Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/May

Locations in the United Kingdom
I believe that the system for locations in the United Kingdom should be changed. All UK locations should be placename alone where possible (or if the context is restricted to the UK) or placename, United Kingdom. It should NEVER be placename, England - placename , Scotland - placename , Wales or placename , Northern Ireland. If the editor wishes to be more specific they could put placename, Component Country , United Kingdom. With the exception of England which is not specific enough as 80% of the population lives there so within England the English Region should be used; placename, English Region , United Kingdom. For Example; "Sheffield, Yorkshire and the Humber, United Kingdom".

The United Kingdom should always be mentioned as it is the sovereign nation. It is not acceptable to simply put something like; Bangor, Wales. This will sort out the range of systems used across the UK, and individual pages and will reduce confusion. 91.85.128.82 (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, why?--Kotniski (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We use the constituent nation for all placenemes in the UK on wiki as this gives some context to the place, UK should not be used. Regions are never used to identify a place and are vary rarely used at all in the UK. The current arrangement for dab purposes is to use the ceremonial county and if that is ambiguous use the district. Keith D (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well we should't, it is not done like that for other Countrys. For American locations the USA is always mentioned. Why should the UK be any different? Simply putting the component country completely disregards the fact that it is a part of the UK, something that is immensity important. It gives the impression that the component country are sovereign nations, which is misleading. Further more of cause you should mention the UK, that's the country it's in! At no point did I say that that the component country should not be used, and yes it does give some impression as to where something is, so does the UK! I already said that it was fine to use the component country, but in the case of England it is pointless as most things in the UK are in England, 80% of the population and all. You'd be surprised how often the regions are used, for allot of administrationative purposes (EU constituency, policing regions, there was even a reforendom on a North East assembly), they are mentioned on lots of articles on this wiki, people often use them for the purpose of being more specific, they are used on the news. Ceremonial countys are fine just I prefer to use the regions as they are closer in population and size to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. 91.85.128.82 (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The USA is not always mentioned - in fact the "city, state" convention is pretty much institutional for our US articles. See eg Hyannis, Massachusetts or Compton, California. Re Bangor - you do realise there's two major Bangors in the UK? (I was born near the other one.) Also, English regions are fundamentally unstable - they're not like state boundaries in the US or Australia or Germany which are well-defined and constitutionally recognised, so we'd probably have to change them every time the government has a brain flip. Orderinchaos 02:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)