Template talk:Infobox English county

Only one admin_hq allowed?
If a ceremonial county has a county council and one (or more) UAs, there will be more than one admin HQ. But the template only permits one? What am I missing? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Double trouble
As of 1 April, Buckinghamshire County Council becomes Buckinghamshire Council, a Unitary Authority. So if I change the infobox to remove county_council= and replace it with unitary1=, all the information ceases to appear (see right). Advice needed! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * can you show what has disappeared? Keith D (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The crest county arms for starters. Just plug county_council=Buckinghamshire in the example above to see what reappears, all the original info is still there, just not displayed.
 * There is a discussion running at talk: Buckinghamshire, maybe let that come to resolution first. Solution may be to have two infoboxes, one fro the Liutenancy and another for the UA of the same name. That would recover the 'county' info like admin_hq etc. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Problem resolved. The county article infobox is now ceremonial only, there is a new Buckinghamshire Council article for the politics with its own infobox. The Arms are of the old County Council (not the Lieutenancy) so the image has been dropped correctly. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Formatting and grammar
On Kent, I'm currently seeing:
 * Population	1581555
 * • Ranked	1th of 26

The population number needs commas and "1th" should be "1st". Not sure how this is getting generated. -- Beland (talk) 07:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like the ordinal problem is with the English admin counties template update on 17 July 2020. I have fixed those I think. Keith D (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It was the same edit that removed the commas from the numbers. Keith D (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Website
I have stumbled across Lieutenancy websites, the infobox only allows for websites of the county authority. Surely these merit being in the infoboxes. Place can a lieutenancy/ ceremonial website field be added to the template, need to make sure it is not hidden when they is no Non-metropolitan county/unitary authority section like the other one if copying the code over. Chocolateediter (talk) 09:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The Lieutenancy of a county (representative of the Queen) is not the same as that county. So it would be confusing for people to click on a link in a county's infobox leading to a website about something else. Rcsprinter123   (gossip)  12:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * For example, Buckinghamshire contains two UAs. The website for Buckinghamshire Council covers just three quarters of the ceremonial county. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I have just corrected the URL for Buckinghamshire, but the change is not obvious. How is it displayed? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Template parameter query - largest city vs largest town
Hi. Trying to keep it brief. Finally, I am sorry if this is all a bit of an FAQ and/or sounds gormless but it's one of those wikipedia-classic moments where it is probably nice and obvious as long as you already know it ... I would really appreciate your help here. Thanks and best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes, I am a klutz at templates and how they work, sorry;
 * 2) I have a simple objective, which is in the infobox of the article Northumberland to change the label for where Blyth is mentioned from Largest city to Largest town since the former is wrong and the latter correct: Blyth is not a city.
 * 3) Just changing city to town in the parameter name doesn't work, obvs.
 * 4) I can't see where it even getting Largest city from; it doesn't seem to be listed here and, bizarrely (to me) I can't even find it in the parent template either, but that might well just be me being thick.
 * 5) I vaguely understand that if I could find where these parameters live then I could edit the template (or, more realistically, ask for it to be edited) so that Largest town is available, but I Can't even Get Started on that when I can't even see where it is picking up Largest city from.
 * 6) Help, please!
 * 7) Note: people dealing with UK placenames already know why it cannot say Blyth is a city: in the UK it is simply not one. For others, this is well explained at City status in the United Kingdom.
 * Update – I have tried asking the same question at Template talk:Infobox settlement. DBaK (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Nothing worse than undocumentated parameters. From looks of the source code though, it would be trivial to edit it so the label was "largest settlement". As someone did for part of the template at this edit but which presumable only took effect on some instances of the template. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I aim to fix this, by having largest_city and largest_town. That way either can be filled in. Filling in both would not itself be harmful or especially evil. Thoughts? Cake? Fireballs? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 22:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like the output is dependent on other parameters as at 4 different points it is output, which as noted above is Settlement on one case. May be easier to just add a label parameter, that defaults to City. Keith D (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Soooo ... thanks, and  for the replies ...  whom do I now attempt to bribe with chocolate or marmalade (etc etc) to do this? (T&Cs apply, offer not available in all territories.) Or, putting it more seriously, what – if anything – can or should I do to try to further this idea, given that I need someone competent (i.e. NotMe&trade;) to undertake the actual fiddling with  ? Is there a formal process or do I just go on Asking Nicely, or what?? Cheers, DBaK (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Should be straightforward, we do have a limited and well defined set of uses for the template! Happy to take bribes. Cake is good. Maybe tomorrow. Next few days are a bit full though. Maybe Thursday — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 10:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The case of settlement has been changed back to city in this edit. Keith D (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorted. The sandbox version now accepts both largest_city and largest_town. It displays only the city if both should get set. I moved code so that there is now no dependency on any other parameters. See the test page. If that seems OK, I will update the live version and then update the documentation to match — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 17:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! The sandbox versions are looking great to me, though obviously I do not have the specialist knowledge to understand all the implications. Thank you so much for your efforts,, and I will continue to watch with interest. Cheers DBaK (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Since the poll was 100% in favour, I have made the change live. I even added them both to the documentation! — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 18:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Fantastic, thanks ... the mountains hath travailed, and brought forth a ... Blyth! I'm most grateful to you for sorting this out. Bribe-O-Cake&trade; to be arranged when geography permits. And Documentation? DOCUMENTATION?? ... just swooning here, really. Cheers DBaK (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Where is the Executive section filled from?
Hi, just wondering how you change the name of the Executive of a Unitary Council when there appears to be nowhere for this content to come from.

I have been trying to change the Executive section of the infobox in the Isle of Wight article from 'Conservative' to 'Alliance Coalition' to reflect the recent changes in government since the 2021 local elections and I just can't make out where this content is coming from- The relevant section of the infobox says Executive           Conservative, but when I search Conservative in the source editor, the source of this content is nowhere to be found.

I would really appreciate it if anyone could point me in the right direction. Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseudoname1 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * This might be vaguely similar to the problem I am having in the query above, where I also can't figure out where data is coming from. Answers perhaps do not always flood in here at terrifying speed and the header here at Infobox English county does say Questions? Just ask here or over at Template talk:Infobox settlement. So I think I might try there and see if it's more active for replies. Whatever happens, I wish you luck with your enquiry. Cheers DBaK (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, the district data is in English district control Keith D (talk) 10:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Time zone - why? Talk about clutter!
Why on earth does this infobox contain a timezone section? All of England is UTC+00:00. Is it remotely credible that anyone would need to consult the infobox about a county for such basic information. Towns and cities maybe but counties? Infoboxes exist to give 'at a glance' essential data about the topic. Is this essential? Looks like clutter to me. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Flag
If all the flags have been removed, by A.D. Hope, do we need to keep the field or should the flags go back onto the infoboxes. Chocolateediter (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Statistics fields
I've replaced with a use of English admin counties for relevant counties, as the template is already used for the population. Does anyone have any thoughts?

This means that the area_council_km2, population_council and density_council fields are only used for places which do not have county councils. Is there a better name for the fields?

Also, the doc doesn't contain the same fields the template uses. The doc excludes population_council and density_council, but only the doc includes flag_link, arms_link and area_council_rank. I haven't changed either as I don't know what people want the template to include. Aoeuidhtns (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Where is the population figure coming from?
because the figure for Buckinghamshire (at least) is wrong. This ceremonial county consists of two UAs, Buckinghamshire (sic) and City of Milton Keynes. Their respective populations are 553,078 and 287,060, giving a total of 840,138. The figure provided by the template is only 808,666 but is claimed to be a 2021 census figure. That 808,666 figure is also given at Ceremonial counties of England, where at least it reported as a 2018 estimate.

Sources:
 * https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/sources/census_2021/report?compare=E06000060 for Buckinghamshire Council;
 * https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/sources/census_2021/report?compare=E06000042 for City of Milton Keynes

How do I get this error corrected? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like all of these figures for counties have not been updated since 2019, the stats year has been updated to 2021 as some tables appear to have been updated. English cerem counties supplies the figures for this template, but looks like all of the templates need checking to see if they are correct to 2021. Keith D (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have revised the figures for Beds and Bucks because I've already had to do them to rectify some disruptive editing that revealed a can of worms. Unless someone has a clever algorithm to do it automagically, it is slow boring task to fetch the figures for the constituent districts and sum them.
 * Will you pick it up from here or do we need to call for volunteers at the WikiProject? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * May be you could ask the users who changed the other templates. I will not have time as winding down for the Christmas / New Year break when I have no internet connection as no BT in Hull. Keith D (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: remove the ethnicity section
Does this section contribute anything of value? What does it do apart from feed the fantasies of Great Replacement conspiracy theorists?

For ceremonial counties at least, it is an effort and deadly boring to have to disassemble and aggregate the data for each of the component Authorities. Does anyone object if I remove it? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Where the ethnicity figures are not being reported on a ceremonial county basis by the ONS (or anywhere else, other than here) it's questionable whether they should be included; but this argument equally applies to the population field.
 * What value the figures have for readers is for them to decide. We shouldn't assume their only use is to feed conspiracies.
 * Other questions to consider. Firstly, a practical one. Will interested editors do the sums on a timely basis? The percentages for Buckinghamshire and Bedfordshire were out of date and misleading until updated recently. If it's unlikely the figures are going to be kept up to date from NOMIS, then exclude from the infobox because it is preferable to have no figures showing than outdated, misleading ones. Secondly, are we giving WP:UNDUE prominence to ethnicity? It looks like it's the only census data (other than population) included in the infox. Rupples (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:UNDUE is a more sensible challenge to its inclusion than my original unwitting WP:AGF violation, which I have now stricken. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * oppose - I think Rupples makes a good point above that the ceremonial county population data isn't actually collected by the ONS, so its arguably synthesis to use for ceremonial counties anyway. My opposition is mainly because this data is longstanding and I dont think its removal adds anything. Potentially its removal could promote conspiracies in itself because its censorship of whats been there for ages but I dont want to go into an argument about what does or doesnt promote conspiracies. I do think ethnicity data is useful to help readers understand places and how they differ, but at ceremonial county level I'm not sure its both too broad and not broad enough. Eopsid (talk) 14:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that simple addition counts as wp:SYNTH.
 * My proposal is not to delete it from the article, just specifically from the infobox. So I ask again: what justifies its inclusion in the infobox?
 * Indeed what justifies the choice of just this metric alone from the "Ethnicity, Identity, Language and Religion" group? Indeed what justifies chosing that group from the set "Demography"; "Ethnicity, Identity, Language and Religion"; "Work and Travel"; "Housing"; "Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity"; "Education"; "Health" that Nomis offers? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, many [most?] county and district articles do indeed have a section about religious affiliation – but it is in the body where it belongs, not the infobox. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thinking more about the due/undue question: when we select this metric exclusively from the many presented by the ONS, we are in effect saying that it is by some margin the most significant demographic statistic about the county. Seriously? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've been taking a look at the history of Infobox English county. It was created in 2014 and ethnicity looks to have been included from the outset. The documentation says it's a customised wrapper of Infobox settlement, whose template includes a section allowing for two types of demographics the creator of a derivative infobox can define: one of which gives the example of ethnicity; the other, languages, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_settlement#Population,_demographics. I think we can safely assume the creator of Infobox English county thought ethnicity to be worth including, so it may be an idea to ping @MRSC in on this discussion, but with no obligation to comment. Rupples (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. I (tentatively) proposed removing the 'ethnicity' category back in June when I opened a wider discussion on the parameters of this infobox at WP:UKGEO. As I said then, I don't think there's a strong rationale for including this demographic category over others, and I also agree with Rupples' point about the ability of editors to update the figures quickly. The changes to the population figures after the 2021 census have caused enough trouble! A.D.Hope (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not sure how much time will be given to the discussion so for now I'm putting up a blocking oppose !vote while I look into this further. I weakly support the ethnicity field's removal from ceremonial counties on practical reporting grounds. However, I don't see so much of a case for removing it from the infobox for unitary authorities and districts, where the figures are available without manual adding up. Some counties use this template in an amalgamation e.g Shropshire. I'm also reflecting on the statistical balance or WP:UNDUE argument. An implication of using this to support removal of ethnicity from the infobox is that the same argument could be used to justify removing ethnicity from the body of the article, where ethnicity stats are the only ones shown. Rupples (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * On WP:UNDUE, I'd argue the difference between the infobox and body is that the former typically only includes ethnicity and population as demographic parameters, whereas the latter has room for a proper 'demography' section with a more balanced selection of statistics. It's also worth noting that many county articles (perhaps most) only mention ethnicity in the infobox, which goes against the idea of the infobox being a summary of the body. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * City of Milton Keynes takes in all the main factors, ethnicity is just one among many as it should be. I wasn't aware that this is at all unusual?
 * Specifically, if my proposal gains consensus, I commit to moving the ethnicity statistic into the body if it is not already there. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What I think needs to happen here is that the ethnicity field is removed from under the Ceremonial county header in the template because the figures are not easily found nor it seems officially published by ceremonial county. But rather than removing from the infobox altogether ethnicity is repositioned under the Non-metropolitan county and unitary authority headers. At present, a problem with the current layout is the population figure for the ceremonial county reads 2021 and immediately below is ethnicity. Without clicking on the source, if there is one, it's easy to assume the ethnicity figures are also from 2021, when they haven't been updated, and that is why I said they are misleading. Shropshire is an example of this. Rupples (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That for me would not resolve the fundamental due/undue question. I have yet to see a reply to my question: what is it about this specific metric that uniquely merits being featured in the infobox? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Infobox settlement allows only two demographic fields and the first example given is ethnicity. I obviously cannot speak for the editor who included it in this template but think it's probable this made its inclusion more likely than any other. Turning your question on its head, "why not include ethnicity?" Is your preference to remove this demographic from other infobox templates? On the England and Wales pages ethnicity is coupled with religion, which could be added to the template to alleviate 'undue' concerns. Rupples (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the original creator adapted an existing template that was designed for US use, where "race" is still a defining attribute. IMO, median age and average house price are more interesting but so what. The ONS has already determined the list of key statistics. Since we can't reasonably have all of them in the infobox, we should have none and let the body handle it. Unless you have an answer to my fundamental question: what makes this one so special? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The only answer I can think of is that other editors by their action of putting in the figures and updating them believe it is of value to the encyclopedia to include them in the infobox. If ethnicity figures are commented on in secondary sources more than the other demographics it would be reasonable and not undue for their inclusion. If the logical alternative to the undue question is to remove all demographic data from infoboxes then it's a more fundamental issue than I envisaged and as @Keith D suggests should be publicised more widely in order to seek further views and achieve a great a consensus as possible for any change. The onus to do this is on those seeking the change. Rupples (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I doubt that secondary sources ever comment on the ethnicity statistics of the ceremonial counties, as that data is generally presented by local authority rather than ceremonial county.
 * The only other demographic parameter in the county infoboxes is population, which unlike ethnicity is included in practically all infoboxes related to human geography (e.g. settlements, districts, sovereign states). There's no desire to remove it, as far as I know. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Reading the responses so far suggests there is support for not reporting ethnicity data for ceremonial counties on practical grounds. I too support this and go further and say unless reliably sourced and commented upon such demographics shouldn't be included in the body of those articles covering only a ceremonial county. However, some ceremonial county articles and infoboxes also cover the local authority county council, where demographic statistics are available. If there is a straight removal of the metric from the County infobox template it affects all articles using this infobox including those local authorities which have the same name as the ceremonial county. The proposal explained the reason for removal as For ceremonial counties at least, it is an effort and deadly boring to have to disassemble and aggregate the data for each of the component Authorities and questioned whether the stats are of value. My suggestion of repositioning the demographics within the infobox I believe resolves the first question. Whether the data adds value being in the infobox is more subjective. Like other discussions the proposal at first sight seems to be fairly uncontroversial but when wider implications are considered it's maybe not so clearcut. Rupples (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry but the discussion has led me to the conclusion that the (in)convenience factor is secondary and incidental. I am now firmly of the view that the infobox should contain either all the metrics that the ONS considers significant or none: the former option is clearly impractical so it must be the latter. The place for that information is the article bodies, in their Demographics section. The type of county is incidental. The purpose of the infobox is to give "at a glance" the most essential information about a place. Other than overall population, there is no credibly objective basis on which to select the one that goes in the infobox. Nobody has yet explained why they consider ethnic origin to be the special case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMF (talk • contribs) 16:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest alerting the projects to this discussion. Keith D (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Which? I have already alerted wp England and ukgeo. Please do any others you think may have an interest. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - there's just no reason for it to be there and it's too much effort to maintain until/unless we can drive all of this stuff from a centralised place where one update cascades the changes through to where they need to be. WaggersTALK  13:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. I could be persuaded either way. To respond to some other comments, if I see ethnicity being mentioned in the body of an article, especially if only one group is mentioned, I sometimes think that the author is pushing their own point of view. But routinely seeing five proportions in an infobox just seems to be an objective description of the population. As to what is special about ethnicity, it varies quite of lot between different areas. The variation of some other attributes is less notable (for example, male and female proportions are probably all close to 50%). Maintenance is needed not just to keep the figures up-to-date, but also to use use consistent terminology (compare the groups listed for Hertfordshire and Herefordshire). It would be better if infoboxes could use a magic template like for the population, and that might be easier for districts than counties. I would not suggest extending this to smaller areas, even though the data is available for parishes with a population of at least 50. JonH (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Modified proposal
In an attempt to achieve consensus User:JMF and myself had a discussion here, the result of which is that we have modified our positions and come up with the following alternative:

a). The ethnicity demographic is removed from the ceremonial county infobox template as previously suggested, plus

b). Template:Infobox English county is brought into line with Template:Infobox UK place. This adds two optional, undefined statistical fields to be placed within each of the unitary authority, metropolitan county and non-metropolitan county sections of the infobox.

NB. No change is proposed to the population field.

The advantages of this modified proposal are it:
 * gives editors the choice of including ethnicity and/or alternative relevant statistical data or none.
 * dispels the undue prominence concern of having ethnicity as the sole available statistic in the infobox.
 * removes in one fell swoop all ethnicity figures currently in ceremonial county infoboxes that are out of date e.g. Cornwall, potentially misleading e.g. Derbyshire (where the figures are for the administrative county not the ceremonial) or have no sources specified e.g. Berkshire and Cambridgeshire.
 * helps allay fears of censorship that a straight removal with no option to include ethnicity may fuel.
 * removes the need for the notes currently in some infoboxes explaining data is for the unitary authority/non-metropolitan county rather than for the ceremonial county e.g. Shropshire.
 * specifically allows data in the infobox to be included for administrative council areas, which may have more relevance than ceremonial counties.
 * removes a perceived obligation to continue to provide ethnicity data at ceremonial county level that involves tiresome manual calculations and checking because the data is not published by NOMIS in local area reports e.g. Bedfordshire. It is noted that some editors are using varbes.com to source data for the ceremonial county e.g. West Midlands (county).

An immediate disadvantage is that it removes what looks to be correctly calculated and sourced 2021 ethnicity census data, which may annoy editors who have diligently updated the stats e.g. Cumbria.

One potential disadvantage is for editor disagreement over what optional statistics should be shown. At outset I think it preferable to take the positive view that disputes can be resolved and consensus obtained as with any other content. A second potential disadvantage is that those who desire consistency in the statistical data fields shown across administrative counties may not get this. This is a separate issue best discussed later on as we see what, if any, statistical fields editors put in. At the outset there would be total consistency.

The only immediate effect envisaged is that the ethnicity data currently shown in the ceremonial county infoboxes is removed from articles utilising this infobox template. If anyone foresees other effects, please point them out.

I support this proposal and hope it gains consensus, but would like to hear concerns editors may have. It's easy when one feels a proposal is beneficial for disadvantages to not come to mind.

Mentioning editors who have already contributed to the discussion, namely, Eopsid, A.D.Hope, Keith D, Waggers and JonH who may wish to comment further/revise their opinion. I'll attempt to publicise the proposal more widely and will later list here additional notifications placed. Rupples (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm unsure if this proposal has drifted into inaction but I support the replacement of the ethnicity field with statistics in the same way as the UK Place Infobox.
 * Not on the grounds which others have stated but on the grounds of accurate sourcing. On the long march to unitary authorities, soon there will be no ONS statistics at all at county level. But two statistics fields at least gives some flexibility.
 * On the point made about the editor of the Cumbria article potentially being disgruntled if ethnicity is removed—that's me and I wouldn't be :) I only updated the field because I believe that if something is included then it should be accurate and properly sourced.
 * That said, I would have opposed the field's removal from UK Place had I been more switched on. These statistics are still readily available below county level.
 * But then I would happily do away with both UK Place and the county infoboxes. The county infobox in particular is horribly inelegant and inconsistent with other place infoboxes, with rigid fixed fields that are increasingly out of date and no fields for sources. Dgp4004 (talk) 18:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dgp4004.The main reason for the proposal was to rid the misleading data on ethnicity in many county article infoboxes, without having to do so manually and hopefully lessening opposition by offering a compromise. At present, Population (2021) is shown as an infobox field followed in the same section by many articles having undated ethnicity figures. Readers could well assume (as I did) that the ethnicity figures are also from 2021 when they're from 2011 or earlier. The discussion was notified on many of the county wikiprojects talk pages but with no response; so with little participation and an objection the discussion fizzled out. Thanks for updating Cumbria. Rupples (talk) 21:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That said, I would have opposed the field's removal from UK Place had I been more switched on. These statistics are still readily available below county level.
 * But then I would happily do away with both UK Place and the county infoboxes. The county infobox in particular is horribly inelegant and inconsistent with other place infoboxes, with rigid fixed fields that are increasingly out of date and no fields for sources. Dgp4004 (talk) 18:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dgp4004.The main reason for the proposal was to rid the misleading data on ethnicity in many county article infoboxes, without having to do so manually and hopefully lessening opposition by offering a compromise. At present, Population (2021) is shown as an infobox field followed in the same section by many articles having undated ethnicity figures. Readers could well assume (as I did) that the ethnicity figures are also from 2021 when they're from 2011 or earlier. The discussion was notified on many of the county wikiprojects talk pages but with no response; so with little participation and an objection the discussion fizzled out. Thanks for updating Cumbria. Rupples (talk) 21:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dgp4004.The main reason for the proposal was to rid the misleading data on ethnicity in many county article infoboxes, without having to do so manually and hopefully lessening opposition by offering a compromise. At present, Population (2021) is shown as an infobox field followed in the same section by many articles having undated ethnicity figures. Readers could well assume (as I did) that the ethnicity figures are also from 2021 when they're from 2011 or earlier. The discussion was notified on many of the county wikiprojects talk pages but with no response; so with little participation and an objection the discussion fizzled out. Thanks for updating Cumbria. Rupples (talk) 21:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I've placed notices on the following wikiprojects: Berkshire, Cheshire and East Anglia which covers Cambridgeshire, Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex so far. Rupples (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC) Added Cornwall, Cumbria, Devon, Dorset and North East England which covers County Durham, North Yorkshire, Northumberland and Tyne & Wear. Rupples (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm very happy to support this proposal. Thanks for taking the time to come up with it, and presenting it in a fair and balanced way.
 * Wa</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  11:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * First, I appreciate the work you've both put into this proposal. I do oppose it, however. Specifically, adding undefined statistical fields for demographic statistics will not bring any benefits that an up-to-date 'Demography' section in the body of the article wouldn't. It will not ensure that the statistics a reader might be looking for are in the infobox, as only two spaces are available, and the infobox format of a bulleted list is a worse way of presenting demographic information than a table in the body. It's also currently the case that several county infoboxes contain demographic information which is not present in the body, and this should be discouraged. Overall I just think it makes sense to leave demographics to the body.
 * I do support the rationale for removing the ethnicity field, it should solve the various issues you mention. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Unlike flags where there seems to be disagreement of their status which is difficult to explain within the confines of the infobox, properly sourced official census statistics are purely and simply data. They do not necessarily have to be explained or put in context elsewhere, though editors may wish to do so. For presentation they can be included in the body as well, but don't have to be. Not sure why you say having the figures in the infobox alone should be discouraged. The logical outcome of what seems to be the reason for your opposition is that all statistics are removed from infoboxes including population. The demography section doesn't ensure all statistics readers are looking for are included. Rupples (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Whoops. I've just read Help:Infobox and so may have to reassess. I'll give it more thought. Rupples (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, the rule of thumb is that the information in an article should be complete without its infobox. I will admit I'm a bit of an infobox minimalist, if I had my way far more fields than ethnicity would go – do we really need to confirm in the infobox that Worcestershire has the same time zone as the rest of the UK? A.D.Hope (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Phew. Thought I'd made a massive boo-boo in my inital reply upon a first reading of Help:Infobox and was arguing against a top level Wikipedia policy or guideline. I've now also read a number of essays on infoboxes. The argument If content is not in the article, it shouldn't be in the infobox (not paraphrasing you directly) is easily resolved by adding it to the article. I favour giving readers choice and maybe if searching for a quick answer, some may go to the infobox first and finding nothing there assume there is nothing in the article. For some readers seeing the infobox data may be all they require, others desiring further detail go on to the demography section. Granted, there's clearly a maintenance problem but rather than removing the data, it would be best practice to properly source and update. This only needs to occur every ten years, which I don't feel is an intolerable burden. MOS:INFOBOXUSE looks to be the highest level guidance. This says . . . which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. Removing stats altogether, when the fields are available is I feel a unnecessary restriction. Both of us are seeking to improve the encyclopedia, it's just our interpretation of what infobox data to include differs and it does seem longstanding practice, rightly or wrongly for this type of data to be included — not every county article does, Cheshire being an example. Rupples (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to give such a short answer, but if we can trust readers to scan the infobox for the stats can we not also trust them to scan the table of contents? A.D.Hope (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I wonder if perhaps you have over-interpreted the guidance? It is essentially the same as wp:lead which says that if it is not in the body then it shouldn't be in the lead, but the converse is not true ("if it is in the body then it must be in the lead"). The guidance says only that key points of the body should be summarised in the lead, not repeated verbatim. In the case of demographics, the essential info is the number of people; if there is something dramatic like "this county is reserved for our lizardmen overlords and their human slaves", we would say that in the lead text not give as dry figure in the infobox. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as a matter of trusting the readers but of giving them choice. It's sort of moot in that choice is initially removed under both proposals. The additional provision in the modified proposal leaves open the possibility for stats inclusion and I think will help make the change more palatable to some editors, thus increasing the chance of acceptance for JMF's original proposal, which I don't support on its own. Rupples (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well that's just it, I don't think there's a need for optional statistics fields any more than there's a need for optional fields to list e.g. highest points, gross value added, or number of AONBs. It's all covered in the body.
 * If other editors don't find the proposal palatable they can always discuss it here – how widely have you publicised this, @JMF? A.D.Hope (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the forum for it and invitations to join the discussion have been left at various WikiProjects. It wasn't at all obvious that my initial proposal would gain consensus, which led to 's lower key proposal. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I can understand why Rupples made this second proposal, but equally there isn't major opposition to your proposal we may as well implement it. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The principle for infoboxes is the same as that for WP:LEAD: it provides in a tabular form the essential facts about the topic. An arbitrarily selective breakdown of the population figure does not to me meet that threshold, but I recognise that it is so important to some editors that consensus will not be achieved without conceding it. IMO the place to break out the aspects of demographics is the body, in a section of that name. This should be standard in county articles.
 * (Including the time zone is a complete joke and another inheritance from a US template, I suspect.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If I may develop the idea that the infobox should be subject to mos:lead principles, all the county articles give the overall population in the lead section. None put the detailed breakdown there, nor should they. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Time to remove ONS code?
Is it now time to remove the ons_code field? I feel it is since it was deprecated in January 2011 and replaced by GSS codes. And we do now include a gss_code field to replace it. Dgp4004 (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)