Wikipedia:Separate articles for administrative divisions to settlements

Should administrative divisions that have the same name as a settlement have their own article or should the articles be combined? This issue is sometimes controversial.

In France, Italy and England for example municipalities (4th order units) that have the same name as a settlement are generally combined such as Alveslohe, in the sense of a settlement and in the sense of a Gemeinde (municipality) and Hatfield Peverel, in the sense of a village and in the sense of a parish (municipality) are found in 1 article. In other countries the term municipality may refer to a higher division such as in Denmark and Sweden and there are usually 2 articles namely Horsens, in the sense of a city and Horsens Municipality are found in separate articles.

4th order
4th order divisions are generally combined unless (which is rare) the unit doesn't include any of the settlement in which separate articles are needed such as Scotforth/Scotforth (parish).

1st, 2nd and 3rd
Generally these are split unless they have boundaries that are roughly the same or smaller than the settlement or the boundaries predate when there were large reforms. Vienna for example covers both the settlement and the state (2nd order). Examples of what may mean a large reform include the Local Government Act 1972, see User:Crouch, Swale/District split and the 1989 New Zealand local government reforms, see User:Crouch, Swale/New Zealand districts.

Tests
All of these examples are in countries that generally combine but these tests can be used in cases where the decision is not clear or a country doesn't have a convention.
 * Does the settlement have a stated population?
 * If the settlement has a stated population that is different to the division this supports splitting, for example the population of Neuhofen im Innkreis settlement is 747 in 2021 (estimate) while the division is 2,484 meaning it would be possible to have 1 article with an infobox for the population of the settlement and 1 article with an infobox for the division. If there is no data for the settlement as with Polstead (the division being 884 in 2020) or the figure is the same as with Goldhanger (both being 725 in 2020) there is less use in having 2 articles.


 * When were the administrative boundaries formed?
 * If despite a merge with another division the name is the same such as High Ongar that absorbed Norton Mandeville in 1968 then this may provide a firm point to start coverage of an article namely all content for the division of "High Ongar" after the merge could go in a separate article. Note if a rename later occurs this may be used to start coverage see Newport and Carisbrooke for example. In other words if the new "High Ongar" division is later renamed "High Ongar and Norton" we would split and start coverage of the new division from 1968 while keeping the old one in the High Ongar article though as noted we don't usually split parishes.
 * Boundary "dates" normally go from when there was a major (as opposed no minor) boundary change, for example when there is an area of land moved from 1 division to another it will normally be considered minor such as the 1885 change to Monkokehampton parish, in contrast the merger of Norton Mandeville into High Ongar would be major, an exception may be made if there was a rename at the same time as boundary changes such as Dobwalls and Trewidland>Dobwalls. In the case of Stevenage the move of parts of the parishes of Aston and Datchworth as lies within the designated area of Stevenage New Town in 1974 would be a minor boundary change thus Stevenage would satisfy the "longstanding boundaries" test on the other hand with Corby/Borough of Corby the entire 7 parishes moved to the district in 1974 would be a major change. With Slough/Borough of Slough the land moved from Burnham and Wexham in 1974 would likely have been considered minor if it wasn't for the fact that the 2 areas moved became separate parishes.


 * Does the unit include other settlements or large amounts of rural land?
 * With Stanhope, County Durham the parish includes large rural areas while with Witham there is considerably less.

Conventions
As noted above, 4th order divisions are normally combined but normally particular country's conventions should normally take precedence, this means that if you decide that such places should be split it may be a good idea to discuss at a wide forum first. Some countries may have a convention that they are normally split but the country have have a few large cities that have older boundaries than most others and are combined even if most aren't. If you decide to use a bot to create articles you should bare this in mind for example Lsjbot created many articles where a single article may have been more appropriate.

Why
For many divisions there is not that many general facts/prose about divisions while for settlements there may not be data for some of the smallest settlements meaning if they have the same name just the division population can be given in 1 article rather than both or leaving it out of the settlement one. If the boundaries are long-standing and tend to correspond to natural boundaries sources are more likely to use both meanings interchangeably meaning there's a higher chance of content forking. If the boundaries of the division are smaller than the settlement but they are historic it again may be awkward to have 2 articles such as with Reading, Berkshire however when the division is much smaller as with London/City of London it may be split.

You may wander why Wokingham/Borough of Wokingham have separate articles but Reading, Berkshire/Borough of Reading aren't and think that because the boundaries of the latter are older than the former that there will be more coverage however if boundaries are more long standing it more likely there will be a duplication of information as sources are less likely to make a distinction and there will be a less clear point to start coverage of an article from with Reading while with Wokingham its clear that its 1974 for the newer division while the older division is covered in the settlement article.

Also disambiguating them from the settlements can lead to awkward double disambiguation.

If 2 articles do exist such as Caerphilly/Caerphilly County Borough it may be appropriate to mention the division population as the settlement article may serve as a broad-concept article.

Arguments in favour of combining

 * Per WP:NOPAGE there may not be enough sources treating the division different, general facts (prose) are often difficult to find about a division and government statistics such as population are often difficult to find (or are the same as the division) for smaller settlements.
 * Although a division may be a different entity to a settlement it is still acceptable per WP:NOTDIC to combing them as they are variations of the same place rather than unrelated places in different areas that happen to share a name.
 * Sources often refer to the settlement and division interchangeably thus having separate articles can result in content forking.
 * Since as mentioned there may be no data for smaller settlements and the population of the division may need to be mentioned anyway its often simpler to just combine anyway. Thus even if there is confusion by combing it may remove a mainly redundant page.
 * Disambiguation can be difficult, often requiring double disambiguation.
 * Other encyclopedias such as Britannica often combine for example Britannica has just 1 article on Carlisle even though we have 2 namely Carlisle/City of Carlisle though Britannica has 2 for Dover.
 * Dealing with things like interwiki etc can be more complicated namely having to decide which Wikidata item a project that doesn't make a distinction should be linked to.
 * Deciding what point in time the coverage of a division article starts namely there may have been a merger of divisions and an article may start from the merge date of the new larger division.
 * Working out which article to link to can sometimes be difficult.
 * If a particular status which would be though of as belonging to a settlement is actually tied to an administrative unit it can be confusing for example with Wakefield the city status is actually held by the City of Wakefield district.
 * Some places like Little Livermere or Preston Patrick may not clearly be a settlement even though they have an identifiable centre in some cases making it difficult to decide if separate article are needed or not even if its decided to generally split.

Arguments against combining

 * A settlement and division are 2 different things and combining them arguably goes against WP:NOTDIC.
 * Most towns and villages that have divisions named after them are inherently notable and would have had an article even if the division didn't exist.
 * Wikipedia is not paper, there is no problem with space alone, see also Every snowflake is unique.
 * Combining may confuse readers and make them think the settlement covers a far larger area than it actually does.
 * Even if boundaries are long-standing there may be enough coverage to have separate articles.
 * Even if there is some overlap its arguably fine to have separate articles.
 * Finding information specifically about the administrative division can be difficult for readers if there is a significant amount of information for the pace in general for example its not easy to find information about the district in Kingston upon Hull while it is for Slough since Borough of Slough exists even if much of the information is already in the town's article finding it is difficult.

Categories
Since the criteria for having a topic category is generally much higher than for having an article its more common to combine categories even if there are separate articles for example even though Leeds and City of Leeds exist as separate articles there is Category:Leeds that deals with both. This is generally a good idea if there aren't a significant number of articles or the boundaries of the settlement are not particularly clear.

Other projects
Sometimes Wikidata or Commons or other language Wikipedias may make a distinction even when this project doesn't. Because Wikidata can have data and statements etc for both its more likely splitting may be appropriate, for example there are separate entries for the village, Q2705733 and division, Q20990449 even though all but the bot created articles are combined on the other Wikipedias such as Folkingham. For Commons categories it may be desirable to have 2 categories if there are a large number of images since readers may be looking for only the settlement but have to otherwise sift through lots of images of the surrounding area for example Commons:Category:Stanhope, County Durham deals with the settlement and Commons:Category:Stanhope, County Durham (civil parish) deals with the division even though we only have 1 article Stanhope, County Durham and category, Category:Stanhope, County Durham. The Dutch Wikipedia for example has separate articles at nl:Ermelo (gemeente) and nl:Ermelo (plaats in Nederland) even though Ermelo, Netherlands deals with both.

Different names
If the division has a different name to a settlement then there should generally be separate articles, this applies even if the division was formerly the same as the settlement but was renamed such as Calbourne/Calbourne, Newtown and Porchfield. The exception is if the name is an alternative name, see below. Note that most towns and villages (but not necessarily hamlets and suburbs) are generally inherently notable meaning they should also exist of their name is different to the division.

If a division and a settlement have different names but they cover (more or less) the same area it may be desirable to cover them in 1 article such as Washington, D.C. (settlement) and District of Columbia (division).

Alternative names
In some cases the division may have a slightly different name to the settlement such as "Aston-on-Trent" (settlement) and "Aston upon Trent" (division), when this is the case the normal rule of having just 1 article if applicable still applies, if you're not sure if its an alternative name assume it isn't and split, if it is found to be later on the articles can later be merged. In unclear cases the tests listed above may help. In the Aston case the division name redirects to the settlement article while in the case of Stratford-upon-Avon (settlement) the Stratford-on-Avon (division) redirects to the settlement but there is a separate Stratford-on-Avon District article. If the division was renamed (as opposed to merged) the old name should generally redirect to the new name such as Cuckfield Rural redirecting to Ansty and Staplefield unless the old name is the name of a settlement (such as Calbourne) in which case the article should be split.

Renames
As mentioned above if a rename of a division occurs the rules apply to the new name. If for both names the name only exists as a division this is simple like "Cuckfield Rural" being renamed "Ansty and Staplefield" the old name just redirects to the new name and the only thing that needs to be done is to move the article from the old name to the new name. The old name can be marked with R from former name but shouldn't be in Category:Former civil parishes in West Sussex. This is similar to Woodspring redirecting to North Somerset. If the division is renamed to a name that no longer matches a settlement like "Calbourne">"Calbourne, Newtown and Porchfield" then the article should be split so that there is an article for the settlement and division. If with Wareside the division is renamed from a name only applying to a division (namely "Ware Rural") to a settlement name then the usual rules of combining apply that is to say if a Ware Rural article existed it should be merged to the Wareside article. If like Marlingford and Colton a rename to a name only applying to a division occurs after a merge then the article on the division should generally start from when the merger took place not when it got its specific name, namely the "Marlingford and Colton" article deals with the 1935-present division, even though "Colton" was merged in 1935 the merged parish was not renamed "Marlingford and Colton" until 2001 even though if Wikipedia had have existed prior to 2001 the "Marlingford" article would deal with the parish past 1935.

This is important because it defines the scope of the articles and where links should point for example links referring to the parish of "Marlingford" prior to 1935 should link as Marlingford but links referring to the new parish called "Marlingford" between 1935-2001 should use Marlingford. This is why the difference between an amalgamate and a merge is important since with mergers no new articles are generally needed while with amalgamates a new article is but with the Marlingford example it is possible for a merge to turn into an amalgamate later.

Describing in articles
When describing divisions in articles (regardless of if separate articles are created for the division) always make it clear if the division and not the settlement is being referenced, for example if a different place is within the municipality but not the village then make this clear, for example write "A is in the municipality of X"... located 3 miles from the village of X". Note that if only 1 article is used for the settlement and division it usually isn't necessary to link the mention of the village as the link for the division would go to the same article. When used unqualified its usually assumed the settlement or other geographical area the division is named after is being referenced such as "It has a population of Y" etc. but stating if a fact refers to the settlement may still be useful. This is usually preferred over just "A is in X" since readers are likely to assume otherwise its in the village of X and definitely over "A is in the village of X" if its not in the village. If like Grange Moor only settlement data is known it may be desirable to only put "It has a population of Y" instead of "The built-up-area has a population of Y" but if there is other data its usually preferable to clarify which is for the settlement even if that's what would be assumed without qualification, see Fulford, Staffordshire for example. In some cases like Stanhope, County Durham 2 different infoboxes may be used, 1 for the settlement and 1 for the division though often the fact facts relate to the division aren't usually stated but perhaps should like with Neuhofen im Innkreis.

Councils
Most divisions with have a council or other governing body with the same name apart from a suffix like "Council" often including what the division is for example Colchester has a council called Colchester Borough Council and Hatfield Peverel has a council called "Hatfield Peverel Parish Council". In a few cases the council may use a different name to the division such as Newcastle City Council for Newcastle upon Tyne using an alternative (shorter name of the settlement), in other cases the name may be an alternative name of the division but not the settlement for example "Granby cum Sutton Parish Council" for Granby and in some cases like High and Low Bishopside the council may be named after a settlement namely "Pateley Bridge Town Council". When this is the case we follow the convention for what the division not the council name for deciding to have separate articles for the division or not, that is to say Granby is correctly combined and High and Low Bishopside is correctly split.

Generally for 4th order division its best not to have separate articles for the division's council to the division even if the division is combined with a settlement and most don't even have redirects, that is to say the likes of Hatfield Peverel Parish Council are red links. Separate articles may occasionally be created for large settlements where there is enough material for 2 articles like Shrewsbury Town Council.

For 3rd order divisions generally the council redirects to the division especially if the division is split from the settlement like Brentwood Borough Council or if the division name is only used by the district its generally best to redirect the council to the division otherwise such articles tend to become content forks. If like Plymouth/Plymouth City Council the division is not split from the settlement its usually desirable to have a separate article for the council. Remember that while councils may not have separate articles to the division its generally better to use the redirects of 3rd order division councils rather than linking directly to the division per MOS:RDR, for example when discussing Brentwood Borough Council use Brentwood Borough Council rather than Brentwood Borough Council or Brentwood Borough Council.

Remember that while divisions are subject to WP:GEOLAND which makes them inherently notable the councils themselves are subject to Notability (organizations and companies) which a council may not pass even leaving aside if it duplicates a division. Since most information about a division's council is interchangeable with the division its self for 3rd and 4th order divisions there is often not enough distinct content to justify splitting anyway.

For 1st and 2nd order division councils separate articles for the council are generally created regardless of other status etc.

Settlements with different names in division
This page does not concern if settlements with different names that are in the division (except in cases like Washington where they may have similar boundaries) such as if the likes of Kersey Tye should exist or redirect to the division, that is discussed at WP:GEOLAND namely notability while in the case of settlements with divisions of the same name most of them will be notable but some should have a combined article with the division of the same name. Alston, Cumbria (town) and Alston Moor (division) thus have separate articles.