This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles
The recent merging into this article of the list of counties with their populations etc has resulted in a key set of information being lost, namely how each county is comprised. This really needs sorting somehow, possibly by adding a column to the (inserted) list with the information from prior to the recent edit added directly to this column? Sumorsǣte (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I notice the heavy, if not exclusive, use of primary sources in this article, which has led to a not insignificant amount of original research. I have no doubt that much of that personal interpretation can be backed by quality secondary sources, which would help improve this article. I will see what I can do but if anyone else has the time and energy, any input would be welcome. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the consensus on Wikipedia to use the informal term 'ceremonial counties'?[edit]
So far as I can tell, Wikipedia and the OS are the only bodies that regularly use the term 'ceremonial county'. From an outside perspective this is a slightly strange convention, as the use of an unofficial term complicates the already complicated terminology surrounding England's administrative areas past and present.
What's the history of the use of this term on Wikipedia? Does it continue in use because it serves a useful purpose, or because of inertia? Is it time for a change? A.D.Hope (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not particularly, though either 'lieutenancy counties' or lieutenancy areas' could be an appropriate contraction of 'counties and areas for the purposes of the lieutenancies'.A.D.Hope (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ceremonial counties of England → Lieutenancy counties – The term 'ceremonial county' is not an official name or widely-used informal name, so is inappropriate as the article title. Ordnance Survey seems to be the only body which uses the term outside Wikipedia, but even the link which suggests this in the article is now broken.
The difficulty is finding an appropriate name to move the article to. One option would be to use the name given in the relevant legislation but amended to refer to England rather than Great Britain, so 'Counties and areas for the purposes of the lieutenancies in England'. This is unwieldy, however.
Another option, which I prefer, would be to create a more succinct title which accurately conveys that these are the counties used to appoint lord-lieutenants. Lieutenancy counties could work, but Lieutenancy counties of England or some other variation may also do the job. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : To add to my main point above, I believe that this move would also help make articles on English local government areas clearer. The structure of local government in England is currently very complicated, as I'm sure many of you know, with multiple layers which sometimes overlap and often have similar names. In that context using an ambiguous and unofficial term such as 'ceremonial county' is unhelpful. 'Lieutenancy Counties' is also unofficial, of course, but it does at least give a clearer idea of the purpose of these counties and is closer to the name given in the legislation. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did look at 'areas', but as the legislation relating to England uses the term 'counties' I wonder if it's best to continue referring to them as such. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Lieutenancy areas of England Britannica uses "geographical counties" but the act that created ceremonial counties uses "Lieutenancy" in the title namely Lieutenancies Act 1997. "Ceremonial counties" doesn't seem to be common today and appears to have come from the OS and we use "ceremonial county" even though the act doesn't even mention "ceremonial", something I've been concerned about. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support To me the main point of your suggestion is the complexity and ambiguity within UK local govt, compounded by the use of similar words to mean different things. For that reason I think we are justified in not following the 'common usage' principal but using the 'official' definitions instead. That might create an element of artificiality with some of the phrases used in articles but it will help in making it clear to readers what exactly is being stated. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The proposals in the lead are 'Counties and areas for the purposes of the lieutenancies in England', 'Lieutenancy county', and 'Lieutenancy counties of England', not 'Lieutenancy area'. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Just as one datapoint I've always referred to them as ceremonial counties; I've no clue what "Lieutenancy counties" means and I've never heard the phrase used. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised you haven't heard the term - it's hardly rare: not frequently used but certainly not infrequently used either. It is the official term and this, after all, is meant to be an encyclopedia, not the local gossip rag. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Official names are relevant, they just shouldn't be used by default. From the policy: 'official English names are candidates for what to call an article, because somebody presumably uses them. They should always be considered as possibilities, but should be used only if they are actually the name most commonly used.' A.D.Hope (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My point, YorkshireExpat, that you are missing, was that the term would be in circulation somewhere because it is official, thus making it not unknown. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wrap this up for everyone. Roger 8 Roger is clearly inferring that offcial names hold more weight. WP:OFFICIALNAMES basically says that the article title should be the most commonly used name, which could be the official name. I believe, with evidence provided, that 'Ceremonial Counties' is the most commonly used name for the described entity in England. Some people seem to be more inclined to 'Lieutenancy Areas'. I have never heard that term used. YorkshireExpat (talk) 08:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not inferring anything about the weight we should give to the term due to its official standing. I am saying that the term is in circulation in many sources which means you should have come across it if you had any interest at all in UK local govt or history. This is an encyclopedia where we can all assume a certain level of intelligence in other editors, meaning we can assume they read newspapers, magazines, listen to the news, and to documentaries, all in which the term will be used. Incidentally, policy on article titles is There is often more than one appropriate title for an article. In that case, editors choose the best title by consensus based on the considerations that this page explains. That is what we are doing here, reaching consensus, because 'Lieutency' is a recognised name for most people. If you don't recognise it then see my comment just made above. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Lieutenancy counties of England". Strongly oppose "Lieutenancy counties". Strongly oppose "Lieutenancy areas of England".
Lieutenancy counties of England: Although the request says Ordnance Survey seems to be the only body which uses the term outside Wikipedia a comment higher up this talk page (#Ceremonial county or Lieutenancy area) also refers to Hansard debates and National statistics. Google searches find:
"lieutenancy county": 950 pages of which 5 on Wikipedia and 13 on .gov.uk
"lieutenancy counties": 906 pages of which 21 on Wikipedia and 15 on .gov.uk
"ceremonial county": 858,000 pages of which 10,300 on Wikipedia and 1,980 on .gov.uk
"ceremonial counties": 47,900 pages of which 4,770 on Wikipedia and 201 on .gov.uk
Even on .gov.uk that's an enormous majority for "ceremonial".
I know Google isn't a reliable source and I know that some of the above results will be mirrors of Wikipedia, but even after taking account of that, this nevertheless suggests that "lieutenancy county" is used much, much less than "ceremonial county". We should be using the name "lieutenancy county" only if we can establish that reliable sources use that term more than "ceremonial county".
Also, if we do rename to "Lieutenancy counties of England", it's likely to have a knock-on effect. I suspect there will be editors who will start searching for all the articles that use the term "ceremonial county" and replace by "lieutenancy county". An article rename shouldn't need that to happen (there will be a redirect) but I suspect it will happen anyway. A mass search-&-replace just seems like a waste of editors' time without much benefit to show for it.
"Lieutenancy counties": Ambiguous, as there are lieutenancy counties in Wales as well.
"Lieutenancy areas of England": In Scotland they are "areas", but in England and Wales they are counties. This is spelled out in the Lieutenancy Act, see https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/23. The Act refers to "counties or areas" only when referring to the whole of GB; the parts of the document referring specifically to England or Wales refer just to "counties". Removing the word "county" from the Wikipedia article title is likely to cause problems. We seem to have a Wikipedia convention that in England we identify locations primarily via ceremonial county rather than any other type of county, and there's an assumption that "county" means "ceremonial county" unless explicitly stated otherwise or it is implicit from the context. Those conventions are likely to be questioned if our article is renamed "Lieutenancy areas of England". (In fact the existing article "Lieutenancy areas" really ought to be renamed "Lieutenancy counties and areas", but that's for another day.)
Firstly, thank you for giving a thorough opinion, I appreciate it. I fully respect your vote and I'm not aiming to change it, but I do think this is a good moment to discuss the sources. There's quite a lot to get through, so you'll have to forgive me for focussing on Hansard
I've had a look through Hansard using its own search function, and most of the results for 'ceremonial county' are, as you may expect, people using 'ceremonial' and 'county' separately in the same speech. The earliest concrete reference I can find for the full term dates from 2011, and it wasn't used again until 2015. Usage has picked up slightly since, but we're still not looking at big numbers; there are 24 hits from 2016 to 2022, and they're definitely not all for 'ceremonial county' as a single phrase. I suppose the question is how often the lieutenancy counties have been debated, and whether perhaps 15 uses of the phrase is a lot in that context.
A second point is that many of the references to 'ceremonial county' come from a handful of individuals, such as Lord Greenhalgh. It's worth considering whether he was using the term technically or just as a personal preference, since the former surely carries more weight than the latter.
I did have a quick look at gov.uk, and at first glance it seems that a lot of the hits may come from a single quote repeatedly used by the Department for Communities and Local Government in press releases issued when county flags were flown outside the department, for example. It's not the only source, but very prominent in the first few pages of hits. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We should keep it as simple as we can and these are areas most everyday people relate to when referring to a general purpose county. Lieutenancy is just a ceremonial process after all, so the term is relevant. Regards,
I can't say I agree that 'Lieutenancy county' is any more esoteric than 'ceremonial county' is. Their official name is 'Counties and areas for the purposes of the lieutenancies in England', after all. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You raised the point about the official name above in your nomination. But under our article name policy that's not particularly relevant.
We can't just call these counties. But I don't think there's any question that the term counties belongs in the title, we just need to disambiguate it somehow. What does lieutenancy mean to the reader with common familiarity with the subject? I suggest, almost nothing. That's why I called the term 'Lieutenancy county' esoteric. Obviously it means something to those with above-average knowledge of the topic, otherwise it would not be the official name. But we are a general encyclopedia, and don't just cater for them. Andrewa (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that 'Lieutenancy' in this context means 'relating to a lieutenant', which these counties do. It's not an obscure or esoteric word, and as part of a title it's surely no worse than non-metropolitan.
'Ceremonial' is not a bad word in itself, but could really mean anything. It doesn't indicate what aspect of the ceremonial administration of the UK these counties are relevant to. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that 'relating to a lieutenant' is uninformative to the average reader. A lieutenant is in common usage a military rank. It can also mean deputy but that is less common. These counties are not under martial law. The use of lieutenant in this context would arguably be even worse (as in more esoteric) than Lieutenancy. But both are, in terms of wp:NC, unrecognisable in this context.
Just suppose that it is no worse than that other example, two wrongs still do not make a right. Even if there were no other considerations, and there are. But if you feel that the other example should be moved, propose it. Andrewa (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what you mean, sorry. I have proposed the move, from 'ceremonial counties' to some variant of 'lieutenancy counties'.
I don't follow your logic in claiming 'lieutenant' is esotetic, either. Why would the average reader assume the word applied to counties under martial law? Even if they did, the lead would soon correct them. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am similarly at a loss as to your logic. I think you must be assuming that Lieutenancy has some clear and accurate meaning to the average reader. But I find that an incredible claim.
I do think that 'Lieutenancy' has a clear enough meaning to be used in an article title. Based on the discussion above I thought that 'lieutenancy', and by extension 'lieutenant', was the part of the phrase 'lieutenancy counties' which you believed to be esoteric. I'm sorry if my inadvertent switch from 'lieutenancy' to 'lieutenant' was confusing, although I don't think it much changes the meaning of what I wrote.
In any case, I doubt we're going to agree so it may be best to leave things here. We've each explained our point thoroughly enough for the closing editor to make an informed decision either way, surely. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that there have been several bold moves and much discussion but no RMs. Hopefully this RM will lead to stability, which is why I said rightly above. Andrewa (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
