Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 39

County town
Quite a lot of the (English?) county articles list the county town in the lead paragraph, but is the concept of a county town too ill-defined to be included in this position? The county town article isn't well-sourced, and it's difficult to find reliable sources when there's a dispute, e.g, Lancaster vs Preston for Lancashire.

Wales and Scotland tend to list the 'administrative centre' instead, which is relatively straightforward as this is simply where the unitary council is based. This could work in England where a ceremonial county contains a single unitary area, but those are relatively few in number (Northumberland, Herefordshire, Rutland..?)

Would it be easier to just list the largest settlement? A.D.Hope (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * This is a good question. The problem is defined on another site "The county towns were always important, and you can see that many counties are named after their county town. They were the administrative centre for local government, the market town, and the largest town in the county. However, local government has been reorganised more than once, and now the county towns are not necessarily the adminstrative centre of the county." Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The largest settlement is not necessarily the administrative centre either, see Winchester and Reigate for example. Listing the admin centre is probably more important than the largest settlement.Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it, should we not just state what was the traditional county town was, and if different what is the current administrative centre? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Which is what some articles do. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing listing the largest settlement as the administrative centre, just continuing to list the largest settlement because that information is easily sourced. Sometimes identifying the administrative centre can be tricky – for Lancashire would we list Preston, Blackpool, and Blackburn, or include the boroughs? I'm not sure it's a door I want to open! A.D.Hope (talk) 11:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If it is debatable, leave it out. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That would mean removing all of the current references to county towns in the article leads, I think. I'm quite comfortable with that. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not what I meant, if, in individual cases the county town is debatable, leave it out of that article. Not a general prohibiton on including it in all cases. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's what I mean – it's debatable in pretty much every case because it's difficult to find sources which definitively state what a county's county town is. I just don't think that they have the relevance they perhaps had in the past. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Neither does market town have any modern relevance, but it is still part of the historical fabric of the town. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Possibly something for the 'history' or 'economy' section, then? A.D.Hope (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * When Lancaster became a city in May 1937 it was described as a market town, municipal borough and county town in the Lancaster Parliamentary division of Lancashire. A search for Lancaster county town at the BNA search page brings up lots of results but I don't have a subscription so I can't reference it. Esemgee (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't need a blanket rule for everything. A lot of these will be case-by-case and for most counties there's very little contention about where the traditional county town is - which might or might not be the same as the administrative centre but, again, that can be dealt with case by case. A bit of controversy in Lancashire shouldn't mean we suddenly have to remove mentions of county towns from all other articles. WaggersTALK  15:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is more than 'a bit of contention in Lancashire', Waggers. It increasingly seems that it's only a minority of counties where the county town can be identified or where it isn't contentious. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Even so, in the cases where the county town is well defined and verifiable, it would be unhelpful to have a general rule saying that we shouldn't include it. 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  15:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing a general rule, just pointing out that mentioning the county town doesn't serve much of a purpose even where it can be identified. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Would it be easier to just list the largest settlement?" sounds like a general rule proposal to me. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you were asking. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</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  15:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Possibly, it was more a discussion point than a proposal. The most I can see happening is removing the instruction to include the county town from the county guidelines, but I'm not particularly bothered about that. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that, in any case where there's a dispute (e.g. Lancashire – see Talk:Lancaster, Lancashire ), we shouldn't mention "county town" in the lead. It could be mentioned later in the article where we have more space to explain the nature of the dispute, but Wikipedia shouldn't take sides. <b style="color:#FFF8C0;background:#494"> Dr Greg </b> talk 11:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, Dr Greg. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dr Greg. In the handful of cases where it's unambiguous (Oxford, Norwich, Hereford etc.) no harm in putting it in lead. Where there's any debate or nuance to explain, unpack the issue more carefully in the body of the article. The County town article would also benefit from a fuller explanation of why certain towns were routinely claimed to be county towns - at the moment it's rather unsatisfactory for essentially saying "it's all a bit ill-defined, but here's a list of claimants to be county towns anyway". Stortford (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If you can find a source saying 'Oxford is the county town of Oxfordshire' I'd be very grateful, as I'm coming up short. In the absence of one I don't think that we can even state the county town in unambiguous cases – it may be better to just say that Oxfordshire County Council and the Crown Court sit in Oxford, either in the lead or elsewhere in the body. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Plenty of sources say Oxford is the county town of Oxfordshire (Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911 comes up from a quick look) - the difficulty we have is that many of those sources don't show their workings as to what they meant by the term. For my own understanding I suppose I'm seeing it as something of a Venn diagram. Places which give their names to a county, places which hosted the assizes, places where knights of the shire were elected, and places where the county council has been based all seem to have been used historically to identify the county town. In cases where those definitions all coalesce on the same place, I don't see the harm in describing it as the county town in the lead. In other cases, a bit more explanation will be necessary in the body of the article. Stortford (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The 1911 Britannica is too outdated for our purposes, I think. A source which uses the current local government boundaries would be better. It's worth noting that Britannica no longer seems to mention county towns at all – Oxford is called the 'county seat', but Norwich isn't given any special title.
 * My understanding is that we shouldn't be trying to puzzle it out at all. If we can't find a reliable and reasonably contemporary source for the county towns then the best thing is to leave them out of a contemporary overview of the county. We could always us Britannica in the 'history' section, something like 'In 1911, the county town was considered to be Oxford'. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * History, Gazetteer and Directory of the County of Oxford of 1852 says it was the county town as do the Association of British Counties. As dirs the Oxfird English dictionary Davidstewartharvey (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The 1979 Victoria History of Oxford Davidstewartharvey (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the other sources, but the VCH could work.
 * My concern now is whether the county towns are worth including in general, as they seem to be fairly nebulous. We can include things like the largest settlement, administrative centre, and a county's historic towns in other ways. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * County towns are reasonably commonly referred to in modern usage by media, tourist boards and the like, even if most people don't stop to think precisely what the term means. Perhaps I can pose your Oxford question the other way up - are you aware of any source claiming somewhere else is county town of Oxfordshire? Stortford (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not, but that doesn't mean we need to mention the county town. I'm not confident that county towns are commonly referred to – Visit South East England, for example, calls Oxford the 'cultural capital' of Oxfordshire, but not the county town, and Visit England doesn't seem to refer to it as such either. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But on this part of the website it calls it the county town - https://www.visitsoutheastengland.com/places-to-visit/oxfordshire/map. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think they should still be there as they are historic. Essex has "The largest settlement is Southend-on-Sea, and the county town is Chelmsford." May be could have a statement like "The largest settlement is Town 1, and the county town was historically town 2. The administrative town is now Town 3" Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I would mention both county town and largest settlement if know but in the case of Lancashire where its not clear which is I wouldn't mention county town in the lead. I'd note that largest settlement may not be easy to define partly due to the recent changes in ONS BUAs for example Kingswood recently becoming the largest settlement in Gloucestershire. As well as BUA/BUASD parishes/unparished areas, charter trustees, districts and wards are sometimes used for figures though I'd only use BUA/BUASD for stating the largest settlement as the others are administrative divisions and similar. We could have something like what US states do like North Carolina and mention the capital and largest settlement or metro though unlike US states English counties as mentioned don't always have a settled county town. For Hampshire we could state that Winchester is the county town in the infobox and that Southampton is the largest settlement.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you know if there's an official list of county towns anywhere, Crouch? I'm struggling to find proper sources for them in general, which is a problem.
 * The difference between county towns and largest settlements is that the population data definitely exists, it's just a question of how we interpret it. I know that when I did Gloucestershire I fudged it a bit by listing the largest 'distinct' settlements, which isn't perfect but avoids giving the suburb of Kingswood undue prominence; it's mentioned in the next sentence instead. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Although it seems not official there is a map here.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * At least one mistake on that, Guildford is not the county town of Surrey. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you sure about that? Googling for "county town" of Surrey every hit that gives an unqualified answer says either the county town is Guikdford or that Guildford is/was regarded as the county town. Surrey includes the statement "Guildford is often regarded as the historic county town..." and Guildford states "Although Guildford has historically been regarded as the county town of Surrey..." both supported by "Medieval Guildford—"Henry III confirmed Guildford's status as the county town of Surrey in 1257". Other sources include Visit Surrey "Experience Guildford, the historic and vibrant county town of Surrey", Visit South East England "A little further west, the county town of Guildford is the main pull for tourists visiting the area.", an 1801 book whose title begins "The History Of Guildford, The County-Town Of Surrey., Invest In Surrey "Guildford is the County town of Surrey", University of Surrey "The county town of Surrey, Guildford offers a vibrant blend of entertainment, culture and history [...]", Epsom & Ewell Times "All change in Surrey's County Town?" (which begins "Guildford town centre is going through some huge changes") and BBC News "Pride in Surrey will celebrate its fifth anniversary in the county town of Guildford in September."
 * Amending the search to just exclude the word "Guildford" brought up nothing relevant in the first two pages, putting quotes around the word "Surrey" helped a bit but the closest thing to a reliable source saying anything relevant I found was this article in the Surrey Comet which is not "Town centre manager Graham McNally said: "Clearly the Time Out folk think Kingston isn't part of London and is still the county town for Surrey. They are about 40 years out of touch." A book, Leatherhead A history includes in the blurb "Although at times known as the county town of Surrey, Leatherhead has never lost its village identity".
 * Based on that, I'd say that Guildford is unambiguously the county town of Surrey. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * At the time that Henry III is supposed to have made Guildford the county town, the main administrative centre and largest settlement in Surrey was actually Southwark. The claim comes from a self-published source in the 1930s. Henry III granted Guildford a charter to hold a market, doesn't make it the county town. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Every reliable source I've found states that Guildford is the county town, so unless you have reliable sources stating something different, then for Wikipedia's purposes it is clear that Guildford is the county town. Whether it meets a definition of the term we come up with is irrelevant original research. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Trouble is all those so-called reliable sources are quoting from the same unsafe source. As you saw, Leatherhead has also been touted as the county town in the past. Why not state, on the basis of that "reliable source", that Leatherhead holds the honour? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well in the VCH History of Surrey Southwark is never mention as the county town, and VCH is pretty much regarded as onecof the most reliable sources you can get. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be as Southwark had become a borough of London in the 16th century. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * re Leatherhead, first I'm not sure how reliable a source it is. Second it states that it has been county town in the past, not that it currently is. Third, multiple reliable sources (which are not all based on the same source) state that Guildford is the county town. Fourth, we have no reliable sources stating the county town is (not was) somewhere other than Guildford. Thryduulf (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have yet to find any real evidence that Surrey has/had a formal county town. I am trying to find the original 1930s claim but it is not on-line and I can't remember now where I found it. I'll get back to you if/when I find it. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Why does it need a "formal" county town? It's not something like city status that is a formal grant. In some cases it will have corresponded with the administrative centre, or the location of the assizes, or the greatest population, etc. but it clearly doesn't always do so these days - otherwise nobody would be claiming Guildford as county town of Surrey. In the 21st century it's probably closer to meaning the cultural heart of the county - a historic settlement that represents what is quintessentially Surrey or Lancashire or Kent or wherever. Thryduulf (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If it is not a formal county town then it is not a county town. The problem with Guildford is that it is the obvious candidate for county town, once you remove the part of Surrey swallowed up in consecutive enlargements of Greater London. However that enlargement took place after the term ceased having any formal relevance. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there such a thing as a "formal county town"? If so, who grants the status using what criteria? Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The claim for Guildford is based on a royal charter, supposedly granted by Henry III. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not to be pushy, but does the above not indicate that mentioning county towns possibly causes more problems than it solves? I mean, a settlement being the county town doesn't really mean anything these days, so why don't we remove them from the leads, but mention any verifiable county towns in the relevant article bodies? A.D.Hope (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree if it can be verified it does no harm, and what is in the lead should be mentioned elsewhere in the article. It might have fallen into disuse but socially and historically it was important. Personally I find it as interesting as the machinations of boundary and name changes. Esemgee (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I try to take a concise approach to leads, so something doing no harm wouldn't be a strong reason to include it. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That is one approach but others are equally valid. Esemgee (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It comes down to how far such inclusions can be justified in what should be a 'concise overview', to quote MOS:LEAD. The county leads are dense, so it would arguably be an improvement if anything could be removed as non-essential. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The removal of "X is the county town" doesn't have much of an impact on conciseness of the leads, so we can probably scratch that argument. Having said that, in cases where it's unclear what is the county town, it could either be left out of the lead or if included, an explanatory note appended. For many counties, county towns have diminished relevance these days so it's debatable whether they need to be mentioned in the lead, so long as claimant(s) to the title are mentioned somewhere in the article. Rupples (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the removal from the lead. Most counties and their county towns have hundreds of years in existence and should be in the lead, and if the claim can be backed up should be in the lead. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Every little helps, Rupples. I agree with you that county towns have diminished relevance, in fact I don't know if they have any relevance – at best the title seems to be an informal honorific. They could also be removed from the lead on that basis. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, removal of county town is helpful if one's goal is to portray a county as a modern entity and purge from the lead what some may consider to be a vestige of historic detail. Rupples (talk) 09:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but I don't think anyone is making that argument. It would be inappropriate to imply a county was an entirely modern entity if it had a long history, as many of them do. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @A.D.Hope. But is it appropriate to refer to there being a current county town for those counties where administrative functions are no longer carried out on a ceremonial county basis? (In effect any ceremonial county with more than one unitary authority.) Is this the crux of the matter in your view? Rupples (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the crux of the matter is that reliably identifying the county towns is difficult and, even where they can be identified, the title no longer conveys any useful information. In the past the county town might have fairly reliably indicated a county's administrative centre, or its largest town, or its most historically prominent, but that's not necessarily the case any more.
 * I don't have any particular objection to including some discussion of county towns in an article body, but what purpose does it serve to include them in the lead? A.D.Hope (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the removal from the lead specificially if it is known as the county town of XX. For example Ipswich, Suffolk marks its administration boundries with a roadside notice Ipswich, County town of Suffolk. Edmund Patrick – confer 07:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've had a bit of a look on Google Maps, and although that sign has existed at some point I can't find it. Ipswich doesn't seem to mark its boundaries very well, but of the three signs I found, two read 'Ipswich: East Anglia's Waterfront Town', and the other reads simply 'Ipswich'. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think a distinction should be made where a county town is absolutely unambiguous e.g. Warwick, Worcester, Stafford, Hereford, Lincoln, ones which have a clear 'traditional' county town, which isn't necessarily the modern administrative centre, e.g. Leicester, Derby, Nottingham. And ones where the position is ambiguous for whatever reason. In those cases it should probably be noted what the 'traditional' county town was and the modern administrative centre(s). G-13114 (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Traditional should read historically. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Workshopping Possible RfC
The above linked RfC on the Cornish flag has led me to look at the guidelines here with a view to a possible RfC, but I also notice another issue, and so would like some pre-RfC discussion about this.

First the presenting issue. In December there was this discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 38 which led to an insertion of Do not include flags in the infobox, as they cannot be placed in context there. This was added to the guidelines for English ceremonial counties only. A guideline for one country in the UK, but not all. Looking at the discussion, I see a consensus for the change but it is a weak one, and it did not consider other options in the round. So that should probably be revisited at RfC.

But looking at that showed a second problem. We have separate guidelines for:

Two glaring exceptions are: (1) any mention of counties in Northern Ireland, and (2) administrative counties of Wales. (I presume the preserved counties are covered under former counties). Now often ceremonial counties are coextensive with administrative counties and treated together, but in Wales the preserved county is the ceremonial county and these are not co-extensive with the administrative counties. E.g. Dyfed subsumes three counties. Do we need additional guidelines? or should we, in fact, have a generic guideline and the above list as exceptions? Where would I look for the guidelines about how to write about Pembrokeshire? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Sirfurboy, it also omits the council areas of Scotland ("counties" mean "historic"). I'd assumed Northern Ireland is not included to ensure the traditional counties at least are consistent across the entire island of Ireland and under the scope of WikiProject Ireland. Although the modern "districts" could be included here.
 * Well the "preserved" counties aren't "former" technically, so I don't think they're actually included under that, "former" being only "historic". Although some counties in Wales are GA, so may be little need to standardise it if it seems to be working without it, especially due to the vast differences of counties and county boroughs in Wales. But if we need more, best to add new guidelines for those county types, than combine into a general guideline with less room to adapt.  Dank Jae  11:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * More or less the entirety of the county guidelines are in need of reform, Sirfurboy, but it's very tricky to find a consensus to do so. This isn't anyone's fault in particular, just the result of many competing (but valid) opinions and the fact that a change in one area often has knock-on effects, turning an apparently simple issue into a bit of a minefield. 'County fatigue' is a thing, I can attest to that.
 * The flags discussion you mention is a good example. It began with me proposing a guideline about how to cover English county flags, then became a more general discussion, and was then watered down to a bullet point. I think I'm right in saying that everyone involved agreed that some form of guidance would be helpful, but consensus on the form of words proved elusive. A.D.Hope (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To give a more helpful answer, I would strongly discourage you from trying to fix the county guidelines before opening an RfC on county flags. The county guidelines have proven very difficult to change and will become a distraction. There is currently momentum to discuss the flags, which we should take advantage of; I also believe it will be possible to write a UK-wide guideline, therefore removing the need to deal with the various types of county.
 * You may want to read the discussion on county infobox collages as an example of a recent, successful change to the guidelines. It was quite an involved process, but by focussing on a well-defined topic and with good (if I can blow my own trumpet) management of the discussion it went well. Although it initially only applied to English ceremonial counties, it was later successfully applied to Wales thanks to @DankJae. I think this is a good argument for crafting a good guideline even if it isn't immediately applied everywhere, as it provides a good foundation to build on.
 * I'd be happy to help in setting the parameters and managing the debate, but appreciate that I'm heavily involved and so might not be the best person to do so. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, counties are difficult, and a successful RfC ideally needs to be simple. But there is a principle here of precedence that might need resolving. We could have an RfC that has a few options (e.g. remove the flag sentence from English ceremonial counties guidance OR add it to all English county guidance or confirm the status quo, for instance). But that still leaves Welsh administrative counties to have flags, and they all do. Which is a little incongruous when they have a lot of shared history with English counties.
 * The question is whether that one should be parked, pending a different RfC, also keeping it simple, that provides a common guideline for all counties (of Great Britain - NI doesn't seem to be included), with the other guidelines acting as exceptions. To be honest I am somewhat in agreement that I do not have the time or stomach for that one, but if we did have that one, then that would be the place for general guidelines about flags.
 * I'll wait to see what others have to say. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sirfurboy, the main issue with the county flags is whether the modern flag is for the ceremonial or historic county. This difference is much more apparent in England where counties changed over time continuously, but in Wales they were fully abolished, with some restored like Pembrokeshire later, near identical to the historic county, while the Flag of Flintshire is at Flintshire (historic) but not Flintshire, so no, not all Welsh counties have a flag. If we regard county flags to be purely on the historic counties, then they can easily be worked for Wales which has separate articles for historic counties, or some historic counties were resurrected almost exactly, whereas England was much more complicated and continuous process. I don't see any issue with Wales having some of them, as local government is different in Wales.  Dank Jae  19:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You see, part of the problem is that the distinction between historic county and ceremonial county is a false one for most of the counties. Some counties are historic only. Middlesex no longer exists, and Sussex and Yorkshire have been divided, and others like Surrey and Kent have a different extent to what they had historically, but the historic county of Surrey is simply Surrey with a pre 1965 border. (And some other stuff - I'll avoid the pedantry). This is why Surrey, Kent and, of course, Cornwall don't have separate articles for their historic counties. The border change is historical detail about Surrey and Kent, not a different type of county. So the guideline allows flags for historical counties (Sussex, Yorkshire) but not for ceremonial counties where the historic border is the current border (Cornwall), or, indeed, ceremonial counties that have lost some territory (Surrey, Kent). I don't think that makes sense. I also don't think we would want to fix that situation by creating articles for the historic county of Cornwall, Surrey, Kent etc. as though such a county exists as a separate entity from the current ceremonial county. That would be counter to other advice in these guidelines and established consensus, that we do not take the position that historic counties still exist within their former borders. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to add some context to what DankJae said above, the majority of the county flags which appear on Wikipedia are those registered with the Flag Institute, a charity dedicated to the promotion of flags which also maintains a flag registry. The institute only recognises the historic counties, so it won't register flags for counties like Merseyside or Gwynedd. By and large these flags have been designed fairly recently (although many include older symbolism), often through local competitions. Some are registrations do recognise older flags which are popularly used, however, including that of Cornwall. The Institute and its registry are not "official".
 * The fact that the institute only recognises the historic counties puts it at odds with our own guidance, as you note in your comment. It means that, for example, the flag registered by the institute for Lancashire does not represent the same area as our article on the contemporary ceremonial county. This is the case for a surprisingly large number of counties – you can use this tool to compare the historic and ceremonial borders within England. In my opinion it is inappropriate to use these flags in the ceremonial county article infoboxes, which should focus on the ceremonial county, but including them in the body is fine.
 * It's also worth noting that, as far as I'm aware, the official status of most of these flags is debatable. The Department for Communities and Local Government did take to flying them at one time, and some local authorities fly them. Nevertheless, they're not official in the same way as the banner of arms of an authority, which is the flag form of the coat of arms granted to it by the College of Arms, and which belongs to the authority. While I'm not sure it would gain consensus, I'd be tempted not to include a flag in the encyclopedia at all unless there's evidence of it being widely used in the 'real world', rather then simply being registered with the Flag Institute. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the last paragraph is also the reason why I've removed the coats of arms which were formerly in many English ceremonial county article infoboxes; they belong to the council they were granted to, not the county-at-large. In some cases the council whose arms were used didn't even cover the whole of the ceremonial county, for example Shropshire. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * How are you feeling about the RfC, Sirfurboy? No pressure, just your general thoughts. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What's the difference between the proposed discussion and the previous one? We seem to be going round in circles! Is the previous consensus (if indeed there was one) of not including flags in the infobox no longer accepted? There's always going to be exceptions to guidelines. Cornwall is one IMO, though I was not of that view previously. The case for Cornwall was astutely signalled by DankJae in the previous discussion, but was not taken further. The guideline could be restated to allow strong cases for exceptions, akin to the infobox images guideline. Rupples (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The Cornwall discussion demonstrates that the previous consensus – no flags in any infobox – is not accepted. An RfC will allow the issue to be explored more fully, hopefully resulting in a stronger, more stable consensus regardless of what the result actually is.
 * You note that the guideline could be restated to allow exceptions, which would require a discussion anyway. It may as well be an RfC. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * But why not just change the guideline to a sensible compromise now that opposition has been raised and see if that sticks. Be bold! Rupples (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm very reluctant to be bold in this case. Firstly it's presumptuous, as I don't know exactly what the community wants, and it could imply underhandedness or WP:OWNERSHIP of the guideline. I can understand you not wanting yet another discussion, but it allows everyone a say and help keep things above board. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If the existing 'no flags in infobox' guideline is not accepted, shouldn't it be removed until a new discussion resolves the issue? There seems little or no basis now for its enforcement. Rupples (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hard cases make bad law. Willingness to make an exception in an extreme case should not be taken as a desire to rescind the basic principle. NebY (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well that's just it. We know the guideline is contested in relation to Cornwall, but not the rest of the ceremonial counties. Resolving that is best done through an RfC, not the actions of a single editor. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't dispute this. I may be mistaken, but there seems to now be a question mark over what consensus there was to put in the guideline from the first discussion. Although no opposition was raised at the time, re-reading that discussion gives me the impression that it was only A.D. Hope, Waggers and myself who approved of it. Rupples (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * OTOH, I participated and my criticism of the first drafts was, I think, taken into account in the final version, to which I raised no objection. The straightforward way forward is to leave that text in place but hold a formal structured RFC on the matter, not to subject ourselves to a period of anything-goes edits and article-by-article disputes. NebY (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that we don't just want to open up to a free for all. I think I still have two concerns regarding the status quo:
 * Cornwall appears to be a clear exception to the broad rule, primarily owing to its historical nature and the widespread acceptance and use of the flag.
 * Some counties have historical county articles because the counties have been extinguished (e.g. Middlesex), and these articles have flags on.
 * I am in broad agreement with you and others that the flags from the flag institute are problematic. But in that case, I would like to extend the prohibition on use to all county articles, including the historical county articles. On the other hand, I think that the prohibition should be on flag institute flags rather than flags per se. If a county has a flag that is strongly historically associated with the county by name and regardless of minor changes in borders, that flag should be allowed. If a flag is a recent unofficial invention, it should not be allowed. More succinctly, it would be no flags except Cornwall! (Except I am not quite sure about the status of the flag of Yorkshire. The symbol is old, but associated in history with York. I am not sure if it was a pre flag institute flag of Yorkshire or not. Some reading is required.
 * But in essence I think tweaks rather than reversions are called for. It makes no sense that Sussex has a flag and Surrey does not. So should this be extended to historic counties? but with caveat that exceptions exist (or we can deal with the exceptions by RfC - except RfCs are time consuming so ideally we could cover it all off in one, if the issue can be worded simply). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Are we discussing only England or will a prohibition extend to all the Welsh and Scottish county flags and coat of arms? Further, is the discussion limited to positioning images in the infobox or extended to elsewhere within the county articles? Also, there's the question of emblems. The Sussex flag is apparently based on an emblem going back to 1611. Are we distinguishing between flags and emblems? Rupples (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. I agree we'd do well to have one rule that covered articles on past, present and future counties.
 * 2. We wouldn't exclude flags merely because they're registered with the Flag Institute! Rather, registration with the flag institute cannot be either a necessary or sufficient reason for inclusion. That is, we would not include a flag merely because it's been registered with the FI and we don't have sufficient faith in the FI to assume their registry is complete.
 * 3. We could simply say that flags are not included except in exceptional cases with talk-page consensus (a limited form of WP:IAR) or we could save some repetition in discussions and even save some editors the effort of trying to gain consensus if we laid out the exceptions to start with. Broadly speaking, I'd suggest we want to see either
 * a. adoption by an official body such as a county council or lieutenancy (if Lord Lieutenants have ever adopted a county flag - does anyone know?), OR
 * b. longstanding widespread popular use, by which I would exclude eg late-C20 / C21 newspaper campaigns such as one I saw giving readers a choice of flag but no option of none, followed by FI registration and sales shortly after, but no evidence of widespread popular use.
 * 4. This would apply to depictions of flags in the infobox whether using the flag parameter or as the main subject of another image. NebY (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I partially agree with this. In my ideal world, the guideline would be something like:
 * ''Flags should only be included in a county article if there is evidence of the flag being in widespread, popular use over at least a decade. Registry with the Flag Institute may form part of this evidence, but is not enough on its own.
 * ''Where a flag is included in an article, it should be placed in the body, with appropriate accompanying text explaining its origin and use. If the flag warrants a standalone article, make sure this is wikilinked.
 * I'm still not convinced about including flags in the infobox. Even the most popular aren't official, and the infoboxes of several types of county are, strictly speaking, about them as official administrative units. Putting them in the body seems like a reasonable compromise – I'd note that I did the same with the various council coats of arms and that's caused barely an issue. Flags just seem to be a more emotive topic, which I can understand. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You omit my (3a) adoption by a county council etc. Is that because you wouldn't see that as sufficient evidence, or because you know that no councils etc have ever adopted flags, or something else? NebY (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not intentionally; I intended my comment as a general setting out of my position, rather than a direct response to you.
 * However, as far as I'm aware no council has fully adopted one of the flags in popular use. They largely don't need to, as if they need a flag they can fly a banner of arms of their own coat of arms. Lancashire County Council, for example, sometimes flies its banner of arms from County Hall in Preston.
 * Having said that, the 'popular flag' has been flown on Lancashire Day. I'd possibly characterise this as 'recognition' rather than 'adoption'. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So your preferred outcome amounts to no flags in county infoboxes and probably only Cornwall's in the article body, unless sources found describing a flag's "widespread, popular use over a decade"? (Sources found seemingly satisfy this condition for Cornwall.) Rupples (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, flags other than Cornwall's will almost certainly make the cut. Speaking anecdotally, I've seen Yorkshire and Lancashire many times 'in the wild', as well as several of the Welsh flags. Essex and Kent's also have fairly long histories.
 * The intent isn't to exclude flags for the sake of it, but for our coverage of them to reflect their status. The bar for inclusion isn't that high – there are quite a lot of articles like this about Lancashire flag being flown. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your proposed wording places a bar on article content but gives no clear reason — unlike the infobox "ban" guidance which gave the sound reason that its context could be misleading without further explanation in the article body. Whether the flag is recent or has a longer history is neither here nor there. Take Aberdeenshire (historic), a recently designed flag, at the behest of the lord-lieutenant: its design and how it came into being is explained and reported on in reliable sources, e.g.. Why exclude it from the article body? At present, I agree with your second paragraph because this would help stop random placements of flags in articles with no context added, but disagree with the first stipulation. I fail to see why it's thought necessary or desirable for flag images to have to pass this additional bar for inclusion. Rupples (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Guidelines shouldn't explain their reasoning, in my opinion, as their purpose is to be instructions rather than essays. I added an explanation to the current infobox guidance as a compromise, but a link to the discussion which led to the guideline would be my preference.
 * Aberdeenshire's flag looks to be a 'Flag Institute' flag which involved the Lord Lieutenant and the Lord Lyon in its design competition. It isn't the Lord Lieutenant's flag and, as far as I can tell, it hasn't been officially registered with the Lord Lyon. It might catch on in popular use or it might not, but it's only been ten months since it was chosen so it's impossible to tell what will happen in the long term. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What's the intention here; is it to put forward a single suggested guideline to a formal RfC or to offer a number of options? Rupples (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That is part of the reason for a workshop phase. To see what is needed. However, an RfC must be stated simply. The number of options should be small. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The discussion seems to have moved on from county flag images in infoboxes to a wider guideline (or instruction according to A.D.Hope in a reply to me above). The default position would prohibit all flag images from the infobox as well as depictions of flags and related text from the body of county articles (ceremonial, historical and others) unless an exception is gained through consensus or there is a pre-determined exemption in the guideline. Is this a reasonable summary/conclusion of what contributors to this discussion are seeking? Rupples (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It would make sense to expand the discussion to county flags in general, I think. In terms of what is being sought, on my part I'd prefer a guideline phrased to allow any flag to be included in the article body which meets the criteria of being reliably shown to be in widespread use. I would not support flags in the infobox.
 * Just to note, all I meant above is that the guideline should be written as an instruction rather than getting bogged down in the whys and wherefores. It should also link to the upcoming RfC, to allow later editors to easily read it and understand the reasoning behind the guideline. That's just my preference, I'm happy to go with the general consensus. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Widespread use or popularity as the determining factor for inclusion in the article body is I think unworkable and an unnecessary restriction on article content. Rupples (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It was not my intention that we would extend the guideline to page content. In general I am wary of a guideline that says what is and what is not legitinate content for a page. That should be a decision for page editors. Guidelines could suggest, but I don't think they should prohibit. Infoboxes, however, are misunderstood and often way too much is shoehorned into them. They lack context and they are not meant to be a substitute for page content. Let's stick to the infobox guidelines. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not necessarily opposed to your position on prohibiting page content, but I expect the arguments for or against a flag will be similar from article to article. On that basis I think a general guideline would be useful, rather than having lots of little discussions across the many county articles. It's not even a proper prohibition – guidelines aren't binding and WP:IAR always applies, after all. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It is interesting you say I expect the arguments for or against a flag will be similar from article to article. I'm not aware of existing arguments/reversions/edit wars over flag images/text placed in the county article bodies — I recall querying this with you in the first discussion and from memory your reply was the problem was confined to inappropriate flags being placed in the infoboxes. Rupples (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Is it interesting? There hasn't been any attempt to remove flags from the article bodies, so why would there have been any discussion, reversions, or edit wars? A.D.Hope (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Great to hear there's been no attempt to remove flags and associated text from the article bodies and hence no disruption. On the first question, the reply is not only interesting, but revealing: - I think a general guideline would be useful, rather than having lots of little discussions across the many county articles. Rupples (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In what sense revealing? I'm not trying to hide anything about my intentions, so if you have a concern please do say. I'll do my best to address it :) A.D.Hope (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My last two replies state my concern, plus the fact we're now rehashing roughly the same arguments as the first discussion. To illustrate, there was a problem with infobox collages because certain editors were adding too many images, some of which were difficult to view and of poor quality. A guideline to prevent this was discussed, agreed and successfully implemented and led to a much improved set of images that benefited the county articles. The context issue about ceremonial county infobox flags was reasonable grounds for putting in that guideline. There isn't the same problem with flags in county article bodies because there's space for a sourced narrative to explain and describe the image. The situation seems stable so a guideline is unnecessary, restrictive and imposition of changes may lead to instability for seemingly no tangible benefit. That's it :) Rupples (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My personal feeling is that, although the situation is stable, if a flag doesn't really exist outside the Flag Institute's flag registry then it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia; it's a bit misleading for us to imply it's used to represent a county when it isn't (or only rarely is) in practice.
 * At the moment I'm reluctant to get into a full discussion about the above, because this isn't the RfC, just the bit before an RfC, and it would be tiring to go over the same topic twice. I also don't mind if the RfC doesn't cover flags in the body, as often a narrowly-focussed discussion has more chance of success than a broad one. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If we're discussing raising the bar on including flags at all to basically WP:GNG itself, then List of British flags, Flags of cities, towns and villages in the United Kingdom and List of English flags which relies on the Flag Institute, as well as other database sources, should be re-done and possibly largely cut. And as mentioned in the first discussion many flag articles going to AfD, with the remaining justifying using the flag at all. I've seen fictitious flags added to articles over the past few years, as well as very limited used ones, like banners of arms for a council made to represent the place, like Colchester (there for a short time). The Flag Institute while not evidence of "officiality", does display the flag clearly to verify its design over possible WP:UGC, so valued but yes not indicative of use. But if we are being more critical of actual and recognised use, maybe flags should be removed entirely unless overwhelmingly proven they are commonly used (evidenced by an strong article), which may be rare (in "official" use).
 * Of course, such would be controversial, and I think it goes overboard on any real benefit, but there should be some guideline on flags overall too, to stop fictictious or rarely used flags being added, which isn't helped by the fact they are file named "flag of" on commons pushing fictional flags to the top of search results. The Flag Institute is at least respected and only uses flags that at least are recognised somewhat, so probably why it became the "official unofficial" source at this point.  Dank Jae  14:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think these are all valid points which are worth discussing more fully. I'll hold back for now, though, as I don't want to pre-empt the RfC any more than I already have. A.D.Hope (talk) A.D.Hope (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how else we could do it, if we're trying to apply some sort of standard. The flags are not official and registration with the Flag Institute isn't enough to warrant inclusion, so evidence of actual use is the main measure we have left.
 * I don't think it's unworkable. For the Lancashire flag, for example, there are several news articles about it being flown in various parts of the historic county. That's all we really need in terms of proof. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Is Cornwall the only British ceremonial county with a flag in its infobox? GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd like to comment on one of the considerations referred to by Sirfurboy in the green-shaded box at the top of this discussion. In respect of the individual countries, I wonder whether it would be preferable to let the England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland wikiprojects determine their own guidelines. In reality, this seems to be a devolved matter, so a top-down UK-wide approach isn't necessarily desirable and may be more difficult to get agreement on. There may have to be 4 separate discussions, but the discussions could uncover aspects unique to an individual country that only come out when considered on a country-by-country basis. The case needs to be made why consistency across all the UK counties overrides real-world devolution. Rupples (talk) 14:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Local government is devolved and past government reform acts only applied on each UK nation. One could argue historic counties pre-date devolution, but I think the main issue is that right now the approach to historic counties overall differs between each nation. Wales and Scotland have historic county articles while most of England do not.
 * Ofc, I don’t see the current status quo in Wales to be problematic for a guideline aside using the unofficial Cardiganshire flag for Ceredigion. Guidelines on the verifiability and notability of flags should probably be Wikipedia-wide.  Dank Jae  15:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Tbh, I think the “no historic counties” rule should be exempted/modified to Wales because of either how different or similar they were. And the fact that it’s already ignored and seems beneficial to keep the status quo as the mergers would just be too messy and between two unrelated entities that happen to share a name.  Dank Jae  15:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I'm in agreement with @DankJae. We're essentially discussing notability and verifiability, and the same basic principles are going to apply regardless of whether a flag represents an English or Scottish county. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * . . . but not Welsh, so there's already differentiating circumstances. Are we discussing notability? WP:N states notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article ... These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article .... I put a link into the notability guideline in the previous discussion, but it doesn't seem to have hit home so have quoted the relevant passage. Rupples (talk) 16:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * English, Welsh, and Scottish counties, for the avoidance of doubt. The guideline called 'notability' doesn't apply here, but we are discussing the notability of the county flags. The guideline has a poor name, in my opinion. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think having county flags entirely was disputed, so makes sense to only include flags if they have an article, like what we do with notable people lists only include those with an article. And a flag article should hopefully be notable, clarify what the flag is used for and by whom to then justify/criticise its use on a county article if we can’t do “one for all” and need to consider each flag individually.
 * Back onto the original topic, just saying the approach to historic counties already differs between UK nations on Wikipedia so makes sense to do it for their flags, out of practicality.  Dank Jae  17:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @DankJae Why just consider flag images, as opposed to other images? Should all images in county articles be restricted to those portraying subjects that have their own article? Why are county flags seemingly being singled out? Now, disputes over what flags are depicted in Northern Ireland I can understand — but elsewhere? Rupples (talk) 18:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Rupples, county flags are singled out because they’re being disputed, if there was clear consensus for or against we wouldn’t be in this situation. Other images in articles are largely specific.  Dank Jae  19:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We ought to be discussing the issue raised by Sirfurboy on whether there should be a single guideline on excluding flag images applying to all UK county article infoboxes and exceptions. The question I posed was an attempt to refocus on the original issue. If editors wish to significantly broaden this to a discussion on the inclusion/exclusion of county flags in county articles as a whole, it's probably best to open a separate discussion. Rupples (talk) 17:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sirfurboy, when do you propose opening the RfC? It's been a week since this discussion opened and I fear we're starting to tie ourselves in knots a little.
 * I don't really mind how the RfC is framed, but I think one about flags in infoboxes has much more chance of reaching a conclusion than anything broader. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry if the above seems dismissive, Rupples, it wasn't my intention. You're right to re-focus on the original issue, I'm just keen to move from this preliminary discussion into the actual RfC – possibly too keen! A.D.Hope (talk) 19:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Ceremonial counties are really an English thing, and to my knowledge Cornwall is the only English ceremonial county article which currently has a flag in its infobox. The remainder were mostly removed by myself, the last after the discussion which led to the guideline being amended to prohibit infobox flags.
 * Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland were not affected by that discussion. The flags registered for the historic counties of Scotland and Wales are often used in the infobox of whichever article covers the historic county, typically either an article about the historic county (e.g. Flintshire (historic), Aberdeenshire (historic)) or the contemporary local government area which covers its area (e.g. Pembrokeshire, East Lothian). To my knowledge the articles about the Northern Irish counties don't contain flags, but it's not my area of expertise. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Although Wales and Scotland also have lieutenancies just as per the ceremonial counties of England. The terminology differs though. In Wales these are the preserved counties, and in Scotland they are lieutenancy areas. Yorkshire, Sussex and Middlesex were ceremonial counties, but their lieutenancies are extinguished, making them historical. They do have flags. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Although another big difference between England and Wales is that the ceremonial counties of England are, for a large part, also the administrative counties, whereas the preserved counties of Wales are not. So yes, there is a difference between England and Wales. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The link to the lieutenancy areas/ceremonial counties is a bit misleading. In England we use the lieutenancy areas as the basis for our county articles, but it's a matter of convenience as much as anything – they're in current (albeit fairly minor) use and quite stable, unlike the other sorts of county.
 * It's (mostly) the historic counties which have had flags designed for them, it just happens that when it comes to England many of the ceremonial county articles also cover the historic county and so are where a flag representing the historic county should be included. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Because there is no such thing as Cornwall county, that tag was removed some years ago and legally “The whole territorial interest and dominion of the Crown in and over the entirety of Cornwall is vested in the Duke of Cornwall”, confirming that Cornwall has a separate Head of State from the remainder of the UK. This was upheld in the High Court in 1855, during the Duchy v Crown Foreshore dispute, and again as recently as 2011.
 * “Although Cornwall is de facto administered by England, a formal de jure joinder of Cornwall and England has never taken place.” (G.D Flather, Queen’s Counsel attached to the Boundary Commission 1988). 85.94.248.27 (talk) 08:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The definition of a ceremonial county (see Ceremonial counties of England for references) is an area for which a lord-lieutenant is appointed. Cornwall is very much one of those (see https://lordlieutenantofcornwall.org.uk/) so for the purposes we're talking about, it is a county. Indeed that website refers to Cornwall as a county lots of times, as I'm sure many others do too. That's not to take anything away from what you're saying though - there are lots of reasons why Cornwall is a bit of a special case. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</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  11:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not to take anything away from Cornwall, but is it that much of a special case? In terms of governance it's almost identical to any other English county, and it has less autonomy than combined authorities with devolution deals. The existence of the Duchy of Cornwall is a difference, but we don't treat Lancashire as a special case because of the Duchy of Lancaster.
 * I'm just concerned about presenting Cornwall, as far as possible, as it actually is, rather than giving undue prominence to minority positions such as the county having a separate head of state to the rest of England. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Recommend shutting down the RFC at Cornwall & (when ready) opening up an RFC here, with two options. Have flags in all British ceremonial county pages' infoboxes or Remove flags from all British ceremonial county pages' infoboxes. Consistency is required. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * That was largely the previous discussion, and now its being tested. Plus it's only "English" as ceremonial counties are treated differently in Scotland and Wales, and a Britain-wide guideline wouldn't work, ceremonial counties in Wales do not have flags, they don't exist. The main issue that started the debate was many of the flags are likely for historic counties not strictly the succeeding "ceremonial counties", how strict we should overlap the two is the main issue up for debate, as well as recognising modern usage.  Dank Jae  00:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We can't have a flag on all ceremonial counties as not all ceremonial counties have a flag. For instance, see this answer regarding a flag for Greater London . I think the RfC options could be:
 * Status quo
 * Remove the recently added guideline regarding flags, allowing flags in all county infoboxes, but not mandating. A matter for page editors.
 * Extend the prohibition of flags in infoboxes to all county articles of all types in England [optionally: and Scotland and Wales]
 * Replace the guidance with something like "flags in county infoboxes are discouraged, but may be included when an editor consensus at the page demonstrates sufficient sourcing of a flag that is recognised and used in the county, and displayed and associated with the county by its people."
 * That last one would definitely allow Shetland and Cornwall to continue having a flag on their article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Is option (4) not a more detailed version of option (2)? I'm a bit wary of offering three general options and one which is detailed, it seems unbalanced. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am happy to cut any unnecessary options, but there is a difference. 2 removes any mention of flags in infoboxes, whereas 4 would suggest they should be avoided unless there is strong reason not to. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I see the difference now. Maybe option (4) should be rephrased something like 'Amend the guideline to discourage flags in county infoboxes, but allow them by editor consensus'. The aim is for all the options to follow the same format, if you see what I mean. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fine. The discussion above mentions the quality of sourcing though. I would like to capture that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It might be worth having a second discussion about that, or even having that discussion first – decide if we need a guideline about which flags should be in the articles, and then where they should go. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * To flesh out the above, I'd suggest:
 * A discussion (not necessarily an RfC) about how we use county flags, paying particular attention to flags which have been added to the encyclopedia because they're registered with the Flag Institute, but for which there is not much evidence of actual use.
 * The infoboxes RfC
 * Using the outcome of both of the above to help resolve the original dispute at Talk:Cornwall
 * I appreciate that the above adds an extra step, but does it seem reasonable to you? If the wider 'flag legitimacy' (for want of a better phrase) debate isn't resolved before the infobox discussion then I predict it overshadowing the latter and making it more difficult to reach a conclusion. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion outline
Yesterday, Sirfurboy and myself had a chat on their talk page about how to proceed with the discussion, and we've come up with a bit of a plan: While the addition of a discussion before the RfC will make the process longer, clarifying what we're actually debating is necessary to help the RfC stay on-track; these discussions can get a bit unwieldy otherwise, as I'm sure many of us are aware.
 * First, a discussion about which county flags we include in the encylopedia. This will not be an RfC, and will be run over the next week or so.
 * Second, the RfC about whether or not to include county flags in article infoboxes. Sirfurboy is going to work out the wording and scope based on the above discussion.
 * Finally, a conclusion to the discussion at talk:Cornwall which started this whole debate!

The first discussion will be opened this weekend, and will be publicised on related talk pages to encourage a broad input of views. Cheers, A.D.Hope (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * It might be an idea to notify Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology about these discussions, once they are set up. Rupples (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Rupples. I've now notified heraldry and vexillology, and I've also notified the four national WikiProjects and the talk page of Cornwall, since the latter is where the overall debate started. If you can think of anywhere else to publicise the discussion please let me know and I'll do so. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Good stuff! Thought of the vexillology project as comments from that quarter might bring a different perspective. Don't think it's necessary to place a notice on each county project — quite a few seem inactive. The ones that might be worth notifying individually are the historic counties such as Yorkshire, Middlesex, Sussex and those where the flag has been in existence for a long time, Kent springs to mind. Perhaps scan through List of United Kingdom flags for the more "traditional" ones — no obligation though. It's a bit of a minefield, take Cheshire the wikilink above says in the Date column, 2013, yet List of English flags states 1938 and Bedfordshire says 2014 and 1951. Rupples (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)