Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Traditional Counties

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete To avoid being indescriminate information lists need to have criteria and I simply don't see any evidence of this or an agreed standard that can be applied. We also seem to have other articles that address this.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

List of British Traditional Counties

This page appears to breach our policy on British counties outlined at

WP:OR too. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete essentially a fork of
WP:PLACE. MRSC • Talk 23:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Please could you clarify this dispute. Is your conception of historic counties different from their definition of traditional ones? Or what? Colonel Warden (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The essential difference is that they (ABC) claim that boundaries of counties cannot change over time and in reference to this produce a set of boundaries which they promote. As change has been constant, both in modern and ancient times, it is quite likely that the historic counties (that is those that have existed a long time) have never matched up to the boundaries they are promoting. That is why it has no value or place in an encyclopedia, it cannot be verified as anything other than an aspiration of this group. MRSC • Talk 16:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Association of British Counties (which traditional county redirects to, as Jaza points out. Since the article doesn't explain what's a traditional county is, this isn't much of a stand-alone. The A.of B.C. article, at least, has a map. Mandsford (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
WP:PLACE. Not seeing a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - by whose 'tradition' - the assumption that there is a uniform 'British' tradition in this area, and that counties in the several nations are generic, is not only POV, it is just plain wrong.--
Doc^g 00:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I hae already encountered several confusing uses of "traditional county" in English geographic articles -- e.g. "X is in the county (corporate) of Y, and the county (traditional) of Z". At best this is baffling to the ordinary user, at worst unhelpful and misleading. --Dhartung | Talk 00:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An analogy which may be helpful is New England. This region no longer has a government administration but still exists both as a current and historical concept which merits an article here. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or old

Lancsalot (talk) 12:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per points of Doc and MRSC. I'm also no fan of the phenomenon where the same info is endlessly replicated across wikipedia using difference headings. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The same information already exists and if anything, is needing simplified, not made much more complex with yet another list, especially one which is relatively unencyclopedic. Traditional is one of those ambiguous phrases that doesn't really have any useful meaning in the context of an encyclopedia. Nick (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These areas exist in law as confirmed by the
Lancsalot (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
- Comment:
  We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries (quote from Wikipedia naming conventions). -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  Indeed. They exist with their current boundaries which are the Mersey, Thames etc.
  Lancsalot (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  This is the exact minority view that the policy states we should avoid (for reasons made clear in the policy). That's addressed to all the other readers, not Lancsalot. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  It may be a minority view bit it is factually correct. The majority may believe every
  Lancsalot (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  Minority views are common in the Wikipedia, even in
  recentism. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  
  County boundaries can change and come & go just like national boundaries. Would you say Tallinn is in the Soviet Union, or Split is in Yugoslavia? - fchd (talk) 11:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  It depends upon the context. For me, this would usually be a game about
  WW2
  such as Barbarossa to Berlin, which I am currently playing. In this context, I would indeed say that Tallinn is in the Soviet Union. 15:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  
  Or that Hawarden and Rhuddlan are in Cheshire, since they were in the hidated and un-hidated parts of Atiscross Hundred (respectively), which was a part of Cheshire at the time of Domesday? What are the time-scales or limits for this? DDStretch  (talk) 11:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  The county boundaries have now been settled for hundreds of years, long enough certainly to establish a tradition. A good analogy is with the
  Lancsalot (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  I was merely asking about the time scale and limits, rather than saying something does not exist, so I gently suggest that you may have misunderstood what I was asking. Furthermore, although I am pleased to have been educated about matters in Sweden (for which I thank you), we are discussing issues to do with the UK (or Britain, as used in the title of this article), and so what might happen in another country it is not quite relevant to the matter here, as all sorts of things might be done in different ways. Finally, I don't think your statement that "[t]he county boundaries have been settled for hundreds of years" is correct: a glance at any reputable sources for the histories of various counties will show that there have always been changes made to the boundaries: a glance through Youngs, F.A. (1991) two volumes of the "Guide to the local administrative units of England" will show many instances of boundary changes, both between counties of England, as well as within counties for lower-tier administrative units. Hence my question about time-scales and limits. DDStretch  (talk) 12:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  As explained over at
  Lancsalot (talk) 12:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  Which may or may not be true. But that does not particularly matter in this instance, since you mentioned a chunk of text you think highly relevant to
  Historic Counties of England. This neatly illustrates that most of the information contained in the article being considered here is duplicated elsewhere. This was the other reason used to justify this AfD. Because the two reasons for deleting this article are each sufficient on their own to justify deletion, you have provided your own evidence in favour of so deleting this article. Thank you for so doing. DDStretch  (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete In how many ways and forms do we have to have the same information? Also per MRSC, DocG etc. Regan123 (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If nothing else, the difference between England, Wales and Scotland in this area is so great as to make the critera for inclusion in such a list unascertainable. Tevildo (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a plain list as a resource for outside readers. It has nothing to do with the internal Wikipedia commuunity debate nor any other page. (See Discussion page.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howard Alexander (talk • contribs) 01:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons given by others in favour of deletion. DDStretch (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a Yank, I find the list interesting and probably valuable if I were to do research in that field. There needs to be a definition of just what these counties consist of, and I will add such a request on the Talk Page for that Article. Sincerely,
talk) 06:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
- Your reasons given seem to breach
  WP:ATA. Would you please consider retracting or rephrasing your views? -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Redirect to Counties of the United Kingdom. Fork of existing info. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per User:Nick above - fchd (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per User:Nick (Part 1) above. However re 'traditional', and per User:Colonel Warden, WP:PLACE seems happy with it. Some of us may not be ready to think of the pre-75 Scottish counties as 'historic' or even 'ancient' just yet. Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 11:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see the semantic argument against traditional here. I feel like this information is perfectly encyclopedic and isn't really thoroughly duplicated anywhere else.
matt91486 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
- That said, if you wanted to move it to
  matt91486 (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete As per Wikipedia naming conventions, for a start (We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries). This list is part of a politically-motivated attempt to sideline modern administrative units which has created all sorts of problems in the Wales place and buildings categories for instance, with modern counties/boroughs ignored or replaced and the article worded - and categorised - to give the impression that the pre-74 counties still exist. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Modern administrative units? The correct Newspeak term seems to be Principal area. Your enthusiasm for such novelty seems as political as the converse. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My "enthusiasm for such novelty"? Did I say or imply that? As for principal area, I readily agree that it's a hideous term only used on en. and by the civil servants who thought of it. Wales has counties and county boroughs. Whether we like them or not, they exist: the "historical counties" don't. Enaidmawr (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the list duplicates existing content (such as that at Historic counties of England, and those for Scotland, Wales, etc.). I do not wish to be drawn into about whether these entities still exist or not, or in what form, but regardless of that there is no need for this article (other than to give credibility to the term "Traditional County"). --RFBailey (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: users taking part in this debate may like to read the comments from the creator of this article, which have unfortuantely been placed on the talk page of this debate. --RFBailey (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've since pointed to the
  WP:OR pages and it appears he hold's a "slightly" different point of view now [1]. He was fairly new to Wikipedia. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.