Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 34

Unitary authority terminology — 'district' and 'area'
I appreciate that this is a little niche, but I think it's worth discussing. It's also related to the discussion immediately above.

We currently use the terms 'unitary authority' and 'district' for areas with a single tier of local government which aren't metropolitan boroughs or London boroughs — for example, the article Shropshire (district) begins 'Shropshire is a district with the status of a unitary authority...' These terms are okay, but each has its problems. The first is that unitary authorities are, strictly speaking, the type of council which govern these areas rather than the areas themselves.

The second is that single-tier areas are both non-metropolitan districts and non-metropolitan counties. For example, when Shropshire was made unitary its existing districts were abolished and a new district created with the same area as the non-metropolitan county. Conversely, when the districts of Blackburn and Blackpool were made unitary new non-metropolitan counties were created with the same area as the districts (section 6). So, while single-tier areas are districts, referring to them as only districts is a little misleading (if perhaps at the pedantic end of things).

I'd like to propose sidestepping these issues entirely by referring to single-tier areas as 'unitary areas'. Reliable sources on the topic are generally more concerned with the councils rather than the regions they administer, but when referring to those regions the term 'area' is frequently used. For example:
 * Local Government Association
 * UK government: 'There are 62 unitary authorities. They provide all local government services in their areas.'
 * House of Commons Library: 'Unitary local authorities would replace multiple local authorities with a single local government in a given area.'
 * Institute for Government

The main issue is that 'unitary area' is not an official term, however I'm not sure there really is an official term for areas with single-tier councils. On the positive side, by giving the areas a name distinct from their council type it should make the relevant articles easier to understand. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Unitary area" is not only not official, it looks odd. But I have seen (and may even have used) "unitary authority area". Does that help? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 'Unitary authority area' is just a wordier way of saying 'unitary area', I'd argue. As for 'odd', well, that's subjective really. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @A.D.Hope. Not getting your logic. You say in your second paragraph unitary authorities are, strictly speaking, the type of council which govern these areas rather than the areas themselves then contrary to this suggest the use of a 'unitary area'. Why not use Shropshire (district) is a local government area in the ceremonial county of Shropshire or substitute authority for government — it's a lot clearer. Then in a separate sentence say The district is governed by Shropshire Council, a unitary authority. Rupples (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the contradiction is, sorry. 'Unitary' refers to how many layers of local government there are, not the council, in the same way some counties are two-tier. 'District' is not strictly accurate, as I mentioned above, so it's worth looking at other terms. We're not making up 'unitary area', it's used by the Local Government Association. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * How widespread is the term "unitary area"? Rupples (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not particularly widespread, but I think that's because the areas themselves (as opposed to their councils) are rarely discussed. Even their council websites don't seem to refer to the areas they serve by anything other than their name — Durham County Council's website, for example, says "We are a 'unitary' council. This means that we provide the majority of council services in County Durham."
 * Assuming there isn't a widespread term for the areas (and if there is please let me know), we have some leeway to choose a sensible term which avoids confusion with other local government bodies/areas. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, think I initially misunderstood what you wrote, apologies. To get my thinking straight, are you looking for a term that's in essence equivalent to "civil parish", but which would apply to the area served by the district authority? Rupples (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The wikilink for "unitary authority area" points to Unitary authorities of England i.e. to the authority. As these articles are about the area served by the local authority surely they should be described as a district and wikilinked to Districts of England. Therefore, describe each as a district or local government district, as I said in my first comment. Blackburn and Blackpool maybe counties in the legislation, but their local authorities don't style themselves as such — they are both boroughs. Rupples (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As district is another word for area is it really necessary to use another word? The Shropshire district in the ceremonial county of Shropshire is governed by Shropshire Council, a unitary authority. If there are odd, different examples they need to be described according to the particular circumstances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esemgee (talk • contribs) 19:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 'Area' isn't a synonym for 'district', but a vaguer term, which is why it's useful for cases such as this. Single-tier areas are non-metropolitan districts and non-metropolitan counties, but a term such as 'unitary area' is much more succinct and still reasonably accurate. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The government calls it a district, it is confusing to call it anything else. Esemgee (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The government doesn't seem to have a fixed name for these areas as it seldom refers to them. In legislation they're both counties and districts. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @A.D.Hope. The legislation is a primary source, so we should be careful in its interpretation. The explanatory note states that Shropshire Council i.e. the local authority is the county council with a change of name and it is taking over the functions of the individual district councils. I don't see anything in the order abolishing Shropshire County Council; only the districts and their councils are to go. The Shropshire Council area is now a single district unchanged from the former Shropshire County Council area. Therefore, as the article Shropshire (district) is about the Council area and Shropshire Council exists as a separate article, district is the correct term and "with the status of a unitary authority" should be omitted from the opening sentence. That's my take for this particular case. Rupples (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What happened to the council isn't directly relevant; what happened to the area is that the existing non-metropolitan county was retained and a new non-metropolitan district was created with the same boundaries. Section 3.2 is the relevant part, with 'Shropshire' being defined in section 2 as the non-metropolitan county. A.D.Hope (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems correct to say Shropshire is a district and county. Rupples (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It is correct, but it's so wordy, especially if you're specific: 'Shropshire is a non-metropolitan county and non-metropolitan district governed by Shropshire Council, a unitary authority.' Surely we can justify something like 'Shropshire is a unitary area governed by Shropshire Council'? A.D.Hope (talk) 02:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * . . . or omit "unitary" even? If all councils have the same name as the area they cover, why do we have articles for both area and council for some, but not for others? It's confusing. Rupples (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @A.D.Hope Neither 'non' nor 'metropolitan' is required as the legislation doesn't use these terms, so it's feasible and accurate to state: "Shropshire is a district and county governed by Shropshire Council, a unitary authority". Rupples (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The Structural Change Orders don't use the term 'non-metropolitan' (because the context is clear, I assume), but the Local Government Act 1972 does so there is an official basis for the term.
 * I'm wary about referring to a 'county' without qualification, at least the first time it's mentioned, because it's easy to mix up the types — the lead for Shropshire (district) also mentions the ceremonial and historic counties, for example. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly like "district" but it is vastly superior to "unitary area", which just makes no sense in the real world. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be help if you could explain why the term makes no sense, because you're just giving a personal opinion at the moment. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * To address both of your comments, yes, I'm looking for a distinct term analagous to 'civil parish', 'metropolitan borough', or 'non-metropolitan county' which accurately describes an area rather than its local authority.
 * Single-tier areas aren't just districts, they're also non-metropolitan counties, which is part of the problem. In Shropshire, for example, the non-metropolitan county continued to exist and its county council gained the powers of a district council, so it's not really accurate to refer to the area it governs as simply a 'district'. 'Borough' is just a style, incidentally, like 'city', so it's still accurate to use 'district' and 'county' for areas whose councils style themselves differently.
 * There isn't an article about single-tier areas, which is why the wikilink points to the article about the authorities. It doesn't mean 'unitary area' refers to the authorities. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That seems to indicate that a new article is required, not a confusing different term. Esemgee (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What would a new article about the areas served by unitary authorities be called? A.D.Hope (talk) 09:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It could be disambiguated as District (Unitary authority), District (Unitary authority area). Esemgee (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't need to disambiguate, the articles about the councils are just called '[X] Council'. The issue is what to call their areas, and I still don't see the issue with 'unitary area'. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a term used by the Local Government Association alone, largely when talking to other local government wonks. Strikingly, the other three you cite - the UK government, House of Commons Library and Institute for Government - do not seem to have adopted it, certainly not in the links you provided. If your fellow editors who have experience in discussing and writing about such matters react against it, imagine the effect on readers faced with a term which is an unfamiliar neologism only to be found in one body's technical literature and which rather than being easily decoded, at first seems absurdly tautologous. NebY (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The term is not technical jargon restricted to 'govermnent wonks'. The Local Government Association page I linked to is part of an introduction to local government aimed at new councillors, i.e. a non-specialist audience.
 * As I've mentioned above, an issue with these areas is that they are not often defined in the literature, which tends to focus on the authorities. Nevertheless, the regions governed by those authorities are called 'areas' in all three sources. Together with the LGA source, and in the absence of any other sources, 'unitary area' is a reasonable term for us to adopt. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * New councillors are a niche audience who in my experience become local government wonks or irrelevant; they're very much specialists compared to Wikipedia's readership. Please, listen to your fellow editors and the various objections being raised; it may not be possible for us to persuade you that this is not a good idea, but repeating "I still don't see the issue" and "is a reasonable term" isn't persuasive either, and your premise that Wikipedia needs a new term isn't being accepted. This would be a good time to read the room, reconsider your chances of success, and stop pressing this proposal. NebY (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You can't write off the LGA source because its intended readers might become 'government wonks' at some point in the future. It's clearly intended as an introduction to England's local government structure for people unfamiliar with it.
 * You're asking me to listen to my fellow editors, but many of the arguments against the change are based on assumption or personal preference and therefore not persuasive. @Rupples is at least engaging with the issue. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You made the proposal; no-one has to persuade you that you're wrong and it doesn't matter whether or not you find their objections persuasive. I'm surprised you don't recognise that you're not gaining acceptance and that your increasingly stoppy tone won't help you do so. For my part, I've registered my opposition and it doesn't matter much whether you think it's well-founded or even engage with more than a fraction of it. I'll leave it at that. NebY (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not my intent to seem stroppy, apologies. It's difficult to find the right tone in writing sometimes.
 * My main point was that that dismissing a source based on what its readership might become isn't a good idea. There's also a difference between an entry-level source written on a niche topic and a specialist, technical source — just look at 'Quantum Physics for Dummies' A.D.Hope (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * County articles on Wikipedia are not a niche topic. In the context of an LGA article on a niche topic written for a narrow audience, the elision of "authority" may have made sense to LGA writers, but it produces an absurd result for the general reader.
 * Authorities can be unitary, and an area governed by a unitary authority may be called a unitary authority area (or if we still used hyphens much, a unitary-authority area). Deleting "authority" kills the sense in the phrase. A unitary authority is one whose authority is entire and undivided. A unitary area is one whose area is entire and undivided, which is of course implicit in "area" anyway, so it's an absurd tautology for anyone unfamiliar with the LGA's niche terminology. NebY (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If we can accept that the LGA article is okay to use as a source so long as we're careful with it then I think we're golden.
 * I've thought on your second paragraph, and on balance I do agree that 'unitary authority area' is clearer than 'unitary area'. It's arguably a neologism, but in the absence of a clear name among reliable sources we can justify using one for the sake of accessibility.
 * User:NebY has pretty much summed it up. If "district" is unacceptable, just use "local government area" or "local authority area" as both these terms have much wider recognition and understanding than "unitary area", then mention the council and that it's a unitary authority, as I believe @Esemgee and myself have suggested. There's no support so far from other editors for your proposal, despite the arguments you've put forward in favour. Rupples (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Neither of those terms are specific enough — all districts and non-metropolitan counties could be described as 'local government areas' and 'local authority areas'. We need a term which refers specifically to unitary areas, and after looking at reliable sources the only one which comes close is 'unitary area'. Have the three of you found any alternatives when you've looked? A.D.Hope (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a term and it is district. I haven't looked for another because there already is one. The civil service evidently couldn't either. Parishes can be ancient, ecclesiastical and civil, so why is district such a problem? Esemgee (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * District is a problem because unitary areas are not just districts. 'Civil parish' is fully accurate, 'unitary district' is not. I mean this as a question rather than an accusation, but how can you know what terms the civil service use if you haven't researched the terminology? A.D.Hope (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I presume they would have used another term if it there was an appropriate one. I know presuming on Wikipedia is a bad thing. The single word parish is used frequently. Editors could write District (unitary authority) and "whatever else it is". Using "and" is better than changing the vocabulary. You said the only one that comes close is unitary area, well the only one that is used is district. In another 10 years the civil service will have discovered yet another way of confusing us, we should keep it as simple as possible. Think of the average reader not a university professor. Esemgee (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to engage with your points when you keep relying on your assumptions rather than informing yourself about this specific issue. ' District' isn't used in relation to unitary areas in the sources I initially linked to, for example. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've only presumed once and owned up to it. I am genuinely trying to put forward reasonable suggestions. You have obviously decided my contributions aren't worthwhile. I want to make articles accessible to a broad not niche audience. Esemgee (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think your contributions are worthwhile, but we keep circling back around to 'district' and I'm struggling to find common ground as I don't think that is a good term to use. If you can find some examples of 'unitary district' or similar being used I'll happily take them into consideration — I've looked myself and not had much luck, but two pairs of eyes is better than one. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to add, I do think we're on the same wavelength in terms of intent. I didn't propose this to make the articles more complicated, but because English local government is difficult to understand and I want it to be as easy as we can make it. Not using the same term for unitary authorities and the areas they serve should help with that. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

ADH, your WP:OR neologism "unitary area" does not have consensus so would you please stop changing county articles to use it while discussion is in progress. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm simplifying the administration passages of the ceremonial county article leads based on the comments in the 'Usage of "local authority" for districts' discussion above. I need to call the unitary areas something for the time being, but it's just a placeholder name. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've just finished the final few counties (I think), and to show I'm not trying to stealthily impose the phrase I've used 'unitary authority area' instead. I hope that shows I'm acting in good faith, I just wanted to act on the discussion while it's still fresh. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe but I've already had to repair the first two counties I looked at. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The ONS map "UK: Counties and unitary authorities, 2021" has a note, "Council areas in Scotland and local government districts in Northern Ireland are equivalent to unitary authorities in England and Wales, but are shown separately." It shows the ONS uses the term unitary authority to describe both the council and its area.
 * Perhaps Wikipedia could do what the ONS does, use the term for both. Esemgee (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The ONS does use 'unitary authority' for the areas, that's interesting. Thank you for finding the source, there's also this one I suppose the question is whether or not the ONS use works for our purposes, and I think it generally does except in the articles about the councils themselves:
 * North Yorkshire Council, known until 1 April 2023 as North Yorkshire County Council, is the unitary authority which governs the unitary authority of North Yorkshire, within the larger ceremonial county of North Yorkshire, in England.
 * Shropshire Council is a unitary authority which governs the unitary authority of Shropshire, which is part of the ceremonial county of the same name in the West Midlands of England.
 * To avoid that clumsiness I don't see any particular harm in using 'unitary authority area' for the areas. It is possible to avoid awkward phrasing with good wording (see Cumberland) but having two distinct terms will mean that isn't as necessary. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Unitary authority area" at least has the benefit of (a) making sense and (b) being an accepted term used by RSs. Gosh but its prolix, a form to use once and abbreviate to "district" thereafter, IMO. But we have to follow the sources. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't find 'unitary authority area' in the ONS sources or any of the four I linked above. It would be handy if a source did use it though, if you can share. I wouldn't recommend abbreviating to 'district' though, for the reasons I mentioned (quite a long way) above. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Got it. The ONS uses the term "district" as a catch-all geographic division for all local government areas except third tier parishes and similar — Esemgee is correct all along. There's no need to distinguish between the different types of councils and their status because these articles are about the geographic areas the councils serve, the places therein and statistical data. The geographic areas are all districts. I believe, but correct if wrong, each district has the same name as its council so that's why there's no need for a specific term such as unitary area or such like. See https://geoportal.statistics.gov.uk/datasets/ons::local-authority-districts-april-2023-names-and-codes-in-the-united-kingdom/explore. Rupples (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Like everything to do with England, I'm not sure it's quite that straightforward. The ONS table you've linked to does classify non-metropolitan districts, unitary authorities, metropolitan districts, and London boroughs as 'local authority districts', but elsewhere it distinguishes between the four and restricts the term 'local authority districts' to non-metropolitan districts. The table also omits non-metropolitan counties, which are also geographic areas.
 * In terms of names, we could just list the districts, but I'm not sure that would serve readers particularly well: 'Lancashire contains the districts of Blackpool, Blackburn with Darwen Burnley, Chorley, Fylde, Hyndburn, Lancaster, Pendle, Preston, Ribble Valley, Rossendale, South Ribble, West Lancashire, and Wyre' is both long-winded and doesn't tell a reader what those districts are for. I prefer mentioning the authority types to give a brief overview of the local government arrangements. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Ceremonial county lead format
I'd be interested to know how you think 'unitary authority area' should be incorporated into the ceremonial county leads. At the moment a county's local government is defined in terms of its districts, but maybe this needs to shift to accomodate unitary authority areas. For example, The county contains fourteen local government districts; twelve are part of a two-tier non-metropolitan county also called Lancashire, and the districts of Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool are unitary areas.''could become something like:
 * For local government purposes Lancashire is divided into a two-tier non-metropolitan county, which contains twelve districts, and the unitary authority areas of Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool. (I tend to use Lancashire as a test case because it's one of the more complicated areas). A.D.Hope (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to assert that "unitary authority area" is a good term; all I can say is that it's how the LGA's writers arrived at "unitary area". Your links above indicate that the LGA is an outlier, so we should beware of using it as an authority on phrasing and terminology.
 * Lancashire's local government is a mixture of county, district and unitary authorities.
 * Lancashire's local government is divided between unitary authorities and two tiers of county and district councils.
 * Or suchlike. Summarise, especially when it's complicated, and move on. (I didn't even choose to avoid "unitary authority area"; it simply didn't appear.) NebY (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Unitary authority areas don't seem to be discussed that much, so rather than sidelining the source which does discuss them directly I'd prefer to use it as a guide.
 * Personally I'd say those summaries go too far the other way, and are too vague. Leads should be succinct, abolutely, but the number of authorities, their names (where practical), and their types are relevant details. Compared to Britannica we do quite well at condensing the information. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The very fact that they're not discussed much is a guide in itself.
 * Lancashire's local government is divided between two unitary authorities (Blackburn with Darwen, and Blackpool) and two tiers of a county council and twelve district councils.
 * Lancashire's local government is divided between two unitary authorities (Blackburn with Darwen, and Blackpool) and a two-tier system of a county council and twelve district councils.
 * (It turns out that parenthesising also allows a vital comma, though admittedly some would use a semicolon without "and", and that would certainly serve well if listing more than two.) NebY (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What about:
 * For local government purposes Lancashire consists of a two-tier non-metropolitan county, which contains twelve districts, and two unitary authority areas: Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool.
 * or :
 * For local government purposes Lancashire is divided between two unitary authorities (Blackburn with Darwen, and Blackpool) and a two-tier non-metropolitan county with twelve districts.
 * Something about 'local government is divided' sounds off to me, and I think it's easier to phrase things in terms of areas rather than councils. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We're talking about government, so it's a complication to express it as areas when we can just go straught to authorities and councils; that first example has "authority areas" rather than authorities, and what's a two-tier county - a geographical area divided into an upper and a lower stratum? (The surface and the mines?) "Non-metropolitan" is superfluous in a summary of this sort. You don't like "local government is divided" but I find "For local government purposes, Lancashire ..." opens the sentence with something of a circumlocution. Maybe instead
 * Lancashire's local government consists of two single-tier authorities (Blackburn with Darwen, and Blackpool) and elsewhere a two-tier system of a county council and twelve district councils. (I think that works without "elsewhere" too.) NebY (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I just think we're losing clarity for the sake of brevity. That last proposal makes less sense to me than the two above. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What wouldn't make sense to a reader? The use of "single-tier" rather than "unitary"? That's only to contrast with "two-tier", and could be switched back. Or do you think that "non-metropolitan" adds clarity? It's a detail that would make sense to some, but an odd qualification even if the reader recognises it - and this may even be the first Wikipedia article about a county that our reader's read, let alone the first one to start talking about types of local government in England.
 * But if you prefer
 * Lancashire's local government is divided between two unitary authorities (Blackburn with Darwen, and Blackpool) and a two-tier system of a county council and twelve district councils.
 * then sure, let's go back to that; sometimes trying to integrate alternative phrasing doesn't work. NebY (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I think 'single-tier' is fine and makes a good contrast. I'm not insisting on 'non-metropolitan' because I love the term, but to indicate that the local government county is not a ceremonial county:
 * For local government purposes Lancashire consists of a two-tier non-metropolitan county, which contains twelve districts, and two single-tier areas: Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool.
 * If we remove 'non-metropolitan' we're relying too much on the link to inform readers of the difference, I think:
 * For local government purposes Lancashire consists of a two-tier county, which contains twelve districts, and two single-tier areas: Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool.
 * The other alternative is 'shire county':
 * For local government purposes Lancashire consists of a shire county, which contains twelve districts, and two unitary authority areas: Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool.
 * I'm not sure that's any better, 'two-tier' and 'single-tier' are easier to understand. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @NebY I hope you don't mind me moving the discussion, but it was getting very cramped and is really a sub-topic of the main conversation. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it's time for someone else to chip in: I'm happy with:
 * For local government purposes Lancashire consists of a two-tier county, which contains twelve districts, and two single-tier areas: Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool.
 * or perhaps
 * For local government purposes Lancashire comprises a two-tier county, which contains twelve districts, and two single-tier areas: Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool.
 * I think the distinction between single-tier and two-tier is helpfully clear, even to those who don't understand English local government. I suggest it's also better for the eponymous county to be listed ahead of the two other units. Pam  D  12:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for chipping in, Pam, it's always helpful to get an outside opinion. I really think we're getting there, I just wonder about tweaking the districts passage slightly to:
 * For local government purposes Lancashire comprises a two-tier county with twelve districts, and two single-tier areas: Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool.
 * It's only a small change, but I think it more closely associates the districts with the county. If we can condense Lancashire to a single sentence the other counties should be a breeze, surely! A.D.Hope (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I thought it had been established that these areas are unitary authorities so how about: "For local government purposes Lancashire comprises a two-tier county run by Lancashire County Council with twelve non-metropolitan districts, and two single-tier unitary authorities: Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool. We might as well introduce the proper terms.
 * By the way I have just realised that there is more than one Unitary authority article, this one includes other countries, and the other is Unitary authorities of England. I think it might be more useful to link to the second. Esemgee (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * For Lancashire, I would go for a simpler format: The local government of Lancashire is divided between three lead bodies: two Unitary Authorities (Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool) and a County Council for the remainder of the county. Would that work? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I suppose any of the above would do because I am not in favour of a standardised sentence format for every county article (or any other for that matter). Esemgee (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, standardisation in this area does not work well. I'm finding some of the suggestions put forward laughable. Don't want to embarrass anyone so not inclined to say which, but in terms of plain English and keeping the lead concise and comprehensible User:NebY has already pointed out some of the absurdities. Rupples (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Heh. If I may collect a few notes together rather than bludgeon all over the discussion:
 * good split, ADH
 * definitely time, Pam! I was trying to use the sentence structure to give an extra clue that the two aren't included in the two-tier structure and avoid it being read as "a two-tier county with 12 districts and 2 areas," or at least having to be re-read to grasp it, but it's a fine detail.
 * Esemgee, we disagree quite fundamentally about introducing terms. We're not training new councillors, and can't assume our readers will have any interest in the local government section; we want the lead to be a summary that communicates the basics about Lancashire. It doesn't have to be brief so much as quick and easy to read with a minimum of unfamiliar terms or phrases that give the reader pause. But yes indeed, we don't need a standard format; great if this is re-usable, but the challenge for me was to demonstrate another approach.
 * JMF, that works too if we're happy not to mention the existence of districts, except I still fear "unitary" is unfamiliar to many readers; also Less Fewer Capitals Please!
 * NebY (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In the lead, we really don't need to get down to substructure level, whether it be CPs or Districts. I'm content with unitary authority: if it is wlinked, then it is obvious that it is "a thing". Most major population centres are UAs nowadays, so I think your pessimism is misplaced – but again, given that it is wlinked, it shouldn't really present a problem. And yes, the body content needs to be there, the lead is supposed to be a summary, not a replacement. If something is not in the body then it definitely should not be in the lead unless its a stub article. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * My preference is still:
 * For local government purposes Lancashire comprises a two-tier county with twelve districts, and two single-tier areas: Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool.
 * It doesn't use jargon, it includes a reasonable amount of detail, and at 23 words it's one of the shortest proposals. What's not to like? A.D.Hope (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Esemgee@JMF@NebY@PamD@Koncorde@Rupples: going back to the original discussion, separate from Lancashire, can we agree on using 'two-tier' and 'single-tier' to refer to local authority structures where more detail is not required (e.g. ceremonial county article leads)? If we can agree on that then we could draw the discussion to a close, without needing to define an exact form of words. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's the clearest way to describe the situation for the non-geek. Pam  D  09:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please do. However, only is it is mentioned elsewhere. Leads should reflect the article not introduce new material. Esemgee (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * How widely used are the terms "two-tier county" and "single-tier area"? Rupples (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think the terms need to be widely used, nor even used in the rest of the article. We are using them here descriptively, in a way which conveys information to the reader who may or may not know much about English local government, not saying "There is a thing called a Single-Tier Area". It's as if ... let's think ... the body of the article talked about there being oaks, poplars and small-leaved lime, and in the lead we said "trees" or "deciduous trees". (Apologies if that analogy doesn't work).  Pam  D  16:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Alongside what Pam has said, the terms are reasonably common as descriptors. They (or slight variants such as 'one-tier') are used on gov.uk, by the Local Government Association and House of Commons Library (e.g. p. 6, p. 22), and by the Institute for Government. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I'm only speaking for myself, but as a reader I'm getting no real sense of what the terms "two-tier county" and "single-tier area" mean. Rupples (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That leaves us in a position where none of the terms are acceptable, for various reasons. I'm stumped. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @A.D.Hope I thought there was consensus to use "unitary authority area". If Google hits are a reasonable metric by which to judge usage and (perhaps) understanding then that term seems to be more appropriate than "single-tier area" and is not too different from "unitary area" which was your original preference, but didn't attract support. The "unitary authority" part of the term can be wikilinked to a page with that exact title. The problem is how to describe the county council and district area/structure succinctly. Rupples (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If there's a consensus for 'unitary authority area' but not 'single/two-tier' then surely the wording should be something like:
 * For local government purposes Lancashire comprises a non-metropolitan county with twelve districts, and two unitary authority areas: Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool.
 * I know not everyone likes 'non-metropolitan', but if 'unitary authority' is acceptable then surely the former is by the same logic? A.D.Hope (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with "unitary authority area", as most common name. I strongly oppose any reference to "tiers" in the lead, as wildly inappropriate. Metropolitan or otherwise is also undue for the lead: the article is about the county, not its government. Reference to districts below CC is undue for the same reason - why stop there, let's have civil parishes too? Enough already: the lead should tell readers the essential information about a place: this pettif
 * ogging detail is anything but. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Why is 'metropolitan' undue but 'unitary authority' acceptable? Both terms refer to local government structures, so I don't follow the logic. Additionally, the article does cover Lancashire's governance, in the 'governance' section. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Non-metropolitan" is not acceptable. Counties are not described in common parlance as a negative. Referencing areas as tiers is grammatically suspect. At first, I wasn't sure about using "unitary authority area", but have come around to agreeing it is acceptable. With more counties moving to this model it will come into even more widespread usage. (Lancashire County Council have proposed the change to all unitary authority model for the county.) Rupples (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That leaves us with 'shire county', which I think is too colloquial. It's also confusing now that many ceremonial counties with 'shire' in the name are wholly or partially unitary. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps just For local government purposes Lancashire comprises a county with twelve districts, and two unitary authority areas: Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool. I'd prefer the single-tier and two-tier terminology, but once we've said "for local government purposes", we can just say "county" rather than "non-metropolitan county", because we've said it's a county as the word is used for local government purposes. Most readers won't care; those who do will find it all explained in glorious technicolour in the "Governance" section below. Pam  D  15:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Bravo @PamD! Happy with that — it's clear, concise, has sufficient detail for the lead and reads well. Rupples (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Even simpler, "Lancashire is administered by two unitary authorities (Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool), with a county council for the remainder of the county." Full stop. Yes, in the Governance section, put all the metro/non-metro, one/two/three/n tiers you like but please don't bury the lead in detail that is only of interest to a tiny number of readers. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What about how we write in articles about settlements? I by default tend to write "X is a village and civil parish in the X district, in the ceremonial county of X" by I'm also fine with "X is a village and civil parish in the unitary authority area of X, in the ceremonial county of X". We shouldn't be referring to the geographical areas as "unitary authorities" without "area" either in the ceremonial county articles or in settlement articles.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh please don't. This is taking us in the direction of the child's 10 Letsby Avenue, Stableford, Chapel and Hill Chorlton, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire, England, United Kingdom, Eurasia, Earth, the Solar System, the Milky Way, the Universe. (with apologies to Stableford, which I know nothing about, I just created it to fix a red link at Ogilby's Britannia). The text in the lead should only be sufficient for readers to locate it mentally and no more. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I can go along with @PamD's latest proposal. I also have reservations about not specifying the type of county, but a consensus is needed and that wording is certainly good enough to be getting on with. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The administration is important but (per WP:LEAD), its coverage should be proportionate
IMO, we should be very careful not to let the tail wag the dog. Yes, the administration is important but (per WP:LEAD), its coverage should be proportionate. Only the most essential info goes in the lead, the detail – and for local government in England, complicated detail that is difficult to summarise succinctly in the lead –  belongs in the body. At another place, I boldly changed the lead of Buckinghamshire to
 * (ADH didn't like it and reverted, so I have given an explanation of my logic at talk:Buckinghamshire: in a nutshell, it is that the order of sentences should reflect their relative importance to the general reader.)
 * (ADH didn't like it and reverted, so I have given an explanation of my logic at talk:Buckinghamshire: in a nutshell, it is that the order of sentences should reflect their relative importance to the general reader.)

Would this example and logic illuminate the discussion above? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree on the proportionate - but still think getting into the different districts, authorities and so on is unnecessary. The example given of the Britannica by ADH I think misses the point that their article doesn't have a lede so leaps into explaining the three slightly different versions of the county per "The administrative, geographic, and historic counties occupy somewhat different areas", whereas we barely go into the same levels of coverage. We are, in effect, summarising at a greater (or at least equal) detail and specificity in the lede as we do in the body of the governance aspect - and in doing so neglect larger and more significant aspects of the article body. This means either one of two things:
 * The article body needs proportionately more content about governance and all the different aspects, and details about them.
 * or
 * We're missing out on other more interesting content in the body that should be summarised in the lede instead by focusing on really very niche and uninteresting technical things.
 * I know I would much prefer to read about what a County is, what shape it is, what is in it, and what it's famous for, than I would about how it's divided up into things that are not the County at this degree of detail. Koncorde (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If I can give some perspective, the lead of Lancashire currently contains 378 words. Of those, only 29 cover the local government arrangements and some of the proposals above are closer to 20. The rest of the lead covers human geography, physical geography, and history. I really don't think we're over-emphasising local government.
 * (@JMF I agree with you about shifting the contents of the leads around, but it's a big change which might be better discussed once this business has finished.) A.D.Hope (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * , exactly!
 * yes, as a I said at Talk:Buckinghamshire. My reason to show it here now is only to illustrate my point that the lead should be a succinct summary of the most important topics in the body. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * the current text at Lancashire reads The county contains fourteen local government districts; twelve are part of a two-tier non-metropolitan county also called Lancashire, while the districts of Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool are unitary. Many of our readers would have died of boredom before reaching the end of that "sentence". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We include information based on how important it is, not exciting. Besides, my point is that the local government sentence is only a small part of the lead. A.D.Hope (talk) A.D.Hope (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * But that's the thing; the "important" portion of the sentence The county contains fourteen local government districts; twelve are part of a two-tier non-metropolitan county also called Lancashire, while the districts of Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool are unitary. is "The county contains fourteen local government districts". So, not 29, not 20, but 6 - and I'd take an exacto knife to other parts as well like the need to mention 5 population centres in paragraph 2 after mentioning 2 of them already in paragraph 1, the garbled way we just tack on "it used to include other geographic areas" at the end of paragraph 2 etc. Geographic information in paragraph 1, and paragraph 3, and how once again we seem to be prioritising telling people what is outside of the county (i.e. adjacent counties) rather than talking about the topic. There's wholesale issues across multiple articles around the same things again and again, while people debate over single words. Koncorde (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It was easier to bullet my response, hope you don't mind:
 * Districts are only part of a county's local government, it's important to mention how they're organised.
 * Lancashire's three largest settlements and two cities are mentioned, I don't see an issue with that. The exact number of settlements mentioned varies by county, depending on where the convenient cut-off is.
 * Where a county's current borders are significantly different to its historic ones it's sensible to mention this in the lead. Lancashire's lead used to focus heavily on its administrative history, so the single sentence is a major improvement. It's currently after the other administrative information in paragraph 2, but it would also fit in paragraph 4, which covers history.
 * The bordering counties are important as they help a reader to locate the county. It's analogous to United Kingdom or France listing their bordering states. I would move the information out of the lead paragraph, though.
 * A.D.Hope (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to close discussion
Look at the length of this whole discussion and think about how much time has gone into it. Is this really a good use of our time? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy - we don't need rules and guidelines for every single situation. These pedantic discussions around city status, unitary authorities and the rest are doing very little to improve the encyclopaedia and the time could be better spent on more important things. "Unitary authority area" is fine. "District" is fine. Our articles don't all have to follow the same boilerplate template wording. Let's move on. WaggersTALK  08:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The discussion, although perhaps tiring, is a good use of our time. The counties have had poor leads (and bodies, in many cases) for a while, and despite my best efforts still need work. I'm glad we've gained some momentum to improve them. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Having said that, closing this discussion once the (hopefully imminent) consensus on wording is achieved and opening a new one about the leads in general would probably be wise. It might need clear parameters so as not to drift too far off-topic. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure opening a new discussion on another aspect of county article leads is warranted. These discussions are of use for when there's substantial disagreement and actual edit-warring taking place, but questionable otherwise. Some editors prefer more stringent guidelines and consistency across article types, while others don't view it as a priority and/or view the imposition of further, perhaps unnecessary standardisation and guidelines undesirable. Rupples (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @JMF and @Koncorde have both expressed dissatisfaction with the current leads, and I would like to get them to a stable position; the new guideline on infobox collages is working well so far, so I think a new consensus on the text will be helpful. Having said that, as I won't be around to participate in any discussions until after the 22nd I'm very happy to hold off until at least then. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: Welshman asking again, this specifically applies to only England right? (specifically Ceremonial counties?) Can't see how it can modernly apply to the devolved countries, as they're all single-tier (thankfully), so a bit redundant. Although it could be somewhat applied to the (historic) counties of Northern Ireland (may need a WP:IE discussion). Scottish and Welsh historic and lieutenancy/preserved counties would have to balance both the districts used at the time, and modern-day replacements which would become quite long for a lead, so best tackled separately (?) or omitted entirely, idk.  Dank Jae  18:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland have sensible local government structures (from what I know), so you're spared all this. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)