Template talk:Counties of England

Template:Counties of England has been protected indefinitely because it is a highly-used or visible template. Use {{Edit request}} on this page to request an edit.

Issues with the Isle of Wight

Comment There are issues with the Isle of Wight, better to have "Buildings on the Isle of Wight" instead of "Buildings in the Isle of Wight", where the equivalent mainland cat is "Buildings in Hampshire". A true fix will require a major rewrite of the template, and adjustment of existing uses - this can be done, but isn't "quick".

The following quick hack allows functionality for splitting IOW from the rest, by adding an additional parameter IOWprefix:

Change:

[[{{{prefix}}} the Isle of Wight {{{suffix|}}}|Isle of Wight]] ·

and

{{#ifexist:{{{prefix}}} the Isle of Wight {{{suffix|}}}|[[{{{prefix}}} the Isle of Wight {{{suffix|}}}|Isle of Wight]] ·}}

to

[[{{{IOWprefix|{{{prefix}}}}}} the Isle of Wight {{{suffix|}}}|Isle of Wight]] ·

and

{{#ifexist:{{{IOWprefix|{{{prefix}}}}}} the Isle of Wight {{{suffix|}}}|[[{{{IOWprefix|{{{prefix}}}}}} the Isle of Wight {{{suffix|}}}|Isle of Wight]] ·}}

respectively.

If IOWprefix is not defined, it falls back to the same prefix as everything else.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Done the above, also protected the template (high use).--Nilfanion (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Former counties

I think this template should distinguish between the pre- and post- 1974 counties. Most of the items currently listed under current counties haven't actually moved physically, only the name of where they were has changed. It would seem to make sense that we reflect the current position, and reserve pre-1974 names for strictly historical items, e.g. Lord Lieutenants and High Sherrifs thereof.

Category:Huntingdonshire is a case in point; it only now exists as a subdivision of Cambridgeshire, and anything specific to its status as a former county in its own right should be kept there, for historical reference, but anything that now is geographically within Cambridgeshire should be categorised therein.

Ideas? Rodhullandemu (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Metacat

This template should include {{Metacat}}. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ordering

Is there any good reason why London is at the end of the list instead of in its alphabetical position? Ghouston (talk) 06:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolk - missing presumed drowned

I notice that Norfolk is missing from this template on Category:English Heritage sites in Norfolk. Presumably an issue to do with it being listed as "Norfolk, England" on this template. Pasicles (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Entries missing

When used on the county categories the entries for "East Riding of Yorkshire", "Isle of Wight" and "West Midlands" are missing. I guess it is to do with "the" before these entries not being ignored in this case. Keith D (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{Edit request}} Think that this can be solved, apart from the Isle of Wight case, by replacing "the" in the various entries that use "the" with the following code -

{{#ifeq: {{lc: {{{prefix}}} }} | :category: | | the }}

Keith D (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed --Jarekt (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{Counties of England|prefix=:Category:|all=1}} gives

{{Counties of England|prefix=:Category:Towns and villages in|all=1}} gives

More former counties

{{Edit request}} Can Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely‎, Cleveland, England‎, County of London, East Suffolk‎, Hereford and Worcester, Hexhamshire (county)‎, Huntingdon and Peterborough, Isle of Ely‎, Parts of Holland‎, Parts of Kesteven‎, Parts of Lindsey‎, Soke of Peterborough, West Suffolk‎, Hullshire, Hallamshire and Winchcombeshire please be added to the historic counties part and and other ones there are. Allertonshire and Howdenshire don't appear to have ever been counties though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think if we're going to do this (a) we should know if there are any files that would be sensibly categorised in the historic counties as opposed to the current ones, and (b) perhaps the time has come to follow the example in Scotland, where historic counties (should, and will eventually) form a separate hierarchy, and split English historic counties into their own template. Otherwise, readers are going to be presented with a mass of possibly confusing non-current information. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The historic maps do clearly fit into the historic counties but their former child administrative units will probably mostly be categorized under their current parent unit. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please modify Template:Counties of England/sandbox. --Jarekt (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Modification as proposed. The vast majority of uses of this template are "<concept> in <county>" categories (Buildings in, Rivers of, etc). None of those would have files that would sensibly belong in the historical counties as well; making the additions superfluous for 99.9% of transclusions. The exceptions are pretty much exclusively the county categories themselves and map subcategories. It would be best to handle historic counties via an entirely separate template. This has at least two major advantages:

It removes superfluous code, and the temptation for uses to create pointless categories like Category:Grade I listed buildings in Hereford and Worcester.
It allows the historic counties to be sensibly grouped. Any list that includes Cumberland and Westmorland should also include Dorset and Norfolk. Avon and Cleveland should not be listed alongside West Suffolk.

The en.wp templates are a much better solution - cf w:Template:England counties, w:Template:England counties/1974, w:Template:England counties/1889 and w:Template:England counties/ancient.

Oh and Rodhullandemu - England is much more difficult that Scotland, because the names used for the historical entities are in still in use with different borders. The only harm in having this in Category:Churches in Banffshire in addition to Category:Churches in Aberdeenshire is that is asserts the POV that Banffshire still exists. In contrast, having this in Category:Churches in Berkshire introduces the same POV concern but also pollutes the category which is meant to be for the current ceremonial county.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Category:Grade I listed buildings in Hereford and Worcester would be unhelpful as redlinks are supposed to show readers and editors what pages should be created. However on the ones that I checked only the pages that exist show up (see Category:Village halls in East Sussex and Category:Saint Margaret churches in Lincolnshire for example). The category anyway states "Categories that do not exist are suppressed." so they won't show up unless for example {{Counties of England|prefix=:Category:Towns and villages in|all=1}} is used. Also the next note about some pre 1974 counties being missing needs to be changed (but we need to make sure all are added, I used the templates noted above so find most of them). I will edit the sandbox as instructed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be far better to not include any historical counties in this template. Instead have a separate template (or a set) for them: A 1974 county list starting "Avon, Bedfordshire, Berkshire,"; a 1889 list including "Hertfordshire, Huntingdonshire..." and so on.

Historical counties are irrelevant to the majority of actual (or potential) uses of this template. Those cases where historical info is useful, like Category:Maps of Cumberland can be handled by including a separate historic county template. @Jarekt: please decline the request.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I (to some extent) disagree, the template clearly makes out the former counties and given that it does remove entries that don't exist, it seems useful and meaningful. As far as I can see it would be easer to keep 1 template rather than splitting.

But they as noted don't show up unless the exist and so will only be used when needed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consider just the 3 following counties: Avon, Huntingdonshire and Somerset. Avon belongs alongside Somerset but not Huntingdonshire. Huntingdonshire belongs alongside Somerset but not Avon. Somerset belongs by itself as "current", and in addition to that alongside Avon but not Huntingdonshire, and alongside Huntingdonshire but not Avon. That's three entirely separate lists, which will have a lot of duplication. Just putting all the historical in a list on the end is awful layout.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, are you talking about when they were formed/abolished or what? I wasn't proposing a change of the layout, just adding the missing ones to the list. I can't see how having the former counties on the end makes a mess, just having 2 lists should work. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is how template actually look on Category:Maps of Cumberland? That template should contain Cumberland within a list of other equivalent counties - so "..., Cornwall, Cumberland, Derbyshire...". It should not have "...Cornwall, Cumbria, Derbyshire...", with Cumberland itself tacked clumsily on the end.

However, the Cornwall list should prioritise the current "...Cornwall, Cumrbia, Derbyshire...". That's two completely different layouts. Therefore two different templates.

Just whacking a list of historical units on the end of a list of current units is the wrong approach entirely--Nilfanion (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this case are you saying that only the counties that existed at a given time for a template like w:Template:England counties/ancient would be on it? Noting for example that Rutland and Herefordshire and Worcestershire for example were abolished and then recreated.

Yes I agree which is why they go first and former ones go later.

As far as I can see it looks good and works well. As I said I wouldn't really object to splitting but I think keeping them in 1 would look better and be more informative. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is there are NOT two mutually exclusive classes of counties which can be labelled "current" and "historic". There are several classes of counties, which all have heavy overlap. For example Oxfordshire belongs in all classifications of county, so Oxfordshire is every bit as much a historic county as Middlesex. To exclude Oxfordshire from a list of historic counties, because it is a ceremonial county, is incorrect. To include two complete lists is overkill, so don't include the second list at all!--Nilfanion (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oxfordshire is a current county so there would be no need to list it on the historical counties (as well). Maybe "former counties" would be a better description as any old county (like Oxfordshire) appears to be a historic county. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To use the word "Former" is to assert POV - to be avoided. More seriously, there are several classes of counties. Avon has nothing in common with Cumberland, but both have quite a lot in common with Kent. The "current" list is well structured. The "historic" list is anything but, and adding more without a fundamental re-structuring will make it worse, much worse. That would reach absurd proportions if the template included non-counties (like the Yorkshire Ridings or Lincolnshire Parts).--Nilfanion (talk) 10:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How would you prefer it to be structured (if we keep just 1 template). Why is there a problem with the word "former"?, that is used for example w:Category:Former civil parishes in England. Yes I agree that Cumberland is like Kent in the sense that they are both historic counties and Avon isn't but the fact that both Cumberland and Avon don't exist anymore surely is the main thing rather than other historical features that make them similar. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Former" plainly states that the things no longer exist. There is a POV that Cumberland, Middlesex etc still exist, so to assert they are "former" and not "historic" is to assert the opposite POV as opposed to being neutral. It should be clear by now at least two templates (and probably 4 or more) are needed - there is zero change of me agreeing to one template with a clumsy list tacked on the end, when a suite of well-designed templates can deal with this situation MUCH more effectively.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I understand that people still think of and would like Middlesex to exist but this template is about the counties themselves, however this template might be used on say for example cricket grounds where Middlesex does still exist. It however is that we present current and former counties as such (see this for example). Although I personally still think that 1 template would work, I think multiple would in some ways be better, feel free to split (and make the relevant changes to the protected template) and we can call this request closed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed {{Edit request}} for time being please reach consensus and decide how to proceed before requesting again. --Jarekt (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nilfanion is also an admin so when we reach a consensus on what to do, Nilfanion can make the changes. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the former counties should be in a separate template. This avoids confusion and also POV pushing. Whether there should be more than one template for those counties, I am undecided at present. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support the split idea. Anything past 1974 is not going to have another of those categories while the former ones only exist in historical stuff which is fewer. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolk

Because the template links everything with "Norfolk, England" but as noted at Category talk:Norfolk, England we probably shouldn't include the England disambiguator unless needed (like for Category:Civil parishes in Norfolk but the template still links ", England", is it possible to change this or should the civil parish cat be moved back? Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avon

{{Edit request}} Avon needs to be changed to Avon (county), piped like Norfolk is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Common Good (talk) 07:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

West Midlands

{{Edit request}} Please change the link for West Midlands to default to "West Midlands (county)" but to then fall back to "West Midlands" similar to {{US states}} first tries "Mississippi (state)" then falls back to "Mississippi". I am moving the categories according to the CFD but it will take a while to finish moving them all. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale: Has this already been actioned? Please ping me in your response. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: Its now been fixed, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale: Thanks for confirming. In that case, I've deactivated the edit request template. I hope that you have a fantastic rest of your week! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TheSandDoctor I forgot to deactivate the template. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

West Riding of Yorkshire

{{Edit request}} Can someone fix it so that West Riding of Yorkshire can include "the"? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to work as intended. If you could explain what the issue is, that'd be great. 1989 (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Counties of England

Contents

Issues with the Isle of Wight

Former counties

Metacat

Ordering

Norfolk - missing presumed drowned

Entries missing

More former counties

Norfolk

Avon

West Midlands

West Riding of Yorkshire

Navigation menu

Template talk:Counties of England

Issues with the Isle of Wight

Former counties

Metacat

Ordering

Norfolk - missing presumed drowned

Entries missing

More former counties

Norfolk

Avon

West Midlands

West Riding of Yorkshire

Navigation menu

Search