Talk:List of hundreds of England

How to title Hundred pages
,, , , , , , I think we here have a Wikipedia anomaly that probably needs a general addressing with wider discussion. It seems that title headings here are a bit of a mess. Pages variously, for example, would include styles such as 'Tornelaus Hundred', 'Tornelaus (hundred)', 'Hundred of Tornelaus', or simply 'Tornelaus'. I think there needs to be consistency and consensus. Any thoughts on this? I have copied in major contributors to this list, and some who seem to have a particular interest in place articles. Acabashi (talk) 12:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * When I worked on the hundreds a few years ago (around 2012 I think) the sources tended to use either "Foo Hundred" or "Hundred of Foo", though some sources would use "hundred of Foo". If the source used "Hundred of Foo" I would assume that was the formal name, and if they used "hundred of Foo" I assumed that Foo was the formal name and the "hundred of" part was simply a descriptor. If the hundred's name is unique, then it doesn't really matter, but some hundreds have the same name as a parish or village so a disambiguation is needed. We have a Danais (hundred) which in some sources is given as "hundred of Danais"  while in other sources is given as "Hundred of Danais" . Which is not helpful! When a disambiguation is needed we use the guidance at WP:QUALIFIER which offers "natural" (Hundred of Danais), though if that is not possible ("when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title") then "parenthetical" (Danais (hundred); and at WP:PLACEDAB which suggests "When there are conventional means of disambiguation in standard English, use them, as in Red River of the North", so - again - "Hundred of Danais" would be favourite as it is a conventional method of disambiguation; even though at times it is shown as "hundred of Danais", is not shown in sources as "Danais (hundred)". As such "Hundred of Danais" would be the preferred disambiguation in this instance and underlies the thinking behind using "Hundred of Foo" as a standard disambiguation, which I think is what I did back in 2012. I should think that any uses of "Foo (hundred)" would be more recent creations. I hope that helps. Please ping me if you require more input. SilkTork (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that we should have redirects from the unused plausible forms ("Hundred of Foo", "Foo Hundred", "Foo (hundred)", dab page entry or hatnote at "Foo", as applicable) for each hundred, to help the reader and to reduce the chance of careless creation of a duplicate article. I see that some links in county lists of hundreds are just a link to the current place of the name (on phone as I type so not going back to hunt for examples). I don't know whether there's any one format we could declare to be the country-wide style for " the common name" for hundreds, or whether there's any point trying to standardise. Pam D  14:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The guideline at WP:UKDISTRICTS suggests "Hundred" is only used when its needed for disambiguation otherwise just use the simple name, thus "Tornelaus" not "Tornelaus Hundred". Therefore if the name without "Hundred" is preferred in the title it would surely in running text. Even The Beatles prefers a lower case "the" in running text even though "The" is treated as part of the name.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, I'd like to see just the name without "hundred" where possible, with redirects from other likely forms. Where a disambiguator is needed, it would be good to standardise - I'm doubtful that either "Hundred of Foo" or "Foo Hundred" ever really had more official status, but I'd love to see some evidence for which to pick, or whether to go for Foo (hundred). Warofdreams talk 13:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Split or re-integrate
The organisation of this list seems confusing, it is set out as if it is two lists in one article, so indicative that there should be two lists List of hundreds of England and List of hundreds of Wales, so propose a split based on the current list format. If Wales is to be grouped best to have it as its own. It appears the list was originally more integrated upon publication in 2005 with English and Welsh counties intertwined, however in 2012 it became largely sectioned into English counties, and Wales moved to the bottom. Aside the likely chance that the original source list covered England and Wales, this list now seems of multiple sources rather than based on one.

I am not opposed to "England and Wales" articles (like others) but this long-standing structure seems quite odd. Ofc, fully fine with re-integration where Wales' counties are mixed back into the English ones, so it is organised as if it were England and Wales, rather than England plus Wales. Also considering that Wales' came much later rather than at the same time as England.

Those in Flintshire, historically aligned with Cheshire, but in modern-day Wales, can be in both, but with a note.

Alternatively Hundreds of Wales, could be spun off like Hundreds of Cheshire, while keeping this list, although would seem redundant keeping the section here. I could possibly bold split, but wanted to check for any opposition before proceeding. Thanks  Dank Jae  14:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Splitting seems like a good option. There do not appear to be many other "list of... England and Wales" articles like this one – most seem to have already been split, or merged into UK lists. A spin-off article would have little value unless the content was expanded to include details on areas and parishes. If opting not to split, an alternative to re-integrating would be to add a level 2 header for England and move the individual counties down a level, this would make it read less like Wales was a subdivision of England. It would also help if the maps of England and Wales were given equal status at the top of the article and the individual maps added for the Welsh counties.EdwardUK (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Edward's view; I think I would prefer to see England and Wales split in this instance.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  23:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @EdwardUK, I'll try to see if I could add anything to a spin-off but in the end this is just a list, so it being just a list of hundreds is a bit expected, although with this one being quite long could also be an argument. However, if you're open to a split, while @Tony Holkham, prefers such, is that enough to proceed? I usually wait a month for splits, so if there are no additional comments by 18 January, I guess I'll split it? Although what should be done with the redirect with the current title (edit history would be with the England list), a DAB or to Hundred (county division)?  Dank Jae  19:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Just came across this. What immediately struck me was the first map basically showing hundreds of England with nothing for Wales except those which appear to be straddling the border, which doesn't look right. Looking back over the history of the article, at first no distiction was made between England and Wales; the Welsh hundreds were originally listed within Welsh counties with all counties in alphabetical order. In 2015 the Welsh ones were put under a separate heading The Cantrefi of Wales, changed to The Hundreds of Wales in 2018. What I think has changed the dynamic here is the addition of the England 1086 map on 28 May 2020 and a separate map for Wales. The Hundreds of Wales heading is the same level as an English county, which doesn't seem right; therefore, I support this split. Rupples (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Rupples, welcome! with two days to go! Yes I mentioned that this article was originally more integrated, which is why I also offered that as a solution, but I feel a split would be more helpful to readers, plus would work better than having two maps and two leads in one as it is now.  Dank Jae  18:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Happened to notice the discussion listed on UKGEOG. I should have properly read your nicely balanced rationale rather than skimming. Went through the article history independently and could have saved myself the effort. Missed the point about the two maps being of different eras and based on separate sources, which lends weight to a split to avoid confusion. By the way, which of the "Ofc" definitions are you using? — Wasn't aware of the abbreviation so had to look the meaning up. Rupples (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Obviously the first one.  Dank Jae  21:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Great! It was a tongue-in-cheek question :) Rupples (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Now split, with the original title being a DAB.  Dank Jae  12:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Good job. Much clearer having the two articles and wikilinking in the See also. Rupples (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)