Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places)/Archive 1

message: We should state that the county that a place is in is its historic county. The idea is that these historic counties are timeless standards with little cause for confusion. We also won't have to update Wikipedia every time the boundaries change. Such an approach also results in sensible outcomes whereby York and Leeds are in Yorkshire, Leicester is in Leicestershire, the isle of Bute is in Buteshire, etc.
This approach clearly deliniates between traditional and administrative counties, eachoing the similarly clear deliniation made by successive acts of law and government statements, from 1888 onwards.
Supporters of this approach: User:80.255, User:Owain, User:Trilobite (long after the debate concluded, but I object to the policy).
Cons:
*The approach can cause confusion. The historic and administrative lineages split further and significantly in 1974. Thus some claim that the use of historic names has little resonance for those under the age of 35, although supporters of this approach would argue that this facts is disputed . For these people the historic county names and locations are interesting snippets of historical information, to be mentioned in relevant articles - but no more than that.
**I don't see how mentioning traditional counties could cause confusion - the Royal Mail for example have the correct traditional county on file for every postcode in the country so they can and should be used in addresses. The administrative areas on the other hand are just going to get less useful as more and more unitary authorities are introduced. Where is Tredegar? In Caerphilly? No it isn't, that's a completely different town 10-plus miles away. Where is Derby, Leicester, Blackpool, etc? Administrative areas are useless for this purpose, but a single well-defined county name that is independednt of local government is a perfect solution. The fact that it's different from local government boundaries is a strength not a weakness. User:Owain
*The boundaries do not change frequently. In fact once a decade is a reasonable average. Compare that on average a Prime Minister is in office for about five years. We obviously keep the Prime Minister and related articles up to date! This 'advantage' is phantom.
**Why should people have to re-learn where they live just because of a current political trend? Local government areas are supposed to be for efficient delivery of certain services, not as a general identifier of where a place is. The fact that unitary authories exist now that aren't descriptive is reason enough not to use them even if there were no further boundary changes for a thousand years! User:Owain
*The "timeless standard" is also somewhat dubious - see the Counties of England paragraph to appreciate how difficult it is define exactly which counties where are the historic ones - after all historic counties are just administrative counties from 800 years ago.  - this article was created by Morwen using generally unrepresentative snippets from replies of 80.255 that were not intended to stuck together in such a way. Thus, it is unnecessary confusing. For the purposes of this debate, I suggest that the 'timeless standard' is taken to be that of 1887, a year before the creation of administrative counties, User:80.255.
**Wouldn't that timeless standard then include Bristol? Morwen 12:13, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)
***I don't see why not as long as it's pointed out where Bristol is geographically (i.e. straddling the Gloucestershire/Somerset border) User:Owain
**** 1887 is hardly "timeless". -- Tarquin 17:26, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Approach 2