Category talk:Counties of England

I was wondering if this might not be overhauled? Firstly, I think that it should be divided into subcategories - Category:Traditional counties of England and Category:Ceremonial counties of England (we might have also "administrative counties" as a category, but that seems silly, since most of the "counties" which are not ceremonial counties aren't usually described as counties at all!). Within the categories, I'd suggest that we double up. So that Category:Bedfordshire is a subcategory of both the traditional counties and ceremonial counties categories, and Bedfordshire is an article in both categories. This is (or was until recently) explicitly deemed the proper way to do things in Categorization. john k 22:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea to me. Don't forget to make the two new categories sub-categories of this one. Thryduulf 30 June 2005 15:00 (UTC)

Towns and villages, a confusing and unnecessary distinction
I notice that each county has a sub category towns in... and villages in... . It seems to me that this is a bit daft. The lists in question are not so large that they could not be combined. I was puzzling exsctly where the division lies with a small town or large village. Most of all i think this is unhelpfull to a reader. If someone wants to find out about a particular place, do they look under town or village? Untill you read about the place you may not know enough about it to decide where to look. Any system which requires people to search unnecessarily in different places is bad. Especially if they start reading through the list, find towns in.., the place is not there, and give up because they did not notice the additional category of villages. Sandpiper 19:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)