessrat/sandbox2 for an example of how I might suggest writing an article- very much unfinished but I hope it shows the idea well. Moving a lot of the info from the infobox into a table in the article, given that infoboxes should really only be used for summaries. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 14:56, 8 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Chesstat's draft article (and the fallout from stupidly named unitary authorities)

edit

Unlike Bedfordshire (which has three unambiguously named UAs), one of the two UAs in Bucks was allocated the whole county name despite administering just a part of it, causing no end of hassle. The City of Milton Keynes is just as much a part of Bucks as is the remainder administered by Buckinghamshire Council. So your table, if it survives, should include both UAs equally and make clear that the domain of Bucks Council is not Bucks. (The same issue arises in Wilts and a few more.) You didn't create the problem but should try to mitigate the confusion it causes, not make it worse.

Stepping back from the detail, I'm afraid your table is far too big, both in terms of physical space (have you actually looked at it using a mobile?) it occupies and of relative importance to the article as a whole. I'm afraid that I can't escape from the idea that it is an extremely large WP:coatrack to provide a hook to hang the historic county on. I am far from persuaded that it is WP:DUE. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

The purpose of the table would be to let readers know the differences between the historic county of Buckinghamshire, the lieutenancy area of Buckinghamshire, and the non-metropolitan county of Buckinghamshire, each of which has different boundaries.
Would you mind continuing this discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography? User talk page is not the best place for it because other editors won't see it. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 17:53, 8 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
In response to your claim "the domain of Bucks Council is not Bucks": that is not correct. The coterminous non-metropolitan county and non-metropolitan district (i.e. unitary authority) that is the area controlled by Buckinghamshire Council, which was created in 2020, is Buckinghamshire. That is how "Buckinghamshire" is defined for local government purposes.
There is also a lieutenancy area a.k.a. ceremonial county also called "Buckinghamshire", which was created in 1997, which covers that area plus Milton Keynes.
There is also a historic county also called "Buckinghamshire", which has existed for many centuries, which covers that area plus Slough and some surrounding areas.
The fact is that there are three differently-defined but overlapping places all called "Buckinghamshire". The Buckinghamshire article needs to make that fact clear to readers. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 00:02, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Are you proposing Buckinghamshire should become mainly on the modern district, excluding Milton Keynes, as the only real local government entity? Articles have to have a main subject rather than essentially becoming "Buckinghamshire is a variously defined area of England, its name used for three different sub-divisions", which is not really helpful to readers or setting out how to structure the article balancing three definitions in one.
I think things should stay the same, and keep the ceremonial counties as the main more stable subject to base the counties on, it encompasses the subdivisions (with or without articles) and the culmination of boundary changes of the older forms. Unless there should be an article on each form, so reviewing the "one county article" guideline. DankJae 01:56, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think if there was to be any stable subject to base the counties on it should be the historic counties as those have existed for centuries rather than just in the last 30 years (with lots of changes to government boundaries etc happening frequently) and a lot of the culture information is based around them (e.g. Lancashire#Culture).
I think it's fine to have different topics included on one article (Lancashire manages to cover both the ceremonial and non-metropolitan counties fine) though I would not be opposed to splitting into multiple articles. At the moment, all definitions of counties are included in a single article, so that single article should cover all definitions prominently. If the article were split of course that wouldn't be needed. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 03:20, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree with that.
I’ve been following this discussion, but I’m not sure there’s anything much that can be done to avoid the confusion of counties in England (and Scotland and Wales to a degree). They are confusing and pretty mad. No re-structuring of templates will solve that. I’ve just read the WP:UKCOUNTIES article and disagree with an awful lot of it.
Personally, I think an article has to be explicitly clear what it’s about, so I think the “one county article” mantra is fundamentally wrong.
Buckinghamshire historic county, Buckinghamshire ceremonial county and Buckinghamshire unitary council area are 3 different areas so I think there should be three different articles. I accept that it would be tricky to do that and avoid lots of duplication between them.
In law, there are basically two patterns of county geography used in England I believe, ceremonial counties on one hand and a pattern of met counties, non-met counties and Greater London on the other. Of those two choices, I think ceremonial counties are best of a bad bunch to use as a ‘starting point’ for articles. Neither mean much to many people, but we have to have a current basis in law for ‘facts’ I think.
Historic counties are recognised and campaigned for, but not unambiguous. There’s also postal counties which are a whole different thing but seen as important by many people (even though they were often just based on the location of sorting offices).
The ‘Association of British Counties’ pressure group has a campaign to get the ceremonial county boundaries changed to reflect (their view of) the historic counties. I think this is a very good idea, but unless it gets adopted, it’s not ‘official’ or unambiguous.
I agree that ‘English regions’ should be downplayed now, especially as there are now strategic authorities that straddle regions (currently Greater Lincolnshire, but likely more as there are proposals for Swindon to join with Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire with Bedfordshire etc).
I also agree that strategic authorities should be more prominent, but I don’t think we should seek to pretend they are anything like county areas in themselves. I don’t think anyone in Widnes (Cheshire ceremonial county, Lancashire historic county, Halton unitary authority) would describe themselves as living in the Liverpool City Region county!😄 I think strategic authority area will gradually become a whole new geographic area category once the government ‘complete the map’ of English devolution annd everyone lives in one.
Hope this helps. Simon373737 (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
A split is worth considering. It is currently a bit of a mess with the "one county article" sometimes applied but not always. I will put a table to demonstrate the current situation below. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 15:34, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Current layout for comparison

edit

So I have taken a bit of work to work out the current article layout as things stand, and I think the situation can be summarized as follows.

Ceremonial counties:

  • They always have an article.
  • Their article is always at the base name with no disambiguation, unless there is also a region of the same name (only applicable for West Midlands).

Historic counties:

  • They only have their own article if a ceremonial county of the same name does not. If it does exist, their information is covered on the article about the ceremonial county.
  • Whether they have their own article or not, it is generally incorrectly asserted that the historic county no longer exists and written about in past tense.
  • Where the historic county shares a name with a local authority but not a ceremonial county (2 cases of this), in one case there are two separate articles (Cumberland and Cumberland (district)) and in the other case the historic county's information is covered in the article about the local authority (Huntingdonshire). There is no clear reason for this discrepancy.

Local authorities:

  • If a two-tier non-metropolitan county exists on different borders to a ceremonial county (e.g. Devon), it does not have its own article but is generally covered in the article on the ceremonial county.
  • If a single-tier non-metropolitan county exists on different borders to a ceremonial county (e.g. Dorset), it usually does have its own article. There is no clear reason why unitary authorities are treated differently.
  • Exceptions: Somerset (district) and East Riding of Yorkshire (district) are both single-tier but do not have their own articles. There is no clear reason for this.

Regions:

  • They always have an article.
  • Their article is always at the base name with no disambiguation, unless there is also a ceremonial county of the same name (only applicable for West Midlands).
  • Whilst both East Midlands and West Midlands have a mayor covering only part of the region, West Midlands (region) contains disambiguation in the title presumably because the strategic authority area is also a ceremonial county, whereas East Midlands does not have disambiguation in the title and is about the region presumably because the strategic authority area is not a ceremonial county, even though being a ceremonial county has absolutely no impact on either strategic authority's functioning.

Strategic authority areas:

  • They only have an article if they do not overlap with a ceremonial county (e.g. West of England, but only sometimes have an article even then (e.g. East Midlands does not)
  • If they do not have an article, there is no consistency in whether their name is a redirect or not, and if so whether the redirect goes to the article on the ceremonial county or the article on the authority itself.

All in all I can only describe the current layout of articles as a near-incomprehensible disaster primarily because it was designed 20 years ago when England had a completely different system of local government. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 15:34, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Historic county Ceremonial county Local authority Strategic authority area Strategic authority Region
Covered in Bedfordshire article Bedfordshire — — — —
Covered in Berkshire article Berkshire — — — —
Covered in Buckinghamshire article Buckinghamshire Buckinghamshire (district) — — —
Covered in Cambridgeshire article Cambridgeshire Covered in Cambridgeshire article Cambridgeshire and Peterborough redirects to combined authority article Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority —
Covered in Cheshire article Cheshire — Cheshire and Warrington redirects to combined authority article Cheshire and Warrington Combined Authority —
Covered in Cornwall article Cornwall Cornwall (district) redirects to Cornwall — — —
Cumberland — Cumberland (unitary authority area) — — —
— Cumbria — Minimal coverage in other two articles Cumbria Combined Authority —
Covered in Derbyshire article Derbyshire Covered in Derbyshire article — — —
Covered in Devon article Devon Covered in Devon article Devon and Torbay redirects to combined county authority article Devon and Torbay Combined County Authority —
Covered in Dorset article Dorset Dorset (district) — — —
Covered in County Durham article County Durham County Durham (district) — — —
— East Riding of Yorkshire East Riding of Yorkshire Hull and East Yorkshire does not exist Hull and East Yorkshire Combined Authority —
— East Sussex Covered in East Sussex article — — —
Covered in Essex article Essex Covered in Essex article Greater Essex redirects to Essex Greater Essex Combined County Authority —
Covered in Gloucestershire article Gloucestershire Covered in Gloucestershire article — — —
Covered in Hampshire article Hampshire Covered in Hampshire article Hampshire and the Solent does not exist Hampshire and the Solent Combined County Authority —
Covered in Herefordshire article Herefordshire Herefordshire (district) redirects to Herefordshire — — —
Covered in Hertfordshire article Hertfordshire Covered in Hertfordshire article — — —
Covered in Huntingdonshire article — Huntingdonshire — — —
— Isle of Wight Covered in Isle of Wight article — — —
Covered in Kent article Kent Covered in Kent article — — —
Covered in Lancashire article Lancashire Covered in Lancashire article Minimal coverage in other two articles Lancashire Combined County Authority —
Covered in Leicestershire article Leicestershire Covered in Leicestershire article — — —
Covered in Lincolnshire article Lincolnshire Covered in Lincolnshire article Greater Lincolnshire redirects to combined county authority article Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority —
— Merseyside — — — —
Middlesex — — — — —
Covered in Norfolk article Norfolk Covered in Norfolk article — — —
— North Yorkshire North Yorkshire (district) York and North Yorkshire redirects to combined authority article York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority —
Covered in Northamptonshire article Northamptonshire — — — —
Covered in Northumberland article Northumberland Northumberland (district) redirects to Northumberland — — —
Covered in Nottinghamshire article Nottinghamshire Covered in Nottinghamshire article — — —
Covered in Oxfordshire article Oxfordshire Covered in Oxfordshire article — — —
Covered in Rutland article Rutland Covered in Rutland article — — —
Covered in Shropshire article Shropshire Shropshire (district) — — —
Covered in Somerset article Somerset Somerset (district) redirects to Somerset Council, but also covered in Somerset article — — —
— South Yorkshire — Minimal coverage in other two articles South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority —
Covered in Staffordshire article Staffordshire Covered in Staffordshire article — — —
Covered in Suffolk article Suffolk Covered in Suffolk article — — —
Covered in Surrey article Surrey Covered in Surrey article — — —
Sussex — — Sussex and Brighton redirects to Sussex Sussex and Brighton Combined County Authority —
Covered in Warwickshire article Warwickshire Covered in Warwickshire article — — —
— West Sussex Covered in West Sussex article — — —
— West Yorkshire — Minimal coverage in other two articles West Yorkshire Combined Authority —
Westmorland — Westmorland and Furness — — —
Covered in Wiltshire article Wiltshire Wiltshire (district) — — —
Covered in Worcestershire article Worcestershire Covered in Worcestershire article — — —
Regions and strategic authorities
— — — Covered in CCA article, accessible from hatnote from East Midlands (disambiguation) East Midlands Combined County Authority East Midlands
— — — — — East of England
— Greater London — — — Covered in Greater London article
— — — Liverpool City Region Liverpool City Region Combined Authority —
— — — — — North East England
— — — — — North West England
— — — — — South East England
— — — — — South West England
— — — Tees Valley Tees Valley Combined Authority —
— West Midlands (county) — Minimal coverage in county/CA articles West Midlands Combined Authority West Midlands (region)
— — — West of England West of England Combined Authority —
Yorkshire — — — — Yorkshire and the Humber

Chessrat (talk, contributions) 15:34, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

All very nicely framed to define the historic counties [which are correctly described in the past tense, they no longer exist] as being the 'gold standard' against which everything should be measured. A far more neutral layout would use the ceremonial counties for that purpose. Which I don't propose to waste my time on. But just for openers, Bedforshire has three UAs, not none (Borough of Bedford Council, Mid Bedfordshire Council and Luton Council); Buckinghamshire has two UAs, not one, Buckinghamshire Council and Milton Keynes City Council, The list goes om). But of course that wouldn't suit the agenda of yet another round of wp:ADVOCACY for historic counties. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I tried sorting the table on Ceremonial county and ignoring the column on the left. It didn't look like Chessrat's "near-incomprehensible disaster" at all then - but I also don't share their notions such as that there's no clear reason why single-tier and two-tier authorities should be treated differently, or that it's incorrect to write about historic counties in the past tense.
More broadly, it all reminds me that humans are a most unusual social animal; we're the only ones that keep inventing new forms of social organisation. Indeed, whenever anyone thinks they've finally found a nice set of boxes into which to group our forms of organisation, someone will point out that none of those work and come up with something different (often selling it as getting back to the old ways - cf ancient Rome, passim). NebY (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately WP:Reliable sources quite easily disprove your claim that historic counties "no longer exist" (e.g. this government source from 2019 which explicitly states "the Act did not specifically abolish historic counties" and that the new authorities "are administrative areas, and will not alter the traditional boundaries of counties").
The non-metropolitan county of Buckinghamshire is a single unitary authority called Buckinghamshire, which is governed by Buckinghamshire Council. Milton Keynes is not in the non-metropolitan county of Buckinghamshire, just like Plymouth is not in the non-metropolitan county of Devon (and inexplicably, the non-metropolitan county has a different article to the ceremonial county for Buckinghamshire but not for Devon).
So even aside from the historic county issue, the table shows quite clearly that all the other articles are a mess too. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 16:50, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
That's a piece of non-statutory guidance though, it has very little weight on the issue of whether they still exist or not. Given that they are no longer used for any official purpose, it doesn't sound unreasonable to describe them as non existent. G-13114 (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
And that guidance quotes actual legislation which explicitly states that the local government reorganization in 1974 did not alter the traditional boundaries of counties. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 17:07, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
The historic counties are used for 'unofficial' purposes. County cricket might be the most famous, but several historic counties have associations, the flags designed for them are flown within the historic rather than the current borders, and the previous few governments were also quite open to their promotion.
I don't think we should move away from the ceremonial counties as the 'base' type, but our current guidance that the historic counties don't exist at all is wrong. The problems the guideline causes are clear at Yorkshire, which we've had to redefine as an 'area' to allow discussion of the ways in which it exists in the present day.
If nothing else, it would make sense to remove the prohibition on the present tense where there is clear evidence that people still use an historic county for some purpose. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Are many red-rose flags flown in Manchester and Liverpool, or white-rose flags in Leeds and Sheffield? Do Middlesex symbols appear on road-signs in Wembley and Harrow? In which sports apart from cricket are historic counties prominent? Not football or professional rugby league or rugby union, nor I think cycling. County athletics associations seem to have been largely sidelined these days, organising cross-country meets for the clubs; does anyone represent their county in athletics? Yes, chess county championships continue, with both Middlesex and Greater Manchester having won in recent years; I don't know how they've sorted that out or how it would fit in Chessrat's table. The tenacity of old men in blazers is famous in sports governance, but even so there do seem to be rather few sports in which historic-county competition's significant or players are eager to represent their historic county; the county tournaments in croquet seem to be sideshows to the inter-club competitions, and likewise the swimming county championships are a fun day for the juniors. The prominence of historic counties is in the past. NebY (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I've seen a lot of red-rose flags in Manchester, though of course that's just an anecdote.
There are lots of Middlesex road signs on roads entering Middlesex, though they are optional so only some councils (like Enfield) have put them up. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 17:53, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I can tell you for a fact that the Flag of Lancashire has been flown in St Helens and the borough of Rochdale, neither now in ceremonial Lancashire, because I added the citations myself. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm not arguing that the historic counties are prominent, but that where they are still relevant we shouldn't act like they don't exist. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Worth noting for context that outside the UK, it is entirely standard for major historic areas to be the "main topic" of articles. The Brittany article is not about Brittany (administrative region); the Occitania article is not about Occitania (administrative region); the Silesia article is not about the Silesian Voivodeship; the Scania article is not about Skåne County, etc. It is literally only in the UK that recently-created administrative units have been given priority over major historic regions going back centuries. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 17:58, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Elis begins "is a historic region" but its subject is modern Elis, not Ancient Elis; Achaea has no such mention in the lead, and is accompanied by Achaea (ancient region); Laconia, Messenia, and so on. NebY (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
And we have great articles about Wessex and Mercia. It was all fine before those small boats full of trouble makers came across the Channel in 1066. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that is a strong argument that longlasting historic identities matter more than modern government boundaries. It's absolutely right that the Wessex article is about the historic kingdom rather than about the Wessex Partnership (proposed new strategic authority). Chessrat (talk, contributions) 20:44, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

City regions

edit

When looking through all of this I came across the related topic of the City region (United Kingdom), which are listed in List of UK city regions by population. They all seem to be quite outdated but I will draw attention to Leeds City Region, which is written as if it still exists but I can see no evidence that it does, and also the former Manchester City Region and Sheffield City Region which have history as standalone articles but which are now redirects to Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority respectively, which I'm not sure is the best decision given they had wider boundaries than the current authorities. Some cleanup of a lot of those articles is probably needed, but I'd need to find more recent sources to do so. If anyone has any thoughts on that, please say. The Template:City regions of the United Kingdom template still links to a lot of those old articles. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 19:56, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

These articles relate to Local Enterprise Partnerships, introduced 2011, abolished 2024. They were seen as a voluntary stepping stone to becoming (what are now) strategic authorities. Problem was LEPs were allowed to overlap and councils could join more than one LEP. City region is an ambiguous description of many of the original LEP/Combined Authority (CA) areas. No longer accurate as we have more county based strategic authorities such as Greater Lincolnshire and Sussex & Brighton. Simon373737 (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. It appears they were preceded by The Northern Way from 2004 to 2011. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 21:15, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Requested move at Talk:London Borough of Tower Hamlets#Requested move 12 June 2026

edit
Latest comment: 9 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:London Borough of Tower Hamlets#Requested move 12 June 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. NebY (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Three questions about English geography

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago43 comments8 people in discussion

The discussion above has, in my opinion, exposed that the current organisation of the articles about English geographic areas (a term I'm using broadly to describe everything from the historic counties to the new strategic authority areas) is becoming increasingly unfit for purpose.

Another sprawling discussion is unlikely to achieve much, but I do think it would be helpful to consider three questions. If you could confine any comments to these for now that would be helpful:

  1. Should we continue to treat the historic counties as entirely defunct, including writing about them only in the past tense?
  2. Should we continue to maintain detailed articles about areas such as Leeds City Region, which are definitely defunct, or seek to consolidate where possible?
  3. How should we integrate the strategic authority areas into our coverage of English geography?

Answers on a postcard, please A.D.Hope (talk) 12:50, 13 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

1. Yes. Long-established rule, simple to apply, keeps the edit-warring, Association of British Counties SPAs at bay.
2. Why not? At a glance, that article mostly seems to concern the administrative history of the named polity; it's not as if there's a load of general information about the Leeds area that duplicates material that should be elsewhere. In that sense, as a historical record of a defunct polity, it's as valid as Republic of Venice or whatever. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
3. Agnostic. Don't know enough about the subject. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2026 (UTC)Reply


1. No. They are used for sport, their flags are recognized by the government, they appear on road signs erected by local councils. They are no longer used as government units but still exist for some purposes, just as the regions of England are no longer used as government units but still exist for some purposes.
2. Yes, as long as they are clearly written from a historic perspective, per Dave Dunford.
3. On articles about current administrative units, mention the current administrative units first when relevant i.e. the strategic authority regions, the non-metropolitan counties and districts of England. The mixing together of areas used for government and units not used for government is quite confusing. Where relevant, mention the units which are not used for government (i.e. the metropolitan counties, ceremonial counties, historic coounties, and regions) afterwards. Try to keep a clear separation between areas used for government and areas not used for government when possible. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 17:19, 13 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Quick addendum to 3 as I forgot earlier, I'm inclined to say-
a) Strategic authority regions which have different borders to other units should have their own article (e.g. West of England)
b) Strategic authority regions with the same borders but a different name to a ceremonial county (e.g. Greater Lincolnshire) should probably have their own article but I'm undecided and there's a good argument for merging them
c) Strategic authority regions with the same borders and same name as a ceremonial county (e.g. Greater Manchester) should be covered in one article; difficult to see any reason to keep them separate. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 00:59, 14 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
1 Yes. The old names are still used for some cricket teams and competitions, but there's very little other use of them in sport, the one sphere of activity which is held up here as proof of the historic counties' current existence. Flying flags in some places and putting symbols on some road-signs is a use of old symbols; it doesn't indicate that the historic entities are still alive and indeed, they are functionally dead. NebY (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2026 (UTC)Reply


Discussion

edit

In response to the statement from User:NebY that "flying flags in some places and putting symbols on some road-signs is a use of old symbols"— I think it is important to note that councils have only been allowed to erect boundary signs marking historic counties since 2014 (confirmed in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016), that most of the historic county flags were first created in the 21st century, and that local councils were also first given the ability to fly the flags of the historic counties in the 2010s. I am not sure I would classify the 5 years that the Flag of Leicestershire has existed as a long enough period to make it an "old symbol". Chessrat (talk, contributions) 18:23, 13 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Following up on this (not disputing the sentiment), there's plenty of both legacy and recent use of the Lancashire Rose throughout Merseyside, and a lot of common reference to at least a hypothetical concept of a Lancashire that exists beyond government boundaries / ONS definitions and so on. Whether thats significant enough to mean anything in the lead of an article is another question.
This is even more relevant when much more modern creations are fundamentally rejected (such as City Regions) as meaningful measures of land or population. Unfortunately we're then into issues regarding sources, opinion vs fact vs popular sentiment and so on. Koncorde (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
In some areas historic counties play a (usually) fairly minor role in local identity in some areas, e.g. Yorkshire, Lancashire, Middlesex etc. But in other areas they don't, for example almost nobody in Birmingham considers that they live in Warwickshire nowadays. If it is to be discussed at all it should have reference to things like local opinion surveys etc. I don't however see that this should affect our long-standing approach of treating the historic counties as defunct for all practical purposes. G-13114 (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
If you could avoid creating any more sub-discussions that would be helpful, Chessrat. I do find your enthusiasm invigorating, but the intent of the discussion above was to encourage editors to offer short opinions on the three questions without getting into too much back-and-forth. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I created a separate section to avoid clogging up the above discussion, but thought it would benefit other editors to know that the statement that "flying flags in some places and putting symbols on some road-signs is a use of old symbols" is factually incorrect and easily disproven, so that other editors don't base their opinions on false information. I'd like to believe that everyone would check basic factual information before participating in a discussion but it is apparent that not everybody does. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 19:43, 13 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'd prefer it if you'd hold off on any fact checking for a few days, as I don't want people to feel that there's a right or wrong answer to the questions, but of course I can't stop you from doing so. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
The question of "how should Wikipedia report on local government" is obviously up for discussion and there is no right or wrong answer to your questions. I don't intend to respond to people expressing their own opinions on them. On the other hand, the specific claim "flying flags in some places and putting symbols on some road-signs is a use of old symbols" is not up for discussion as e.g. the Flag of Leicestershire was created in 2021, which is important information. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 21:05, 13 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
"Answers on a postcard" NebY (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Just chiming in to say ceremonial counties are still the primary frame of reference used by the media (and therefore the secondary sources we rely on). MRSC (talk) 06:59, 14 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Possible (would have to check sources to be sure) but I think that's a separate topic to what is being discussed. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 18:52, 14 June 2026 (UTC)Reply


Only three responses in over a week. This might require an RfC. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 21:32, 21 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Arbitrary break

edit

I've had more of a look at what is going on here. And I think we are running ahead of ourselves. We are writing about things that only exist in legislation and cannot be referenced to secondary sources because they do not exist in reality. For example, York and North Yorkshire (compared to York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority). I cannot find a single source as evidence for the existence of this "region". I think we need a bit of clean up here. MRSC (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

They undoubtedly exist e.g. https://www.ons.gov.uk/explore-local-statistics/areas/E47000012-york-and-north-yorkshire/indicators
Are you suggesting combining the articles on the area and its authority into one? That would be possible (and reduce the amount of work that needs to be done!) Until now they have generally had separate articles in the cases where someone's got round to writing it (Tees Valley, Liverpool City Region, West of England). Chessrat (talk, contributions) 14:06, 14 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
In some places the combined authorities correspond to recognisable geography (especially the first wave that recreated metropolitan counties), but the latest ones really do not warrant separate articles. Tees Valley, West of England and Liverpool City Region are recognisable places that once had county councils (sometime with an extra unitary added to complete a functional region). York and North Yorkshire is basically North Yorkshire and Greater Essex is just Essex. So I think there needs to be a bit of judgement here on a case-by-case basis. MRSC (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'd put them into four categories:
1) Identical name and area to a ceremonial county: Cumbria, Greater London, Greater Manchester, Lancashire, South Yorkshire, West Midlands (county), West Yorkshire. In those cases I'd definitely suggest having one article mentioning that the same area is both a strategic authority region and ceremonial county. Caveat of the historic county factor with Lancashire but best not to focus on that in this discussion to avoid being sidetracked.
2) Identical area to a ceremonial county; different name: Greater Lincolnshire, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, Hull and East Yorkshire. Also likely Greater Essex joining that list soon. In those cases the ONS only gives information for the strategic authority region and the local authority area, e.g. Greater Lincolnshire and Lincolnshire (county council area). It does not provide info on the ceremonial counties. In those cases I am inclined towards having their own articles simply to minimize confusion- if the Lincolnshire article were simultaneously about the ceremonial county of Lincolnshire and the non-metropolitan county of Lincolnshire (which is one of the three member authorities of Greater Lincolnshire) and the strategic authority region of Greater Lincolnshire it would just be really difficult to write it comprehensibly.
3) Different but similar name and area: York and North Yorkshire, Cheshire and Warrington, Hampshire and the Solent, Devon and Torbay. In those cases I think having their own articles would improve readability.
4) Name and area do not correspond to a ceremonial county: Tees Valley, West of England, Liverpool City Region, East Midlands (strategic authority region), North East (strategic authority region), Sussex and Brighton. In those cases I think having their own articles is the only feasible way of doing it.
N.b. I have made two of those articles: East Midlands (strategic authority region) and York and North Yorkshire. Three others had already existed for years. None of the others currently have their own articles. Now that this discussion is ongoing, I'll wait until it's concluded before doing any more. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 16:52, 14 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree with points 1, 3 and 4, but disagree on point 2. For those places, whilst it makes sense to have separate articles on their governing institutions (e.g. former/soon to be former county council and the present strategic authority etc.) it does not make sense to have a separate article about the area when the area is identical but goes by a different name. The content of each article (Geography, Economy, Demography etc.) will be identical. We can make use of redirects and bold both names in the introductory paragraph.
As a sidenote, the ONS does provide data on ceremonial counties but it does not publish any routine reports about them. Instead, we have to submit an annual FOI request for the ceremonial county data.[1] Dgp4004 (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
It would make sense to approach (3) on a case-by-case basis, I think. Cheshire and Warrington and Devon and Torbay can probably be covered at Cheshire and Devon, because each is just the ceremonial county minus one area. That sort of difference is quite easy to cover, in my experience. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
The same logic could mean merging Liverpool City Region with Merseyside, West of England with Avon (county), and Tees Valley with Cleveland (county). Or even merging North East (strategic authority region) with North East England!
It could be done for all of them but I'm unsure if it would benefit the reader to do so. I think it's better if as a rule we keep our coverage of units which are used for local government separate from our coverage of those which aren't. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 19:18, 14 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
We don’t have to follow logic to conclusions that don’t serve the encyclopaedia.
Conflating defunct counties with new strategic authority areas doesn’t make sense. Covering an SAA in a ceremonial county where the two mostly overlap might. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Isn't that the wrong way round though? Wikipedia always has a dedicated article for the major current administrative divisions of any given country.
Sometimes that article also covers historic/ceremonial use (e.g. Brandenburg), and other times it does not and those have a separate article (e.g. Brittany (administrative region) vs Brittany.
But every current administrative division always has an article that is primarily about it, for obvious reasons that readers need to be able to easily navigate information about the way government works in a given country.
So if you were to want to include information about the current administrative area of Cheshire and Warrington in the same article as the ceremonial county as Cheshire, the only consistent way of doing so would be to have the article be at the title Cheshire and Warrington and have the information about the ceremonial county of Cheshire in that article. That would be possible, but it would be a bit of work and given how long "Cheshire" has existed as a concept I don't think it would be a good idea to not even have an article at the Cheshire title at all. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 20:38, 14 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
We're not mandated to have a standalone article about every administrative division. You already agree that Cumbria, Greater London, Greater Manchester, Lancashire, South Yorkshire, West Midlands (county), and West Yorkshire don't need separate articles for their SAAs. A.D.Hope (talk) 04:52, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
In those, the name and boundaries are identical so it's easy to say "this administrative region is also a ceremonial county" and have the article be about the administrative region whilst covering its ceremonial role too.
Whereas if you tried to include information about Cheshire and Warrington in Cheshire— it's a different name and different boundaries so there would be a major administrative region that doesn't have its own article. It would be like redirecting Westmorland and Furness to Westmorland. I don't think we need to be confusing readers by redirecting them to articles about ceremonial/historic units if they're looking for information on current local government in the UK. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 17:31, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
By that logic, every strategic authority region need its own article regardless of whether or not it is coterminous with a ceremonial county.
I think there is a lot of leeway to include strategic authority area information in the relevant ceremonial county article where the two significantly overlap. We take a similar approach with cities, only having a separate article for their local government districts where they are significantly different to the urban area. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
For every major local government unit, there is always an article that's about that unit. In some cases there's no need for separate articles on the local government unit and its namesake town, as you say (e.g. Woking), but the article will always have the local government unit as a major focus and e.g. demographic information will use the boundaries of the local government unit.
It's easy enough to cover both when their borders are identical, but I'm really struggling to see how you do so without making an absolute mess when the borders are different like for Cheshire and Warrington. For starters, any demographics section would have be duplicated with information about both. I simply don't see how it helps the reader. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 22:23, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Cheshire and Warrington is just Cheshire without Halton. I don't think it would be an absolute mess to cover it in the Cheshire article. A.D.Hope (talk) 04:51, 16 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm undecided on this. I agree with the principle of having one article for the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough strategic authority region and the Cambridgeshire ceremonial county as they cover an identical area, but I think you then have the issues that:
- It would be tricky to include information on the Cambridgeshire non-metropolitan county in the same article. This could be split out into a new Cambridgeshire (non-metropolitan county) article but that's more work and I'm not really sure if it's worth it especially considering those will be abolished in two years.
- Because the question of "what area is currently used for government" is probably the most important one when it comes to writing about local government units, and readers need to know what units are actually in use today for government before reading about ceremonial stuff, the article covering both the strategic authority region and ceremonial county should probably be located at Cambridgeshire and Peterborough rather than at Cambridgeshire.
- And doing that then raises the question of what should be at the Cambridgeshire base name (redirect to Cambridgeshire and Peterborough? Disambiguation page? Historic county article? Non-metropolitan county article?)
It's possible to have it in one article but there would need to be a clear answer to those questions. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 19:11, 14 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Please, stop looking for articles to fork. MRSC (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
What article layout do you think would work best, then? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 20:09, 14 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Cheshire and Warrington is Cheshire. Devon and Torbay is Devon. We can't fork these places. Let's work on the combined authority articles and get them up to a good standard. If it makes sense to expand into a geographic article, maybe explore that later. We don't need to run ahead of how secondary sources are covering them. Maybe 'Cheshire and Warrington' will catch on, if it does we can reflect that. MRSC (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Cheshire and Warrington excludes Halton and Devon and Torbay excludes Plymouth. I think both areas can probably be covered in the respective ceremonial county articles, but there is a difference in their borders. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think more changes will come before long which might make the situation simpler for us. At present, Cheshire Police still covers the Borough of Halton, even though it has been moved into the Liverpool City Region. As the Govt are abolishing police and crime commissioners and moving the responsibility to the regional mayors, the government will be forced to tidy things up a little. You can't have a mayor of Cheshire and Warrington deciding policing priorities in Halton. So if Halton ends up being covered by Merseyside Police and Merseyside Fire Service, will they really leave the borough in the lieutenancy county of Cheshire? We'll find out soon. Dgp4004 (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
A lot of things will become more clear in the next few years (e.g. what will happen to lieutenancy areas if- as is likely- West Berkshire is merged with Vale of White Horse and South Oxon to form Ridgeway?) Next major announcement is in July, I think.
I think for now we just need to focus on accurately reporting local government units, without trying to complicate things by mixing information unrelated to local government like lieutenancy in with it. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 21:24, 14 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
This is a really good point. We are currently in the middle of two simultaneous local government reforms and it is unclear (even perhaps to the government) exactly what it will look like on the other side. In time, it will become clear. Until then, no crystal balls. MRSC (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Then again, Runcorn in Halton is the most marginal parliamentary seat in the country (6 vote margin) and hotly contested between Labour and Reform. Moving Halton out of Cheshire will be extremely unpopular with the voters, even if it's just for policing. I doubt either party has the stomach for it. There will probably be another complicated fudge that will make things even worse for us. Or they'll merge all the forces into massive English regional forces just to avoid this sort of problem. Dgp4004 (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

the article covering both the strategic authority region and ceremonial county should probably be located at Cambridgeshire and Peterborough rather than at Cambridgeshire.

This is wrong. The primary frame of reference is local authority areas and ceremonial counties. Combined authorities are not of equal stature to local councils in all cases, being composed of groups of them and created with the consent of the constituent councils. We should not use combined authority areas as primary articles where this is not the case in reality and in secondary sources. The other thing to note is the addition of the 'strategic authority' wrapper (basically a devolution status on existing structures) has changed very little and we should not be giving undue weight to it. MRSC (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ceremonial counties are sometimes used as a frame of reference in general reporting not directly relating to local government, but they are not a unit of local government. I feel like it's unnecessarily confusing to direct readers looking for information about local government to articles about traditional regions that are now only used for ceremonial purposes rather than any government purposes.
Cambridgeshire non-metropolitan county is an area used for government (governed by a county council, led by Lucy Nethsingha).
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough is an area used for government (a combined authority - a form of strategic authority - led by Paul Bristow).
The lieutenancy area/ceremonial county called "Cambridgeshire" is sometimes used colloquially, but it isn't used for government. When writing about local government, the primary frame of reference should generally be what is actually used for local government. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 01:20, 17 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
These distinctions are best left for Wikidata, were there is no problem having a Cambridgeshire (Q21272276) item and another Cambridgeshire (Q23112) item plus a Cambridgeshire and Peterborough (Q56855521). MRSC (talk) 07:25, 17 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Devolution: One good article instead of three

edit
Latest comment: 8 days ago9 comments5 people in discussion

We've made a right hash of covering English devolution. Why do we need three articles all covering the same thing? All of these have the same list on them, for example. That need only exist in one place.

Can we, please, create one good article? MRSC (talk) 07:15, 14 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

It's because of how devolution itself happened, I think. Strategic authorities are defined by the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, which was passed in April. All of the authorities it defines are older, and therefore have separate articles.
My instinct is that we could have a single 'strategic authority' article with the CA/CCA and strategic authority articles merged into it, but the practicalities might change that. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Having considered it some more, I think we could do with a Strategic authority article replacing these three and a List of strategic authorities list article. That way the list (currently on Wikipedia in three places) is taken out and the article can focus on the details. MRSC (talk) 08:10, 14 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think the merger into one article to cover all is a sensible solution, along with a list if the article is too big. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Would support merging Strategic authority region back to Strategic authority, as it is a duplication of it. We didn't have a Combined authority area article.
Although would prefer actually a Combined authority article and a Combined county authority article, so they become more sub-articles on the specific legal designation, rather than the current basically "Strategic authorities -London", with Strategic authority being the main article instead. Less overlap, and allows summary explanation at SA and more specific details at the sub-articles? In the end, there are plenty of sub-articles on specific types of authorities.
So arranged as:
But understand that may be complicated considering CAs and CCAs have been intertwined (but not the same), but doesn't feel correct for Strategic authority to have pre-2026 stuff as they didn't exist then, nor did they replace CAs and CCAs. Also there is an early Draft:Devolution in England to add on the top, would should also include the previous failed devolution. If there has to be a catch-all article then it should be Devolution in England.
Note the RM at Combined authority to rename it to Strategic authority did fail, which can be seen as opposition to one article at the time. DankJae 14:03, 14 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
There is practically no difference at all between combined authorities and combined county authorities.
All combined county authorities are due to become combined authorities anyway because of local government restructuring. It really is a distinction without a difference. MRSC (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree with merging Combined authorities and combined county authorities into Strategic authority as there's not a lot of need for it to be a separate article.
More iffy on merging Strategic authority region because usually we have separate articles for geographic areas and their governing bodies. It is possible though, as that is done at Unitary authorities of England too. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 14:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm coming round to the view that Draft:Devolution in England would be a better place to explore the areas for devolution, along with the other major components (powers, funding, governance)..MRSC (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I wasn't aware that that draft existed; it's definitely a better structure than Devolution in the United Kingdom which until I restructured it a couple of weeks ago had a completely disastrous layout for the England section with speculative proposals from decades ago randomly interspersed with things which actually exist. It's slightly better now but still needs a lot of work. I agree Devolution in England would be a good central overview article. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 16:24, 14 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
  1. ↑ "Population Estimates for 1997 Lieutenancy areas in England and Wales, June 2024". Office for National Statistics. 18 November 2025. Retrieved 19 November 2025.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography&oldid=1360603659"