User talk:Fr Richard Bailey

Historic counties
Hi there. There is a long-standing Wikipedia convention that "we do not take the view that the historic/ancient/traditional counties still exist with the former boundaries" (see WP:UKCOUNTIES), so could you avoid changing references to them to the present tense? Also, there's no need for capitals on "historic county". Thanks. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have now read WP:UKCOUNTIES referenced in your message, and as a result will use lower case initial letters for 'historic counties'. I also respect that you may have reached consensus about tense use with regard to the historic counties. However, I think this needs fresh and perhaps wider discussion, as it does not seem to be reflected consistently across WP articles relating to the historic counties. There seem to be various ways of referring to the historic counties, not always consistently: sometimes in the past tense, and sometimes in the present, sometimes regarding some of them as having been administrative areas when they had legally ceased to be so, and sometimes regarding them as purely geographical entities. Further I am not so clear that your own intra-WP consensus is reflective of the wider opinion among WP readership. For example, I imagine that many people would be startled if a WP article on 'Yorkshire', began, as you seem to suggest, with the words "Yorkshire was...". May I respectfully refer you to the Historic Counties Trust 'Historic Counties Standard' definition for a well-written and well-intentioned appraisal of the continuing relevance and applicability of the historic counties, as well as to the various government statements which attest to the continuing integrity of their borders.
 * Regards,
 * Richard Bailey Fr Richard Bailey (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Richard, and thanks for the courteous reply. This matter has been discussed ad nauseum in various places and the consensus has always been confirmed that WP does not treat the historic counties as still existing within their former boundaries, despite numerous attempts to challenge it. I think Yorkshire is a special case, as the constituent counties still exist under the names West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and so on. I'm less concerned about articles about counties, actually, but more about articles dealing with settlements that have changed counties (I use the phrase "changed" advisedly and for simplicity; doubtless you would prefer a different formulation). Where the county within which a settlement lies has not changed, there is little disagreement; the problem comes when well-intentioned editors write things like "Abingdon is in the historical county of Berkshire...". I would suggest that this is not helpful to the "WP readership", as the historic counties have no current function and most readers (and indeed, inhabitants) would consider Abingdon to be firmly within Oxfordshire, and find it confusing to be told otherwise. I'm afraid I don't really accept that the Historic Counties Trust (or the Association for British Counties, and doubtless other similar pressure groups) are neutral arbiters in such matters, nor government statements seeking to appease county traditionalists. But this is not the place to go over this argument again – if you must, the place to debate it is the Talk page at WP:UKCOUNTIES. Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, Dave, I've visited the Talk page as suggested. Some days later, here I am...er, a little shell-shocked! I now understand what you meant by "discussed ad nauseam"! I consider myself a fairly moderate advocate of the pro-historic counties movement, and I have to say that, having read some of the comments of my 'allies', with friends like these, who needs enemies?! There is a distinct want of joined-up thinking in much of the discussion.
 * I did eventually end up making a comment, but did not wade into the deep mire of the debate. Suffice to say I basically approve of the way WP articles about settlements and their counties are written, as long as there is mention of the relevant historic county when appropriate (I would consider it appropriate whenever a place has experienced a boundary change); and I take your point about the possibilities of causing confusion with opening statements like "Abingdon is in the historic county of Berkshire" (although I personally would not see that as a problematic statement if the current administrative and/or ceremonial county had already been stated at the head of the article).
 * There seem to be two extremes in evidence on the talk page: on the one hand, there is the total ignorance of and disregard for the deep affection in which some historic counties are held by many people and their continuing importance for such people culturally - this ignorance and disregard is evidenced by a flat refusal to admit the existence of such counties; on the other hand, there is the virtual denial of any county level status to the modern administrative areas and/or ceremonial counties, and the concomitant refusal to countenance the mentioning of them when discussing administratively 'relocated' settlements.
 * I am a firm believer in compromise in such circumstances, and feel both sides need to move considerably towards the middle ground on this highly controversial and contentious issue. The middle ground is where one would expect WP's apparently consensus-driven policies to settle. Unfortunately, the guideline statement you cite ("we do not take the view that the historic/ancient/traditional counties still exist with the former boundaries") sets WP's policy on this matter not in the centre, but firmly at one extreme.
 * The compromise I should like to suggest is, in articles dealing with settlements, to have a row which would name the historic county in the Infobox table immediately below the row for the Ceremonial County. What do you think? How do I go about suggesting it? It would have the advantage of not involving a verb, and so avoids the thorny issue of past and present tense.
 * I would perfectly understand if you can't be bothered replying to this, which may serve only to add to the nausea. It's one of those odd subjects that matters a great deal to those to whom it matters a great deal, and virtually not at all to everyone else.
 * Richard
 * PS. It was extremely weird that you should have brought up the example of Abingdon. Only the day before, an old schoolmate of mine, who lives in Abingdon, visited me here in Manchester. When introduced to another friend here and asked where he was from he said, "Abingdon". To which his questioner, a geography teacher wanting to show off her knowledge, retorted, "Abingdon, Berkshire". My friend, not wishing to embarrass her, replied, "Well, erm, ish". Neither of them, by the way, has any interest in the historic counties, but I found the exchange amusing, and it does show, I think, that the historic counties are likely to keep popping up for some time yet. Fr Richard Bailey (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that (some) people's "deep affection" (or otherwise) is founded in emotion and thus rather irrelevant, and I'd dispute that there is a refusal to countenance historic counties being mentioned. On the contrary, there is an assumption that they should be mentioned, but in a way proportionate to their importance, and not in a way that misleadingly suggests they have any practical, continuing, relevance. I don't really want to revisit that argument here as it's been well covered already, and I'm not particularly expert. Although I think the current administrative area is much more important, I personally wouldn't have any objection to the historic county being mentioned in a settlement infobox, but my personal views are largely irrelevant: it's been discussed at Template:Infobox UK place before and the consensus seems to be against, mainly because of the difficulty of deciding on a reliable source of definitive values: Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the extreme views expressed on the talk page, not what actually ends up being in the WP articles, which is thankfully less subjective. I'll have a look at the link you kindly provided. 86.137.141.207 (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)