![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Maps already exist that could go on this page but the problem is deciding what layer of subdivision to use. As they are somewhat complicated and the sub-articles provide them anyway I would suggest none. MRSC 16:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Sam has made up a Venn [Euler] Diagram that can be found at http://qntm.org/uk, i am not sure of the licence, but it may be of intrest as a link to. SkippyUK 13:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I have created a Euler diagram of the United Kingdom here showing England and Wales making up Britain, Britain and Scotland comprising Great Britain, and then Great Britain and Ireland comprising the United Kingdom. I also masked the circles (they are all circles, no ovals) with the flag of each nation, with the same flag being used for UK, GB, and Britain (the latter two being transparent, showing UK's flag.) What do you think, is this a more suitable diagram for this article? Timmytim6912 ( talk) 22:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
According to Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use, Ordnance Survej of Great Britain and International Organization for Standardization UK consisting 4 constituent parts: 2 countries (England and Scotland), 1 principality (Wales) and 1 province (Northern Ireland) [1], [2]. So, informations in this article are wrong. Aotearoa from Poland ( talk) 17:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
But, there are no sources in this article, so this is rather OR. Paper [3] is very official, because this is official documet presented by UK athorities on Ninth United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names (August 2007). So, if there are no official sources for terms "nation" and "country" they should be replaced by terminology from official documents (and informations about "very widely used" terms "nation" and "country" are allowed in annotations). Aotearoa from Poland ( talk) 22:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
If you look at the talk page on Constituent country you will find numerous citations of UK Government web sites which use the phrase country. I repeat them here.
-- Snowded ( talk) 01:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The vast bulk of the UK text on the Constituent country would be more appropriate on this page. -- Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 21:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
* (Support) I agree with the merge.
Subdivisions of the United Kingdom should discuss the subdivisons not
constituent country.
WikipÉIRE
\
(caint)
13:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
As the country issue at Wales is now successfully resolved, I've made the merge.
I found it impossible to completely remove information on the UK in the constituent country article. Basically, it is because the term is in use for the UK, and so needs to be covered to some degree on the main article, including on a semantic level (ie the word "constituent"). Plase bear in mind that a lot of articles link to constituent country (like Cardiff in its infobox).
I've cut it down to (what felt like) the minimum text though, and linked to here as the 'main article'.
A lot of useful information has been moved over here. The new 'History' section may include some duplicated information and need some work. Looking through it seemed OK, but this is more something to work from than the finished article. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 17:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The Laws in Wales Acts are important to the history of Wales, but not particularly significant as far as the formation of the United Kingdom is concerned. By the time the Acts were passed, Wales was already controlled by England and the Acts just formally annexed Wales to put it under English law. That is totally different from the Treaty of Union which led to the Acts of Union in 1707 - in this case, two sovereign states agreed to merge to form a political union. If we are going to include the Laws in Wales Acts, what other events may we also have to include? The clear starting point for the United Kingdom was 1707 with the Treaty of Union - not the Laws in Wales Acts. Cheers Fishiehelper2 ( talk) 18:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Its an interesting question. I think you can either take the Statute of Rhuddlan or the Laws in Wales Acts, Rhuddlan is probably the most significant for the history of the UK - how about that? -- Snowded ( talk) 19:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
UK, now known as Northern Ireland. See History of the United Kingdom."
(outdent) in the absence of further comment I implemented the earlier suggest of Fishiehelper2 to use the third paragraph, leaving the introduction as it stands.
Come look see here and vote. MickMacNee ( talk) 02:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
How many of these articles which describe the geographic and political terminology with regard to the British Isles now exist?!? This is getting ridiculous! Feel free to merge this with one of the others. -- Setanta747 ( talk) 01:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Better version: "The subdivisions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the 'United Kingdom', or 'UK') is a term that is used to describe the political union of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. All of these (variously described as countries, constituent countries, and nations) have developed into the current structure of the United Kingdom over hundreds of years. Wales is also referred to as a principality, and Northern Ireland as a province. Calling Northern Ireland a both a country is disputed, particularly within the nationalist community.[citation needed]"
I've re-written to the above, because if this is going to be linked to in Wales (or anywhere else), it think it needs to be clear and unambiguous. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 18:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Just coming into this from a different perspective; I'm concerned we're writing original research here. "The subdivisions of the UK are England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland", um, are they? Who says? My point is that the UK is not subdivided on the basis of four parts, but rather, united on this basis. Also, a publication submitted by the UK to the United Nations Economic and Social Council states England (and Sco/Wls/NI) "should not be considered as a first-order administrative division". [1] The traditional subdivisions of the UK have been the county and the ecclesiastical parish, whilst historically, the ward and constituency are also the UKs political and pan-uk subdivisions. -- Jza84 | Talk 22:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
References
Would anyone complain if I get photoshop out make Wales red and England white, as they tradionally are? The neutrals are grey, so nothing would clash. I'll also label each UK country (but no other, to avoid confusion). I'll give the image a new name so people can still use the old one. Some people are colour blind, so Wikipedia shouldn't so often only label things via a colour-key, anyway. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 01:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) You could try it out, posting the map here (may be even with a few others so long as it does not make too much work for you). Then we can have an actual look at the possibilities and see what it is or they are like. Just a thought. (Let's hope no one gets too sensitive over the idea that yellow may be associated with the Pope.) DDStretch (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
So is it only Snowded and myself that think that Wales should be yellow and England should be red? -- Phoenix ( talk) 23:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Eight possibilities originally came up in the end (the last two - which I personally don't see as possibilities - have since been added). I couldn't see others that worked, myself. Mauve etc all looked too close to the two blues (or too close to green or orange). I think one country has to be very dark, unless yellow is used.
The arrows are a bit 'freehand' (but they can be done properly later - all these can be 'saved-over' easily) - this is about the colours and text placement. These are the same size as currently used, but can be made smaller/larger. I'm running a high resolution, and they look quite big, so I don't think they can really be made bigger as the thumbnail.
I think I favour the first - one of the first four anyway. Maybe number 7. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 02:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
My first preference would be for 7, followed closely by 3, then 1. DDStretch (talk) 08:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how you missed #9 after all that is what a few of us have been talking about! -- Phoenix ( talk) 10:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Note 1 & 3, and 2 & 4 were identical so I have removed the images that were repeats. -- Phoenix ( talk) 10:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
![]() | |
![]() |
![]() | |
![]() |
![]() | |
![]() |
![]() | |
![]() |
![]() |
If you have a second or furher choices, please leave them in order in brackets.
7 (3) -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 14:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
7 (3) (third: 1) DDStretch (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
7 (3) - looks like we have a clear winner Bazonka ( talk) 16:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Go with 7 -- Snowded ( talk) 17:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
3/1 (9 7); Any of the 3 would be ok, But do they have to have the text included? That is not an objection b.t.w. I think it looks good, but does anyone foresee it causing any problems? -- Phoenix ( talk) 19:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I've put number 7 in. I'll improve the arrows slightly at a later date (the England one extends just a fraction too near to Wales!) -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 15:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
First off, my sincere apologies over my recent edits to Image:United_Kingdom_labelled_map7.png and linked pages. User:Ddstretch pointed out that there was a discussion here on the choice of colours. I think that is great that editors from GB took such a responsible approach to the colouring of the map, but I do think it has been taken a little far.
Green is of course the colour of Northern Ireland and used by many "national" organisations: NI Commonwealth Games Federation, NI Football team, Sport NI, Northern Ireland Tourist Board, Police Service of Northern Ireland (and the RUC before that), Athletics NI, the Royal Irish are just a few. On a second point if you don't want to offend anyone using yellow wasn't the best choice as can be seen on an Über-Republican Irish Tricolour incorporating the flag of the Roman Catholic Church.
Therefore I would like to propose changing the colour to green , however if GB editors don't want green then there are other suitable/sensible alternatives:
Thanks for reading - and sorry once again. Any thoughts? Roadnote ♫ 19:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)If I can go back to the suggestions of Roadnote: If the blue were to be adopted, we might (and I think we would) have a problem with there being too many blues in the map unless enough differences in the contrast and/or saturation (or slight differences in the hue) could make them sufficiently distinct. Since the blue for Scotland seems to be a good idea, if we really want blue for Northern Ireland, then the blue to change would be the colour of the sea. I'm not sure how easy this would be to manipulate. In these circumstances, I wonder whether abandoning the attempt to make the colours at all relavent in some way to the countries would be best. DDStretch (talk) 10:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
|
|
|
![]() ![]() |
OK, I've done a lot of uploads. -- Evertype· ✆ 12:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
At Talk:Countries of the United_Kingdom#Merger proposal.
OK, I made a change to the lead but this was reverted as "too bold" (see the comparison here). My objections:
I suggest a restoration. -- Jza84 | Talk 10:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The Introduction of this page says "The United Kingdom, a sovereign state to the northwest of continental Europe, comprises England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales." Shouldn't it read "The United Kingdom, a sovereign state to the northwest of continental Europe, comprises of Great Britain ( England, Scotland and Wales) and Northern Ireland." As a result of the Acts of Union 1707 then the later Act of Union 1800. Mr Taz ( talk) 19:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
hello, i wan see a comparative square of "Countries of the United Kingdom" England, N Ireland, Wales, and Scotland, something like i see in States of USA, with: Official Country Name, Flag, Area, Population, Capital, Most Populous City. Or like i see in "Demographic" table in Provinces of Argentina, like in every other "Articles of first-level administrative division". I feel like you dont know what are you doing, discussing about "not or no". Somebody talk me the real facts of UK subdivision, please. sorry for my engrish hahaha, i not acount in that wiki languaje but i will back to revise -- 201.255.40.34 ( talk) 03:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Can we actually detail what might be biased on both this and the Countries of the United Kingdom article? Neither need be so (an yes they are overlapping - though we needn't delete either).
There certainly is a lot of nationalism in the UK, but bias or intent does not necessarily mean the information isn't sound or appropriate. Regarding the title "Countries of the United Kingdom", it is a commonly-used phrase. The alphabetical ordering of "England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales" unfortunately isn't. We can't go after "intent" on Wikipedia (I've had my fingers burnt there myself) - and we need to just accept that the word "country" is simple more flexible than " sovereign state" (why else do we have this other term?). The US was calling Georgia the "sovereign state" not so long ago, and saying how the "they must be respected" - it is where the international power lines are, but the situation showed how politics has its own language - Abkhazia and South Ossetia were not Georgian culturally, and were called "breakaway states". I'm certainly not comparing this with the UK (a different situation entirely). But the principle of 'country' being the 'non-political' word is the same - I see as much bias trying to deny it as trying to overplay it, but to me the word simply esists. We certainly don't call ourselves united 'states' in the UK, because we were always countries (or a country formed out of the division of a pre-existing country, like Northern Ireland).
By the way, I will soon be applying some more citations to the term "multicultural" (if that is a problem of bias, I don't know). It is more leftfield to say the cultures in the UK are not 'multicultural', than it is to call the UK multicultural (the winning Olympic bid, and the traditional - and in my view correct - view). Some sociology can crawl inside iteself on these things IMO (as sociology often does - it's a multifarious field to say the least). Most of the UK articles seem to be shy on tackling ethnicity. I worked on the Haringey article last year (now in the news, of course), as I noticed in passing that it basically manipulated ethnicity statistics to claim there are less than 50% white people in Haringey (it focused only British decent). I found out that around 65% of Haringey's population were white (and the Irish and others, of course, are not 'non-white'). The truth is that Britain is full of different cultures, whether British citizens, or British-decended or not. Some people are certainly British full stop, as it means something to them other than being Enlgish, for example. When someone becomes a British citizen why should they be made to be 'English' too, just because they moved to England? Britishness for them is clearly keeping their culture (first from the old empire, but it rubs off on other immigants too). We all know the millions Polish are very different culturally (which is why its argued that we should have gone back to the old empire, or the 'commonwealth', when we were searching for workers, as they are closer in identity). Great cities like London have always had a kind of cultural life of their own too, and are a significant part of the wider identity.
Anyway (I'm not even sure if that the identity section is a problem) - can we detail what is wrong, so it can be addressed?
(PS - lets not make "Wales is not a real country" etc an 'issue' again here, please - it will simply obscure debate and prevent progress.)-- Matt Lewis ( talk) 12:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm concerned about how problems are being "addressed" here. Jza84 summarized what this page is merely about ("merely about how the UK is subdivided"). There are two problems with Jza84's sumarizing language and overall conception of this page. First, in terms of dividing territory geographically, there is no "merely" involved. Territorial division is a serious and often deadly issue. Moreover, Brits tend to be more tolerant of the mixing of cultural, ethnicity, and legal issues because they live without a written constitution. Jsa84 could learn from this attitude. The second revealing problem with Jsa84's language is that Jsa84 underscores geographically as if this modifier is going to clarify anything. The discpline of geography is made up of several branches and, until you specify whether you mean political geography or other kinds of geography, you haven't resolved anything--you haven't even begun. This page is one of the more inconsisent pages available, and not just internally, but in relation to other pages that deal with consitutional and cultural issues in the United Kingdom. I recommend that Jza84 begin to accept the help of others in the Wikipedia community. Otherwise, these pages will continue to look confused. Dylan Hunt ( talk) 19:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Dylan Hunt -- Dylan Hunt
I'm not insensitive to knowing alot of work went into this and countries of the United Kingdom, but I've been bold over the last 24 hours and tried to refocus the two pages as to why they are distinct from one another. I'm keen to make it more clear that they are seperate topics.
As such, I've removed alot of the repetition from this article that is found in "countries". I've also swapped out the map for something that not only shows the home nations, not only shows some kind of subdivision of the UK, but also helps explain that there is "no common stratum of administrative division of the UK" - which is probably the most notable and most important thing we ought to get across to our readers.
There's nothing sinister been going on - no politics behind this, it's just something that has been bugging me for a long time that this article effectively was, well, wrong as to focus on ENG/SCO/WLS/NI as divisions. Hopefully this change is viewed as a positive. -- Jza84 | Talk 13:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
There is a section in this article that enumerates the various subdivisions within geography corresponding specifically to the constituent parts (i.e., Scotland, England, Northern Ireland, and Wales). In an apparent inconsistency, the article makes clear that the official subdivisions of the UK do not conform to the most widely known vernacular subdivisions (i.e., Scotland, England, Northern Ireland, and Wales). Nonetheless, the section goes on to enumerate the various subdivisions within these constituent parts. Can anyone in a position to do so please explain why this article is so structured? Notice also that the section previously bore the vacuous sub-heading "In the United Kingdom". Where else but *in the United Kingdom* would you expect to find subdivisions of the United Kingdom? The section has since been renamed to "Subdivision in the Constituent Parts of the United Kingdom", but it remains an oddity given most of the statements in the article. Dylan Hunt ( talk) 00:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
On a related but separate issue, I would accept that the section dealing with the constituent parts is about Local Government. However, neither the past nor the present title of the section indicates the section is primarily about local government. Moreover, it is no more clear why local government would feature so prominently in an article about subdivisions. There is of course the possibility that the subdivisions exist because of local government, but this is not stated anywhere in the article. If that were the preferred reading, then the article as it now stands is inside out, or back to front, depending on your preferred colloquialism. Is this article about subdivision or about local government? Dylan Hunt ( talk) 01:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Good try, guys, but this United Kingdom wikipedia club is not quite reaching quality levels of communicaton. Jza84 and ddstretch both say they agree with Snowded, but what do they agree about? I certainly don't have any transcendent knowledge about their agreement and they don’t say. Please state your own opinions clearly rather than making a blanket agreement statement. If what I wrote is not clear (if that is what you agree with), I will restate it, but please specify what I need to clarify. It seems obvious that the four constitutent parts are getting more than their fair share of the attention in this article. The article already states (with a citation) that the four parts are not official divisions ('"should not be considered as first-order administrative divisions"'). Then it says that, historically, other divisions (county, parish, not to mention districts that succeeded the ecclesiastical districts, then ward and constituency) have been the subnational divisions. It is anybody’s guess whether he latter are official divisions, relatively more official divisions than the vernacular ones of the 4 countries, or co-existing divisions with the 4 countries in the multiplistic complex arrangement that is the UK. Moreover, despite the statement that there is "no common stratum of administrative unit encompassing the United Kingdom", the structure of 4 (Scotland, England, NI, and Wales) is used as just such a common stratum to describe local government and to structure the article. This is a good, pretty textbook example of inconsistency. If any of this is not clear, please be a good administrator and/or editor and be specific about should be clarified. Thanks. Dylan Hunt ( talk) 06:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
BritishWatcher: Thanks for your courteous and transparent question (the first I have seen from the UK clique since I got "involved"). I'll address your second point. If my answer to that is not clear, there is little point taking the time to suggest actual changes. Your clarifying question mentions the premise that each part of the UK has its own subdivisions. The article states this, but your phrasing implies that the parts are not themselves subdivisions. The article says nothing about that. Besides the lack of clarity on that point (assuming your reading is correct), there is another confusion in the article: I think the majority of the people reading this article will understand that the four countries are the focus of the article and that the title of the article (Subdivisions...) refers to them. If it is the case that the parts are not themselves subdivisions, then the article is far from clear on this point (except to the three or four who have been "involved"). Hence, there are two confusions in the article: 1) the title suggests that the parts are subdivisions (because of the structure and general content of the article) and 2) since the article explicitly divides the UK into the four countries, this suggests that the parts are themselves subdivisions. Your reading suggests that the title of the article should be "subdivisions of the four parts of UK", not "subdivisions of the UK". Until these confusions are addresses, I think the article casts more shadow than light on the subject. Dylan Hunt ( talk) 18:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
These all seem to be reasonable solutions, if a little stop-gappy. I think my problem is that I am seeing this as an outsider to this UK group and the UK group might be seeing the article as a group of insiders writing for insiders. My initial problem with the article was that it is unclear and allows different incompatible readings. "Administrative geography" certainly makes the article more consistent, but I'm not sure it makes the title more understandable (unless, of course, you are a geographer or know all the branches of geography). To benefit neophytes (perhaps I presume too much in thinking this is the intended audience of wikipedia and any other encyclopedia articles) on the subject which this article addresses, I would make the following suggestions. 1) Gut as much of the introduction as possible regarding the four countries and, instead, refer people to the article on the Countries of the UK (since it already exists; which would also resolve some problems people have with repetition between these two articles. 2) Explain what "administrative geography" addresses (e.g., national and local government hierarchies) and how this relates to this article. 3) For the love of God, rename (to whatever is appropriate) the section entitled "In the UK" (or eliminate this title) because it serves no purpose whatsoever--perhaps to "contemporary administration" or something that transitions from "History"; although for reasons beyond my comprehension, some people are apparently wedded till death to that vacuous phrase (i.e., In the UK). 4) Move the last paragraph of the Intro (beginning with "Historically...") to the History section or exapnd on the themes it introduces. 5) Identify the referent of "This structure" in the History section (i.e., answer the question, "What structure?"). 6) Follow strict style guidelines for the terms "division[s]" and "subdivision[s]" throughout this article if either is a significant concept for this article. 7) Incorporate the "Parliamentary representation" section into the section preceding it. This would give a structure of [Introduction], History, Contemporary Administration (or whatever), Informal (Sub)Divisions, International (Sub)Divisions. As things stand, having a separate section for informal divisions suggests the rest of the article is about formal divisions, which would be fine if the sections reflected a more transparent and sensible organization to the article currently lacking. Dylan Hunt ( talk) 03:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Allow me to reiterate: whether the intro is "clear" or the structure "logical" shouldn't be the issues (and I don't think logic is on anyone's mind in this discussion). The issue should be whether the random person is going to come away more confused than before (i.e., *to whom* is the article clear (or not)?) If Jza84 reads it over and over, I suggest it will remain clear to her/him. On the other hand, the random person looking for answers about the administrative geography of the UK is likely to find it unclear for the reasons mentioned above. Dylan Hunt ( talk) 16:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
According to this article the reason why there are no single defined terms for the subdivisions of the UK is solely due to the lack of a single document written constitution. This is a false and unverified statement.-- jrleighton ( talk) 02:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Administrative geography of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I thought that because of the complexity of the divisions of the UK it would be useful to have a diagram so I made one. I didn't want to add it without someone else looking at it first in case there are mistakes or typos. Please tell me if there are any, if anything else should be added or any other suggestions.
GarmTýrfingsson ( talk) 02:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Country | United Kingdom | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Legal jurisdiction | Scotland | Northern Ireland | England and Wales | ||||||
Country | Wales | England | |||||||
Region‑level | — | — | — | Administrative region (London) | Statistical regions | ||||
County‑level | Unitary authorities | Districts | Unitary authorities | City of London | London boroughs | Metropolitan counties | Non‑metropolitan counties (unitary authorities) | Isles of Scilly | |
District‑level | Metropolitan districts | Non‑metropolitan districts | |||||||
Parish‑level | Civil parishes | Civil parishes | Communities | Wards | Civil parishes |
You're right, I should get rid of the Greater London county, I just didn't know where to put the London boroughs, I guess they're ok on their own as unitary authorities. The GLA is like the combined authorities, right? Only they don't cover whole regions. I thought about putting them there somwhere but decided against it because they don't cover specific areas, they're just agreements between already existing local authorities.
What about the wards? I liked including them but I don't think they have any power or government of their own. I was trying to avoid the ceremonial counties because they don't really have any administrative purpose, so maybe don't include the wards either?
About comparing England with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, I hadn't thought about making it that way, they're pretty different to England and putting them side by side would take a lot of space, but maybe I can think of something.
I should also add Welsh communities.
GarmTýrfingsson ( talk) 08:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Here's the new version
GarmTýrfingsson ( talk) 01:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
For now these are the things that need changing:
-Remove regions (Do metropolitan counties have administrative purposes? Even if they don't I think they should be included, maybe do the same with the regions, with a caption. Maybe change those two to another colour like grey to include them but making it clear that they don't have administrative purposes?)
-Make key more legible
I know there's no consensus yet whether to add the diagram or not but I'll keep improving it with the comments posted here. GarmTýrfingsson ( talk) 01:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I've modified the key's font so it's clearer. Because no one said anything I decided to keep the regions of England even if they don't have administrative purposes, following the logic that neither do the metropolitan counties or the parishes of the Isles of Scilly and those are included.
There's an explanation in the key to clarify, I hope it's enough.
GarmTýrfingsson (
talk)
01:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Whilst the diagram has visual impact, to be honest the table conveys the same information in a more concise and readable format. How about adding the diagram's notes to the table (keyed using letters or numbers, as not everyone can distinguish coloured dots)? It would also be easy to turn the table cells into wikilinks where there's an appropriate target such as Metropolitan county. Certes ( talk) 11:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
My intention was to make something that flowed from top to bottom, spacious, visually attractive and not in black and white, that's why I made it that way and with diagram form. If you'd like to make a table please go ahead. I could replace the dots with numbers. GarmTýrfingsson ( talk) 12:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Good idea to split it into 2 tables, it looks better. I don't think the Overseas Territories or Dependencies should be excluded, it doesn't matter if they're not technically part of the UK, they're still the UK's responsibility. We should just find a way of displaying it all in an efficient and attractive way.
We could add the "C" for councils in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, I agree. However Wikipedia says civil parishes in Scotland were abolished in 1975, and I can't find any mention of them on the Scottish Government website. Same for Northern Ireland, it looks like the only local authority are the district councils. Even if the Community Councils exist, they're not equivalent to the English and Welsh ones, so I don't think they should be included. I'd also be good if the parishes of the Isles of Scilly were separated from the other English parishes, as they don't have councils. I'm no expert either, I just wanted to take the information in all those articles and condense it into a visual document to avoid other people the trouble of reading so much to just get an idea of the divisions of the UK.
Otherwise, the tables look good, and I would be ok with adding them to the article. It would be good to let more people know though, have the opinion of more users, some kind of vote? But I wouldn't know how to do that, RFC maybe?
Also, the diagram was never intended to be read without opening it. When browsing Wikipedia I often have to open the images/diagrams/maps, then enlarge them with Ctrl+ to be able to see them in detail, that's why I thought it would be fine to have a diagram like that in the article. GarmTýrfingsson ( talk) 04:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I have boldly added the table to the article. Perhaps it will reach a wider audience there, who may correct and improve it in situ. Certes ( talk) 11:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Although it's out of scope for the article title, if we're including The Crown then should we also mention the Commonwealth Realm: Australia, Canada etc? (Comment inspired by this diagram. I'm not citing it as a RS but it may prompt helpful thoughts.) Certes ( talk) 17:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
What happened to the context table? Are you still including it? Also the parishes of the Isles of Scilly don't have councils so they should be separated from the rest of England's parishes. And are you keeping the parishes of Scotland? I thought they were abolished. Same for Northern Ireland, all I can find is that the only local authority are the district councils. GarmTýrfingsson ( talk) 00:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I boldly removed the whole section because it had not been verified eleven years after being queried. I looked for verification but found none that suited. In the circumstances I think I had every right to remove that section. I had considered first bringing this to talk, which I accept was an alternative approach, but not necessarily a better one. My personal view is that this topic is so fraught with subtleties and misunderstandings that care needs to be taken when inserting text, and as such a total properly sourced re-write was the best approach, probably resurrecting much of the detail in the now deleted text. If the section is to be put back then I think it is more than reasonable to have good citations inserted without delay. Thank you to Ghmyrtle for making an issue of this. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 08:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Sirfurboy not just for those A1 sources but also for explaining your reasoning: restricted access sources can be a nuisance for the average editor who will not be able to verify the statements being written. As an aside, I have often wondered just how much incorrect information is put into wp simply because editors are misusing sources. Checking citations against what is written is an exercise in itself. Citations that cannot easily be verified always make me suspicious. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 10:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
The legislature for Wales, formerly known as the 'National Assembly for Wales', is now known as 'Senedd Cymru' or 'the Welsh Parliament' in both English and Welsh. It is also commonly known and referred to, in both Welsh and English, as the 'Senedd'.
Please see the Senedd's guidance on the name change for more information - https://senedd.wales/en/abthome/Documents/External%20content%20guide%20FINAL.pdf.
There are currently two references to the institution in the Wikipedia article. Namely:
Reference A - "Wales has an elected, devolved legislature, the Senedd Cymru – Welsh Parliament, from which the Welsh Government is drawn."
Reference B - "Constituencies also exist for the devolved Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru – Welsh Parliament and Northern Irish Assembly".
Note the use of the definite article in Reference A and B. In order to be grammatically correct, the definite article 'the' should not precede the term 'Senedd Cymru', although the definite article should precede the term 'Welsh Parliament'. For clarity, it would be correct for the definite article to precede the term 'Senedd'.
In addition, the Welsh Government's Style Guide ( https://llyw.cymru/bydtermcymru/style-guide) notes that the Government's own policy is to refer to refer to 'Senedd Cymru' as the 'Senedd' in Welsh and in English. The Government also uses 'Senedd Cymru' in (English and Welsh) when the institution is mentioned for the first time in documentation, and as 'the Senedd' in any subsequent references to it within the document. There is discretion to use the term 'the Welsh Parliament' in addition to the use of 'Senedd Cymru'. The Senedd's own guidance also supports these conventions.
I therefore suggest that references A and B should be edited in line with this edit that was undone. Namely:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Administrative_geography_of_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=962759526 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammyjames60 ( talk • contribs) 10:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Maps already exist that could go on this page but the problem is deciding what layer of subdivision to use. As they are somewhat complicated and the sub-articles provide them anyway I would suggest none. MRSC 16:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Sam has made up a Venn [Euler] Diagram that can be found at http://qntm.org/uk, i am not sure of the licence, but it may be of intrest as a link to. SkippyUK 13:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I have created a Euler diagram of the United Kingdom here showing England and Wales making up Britain, Britain and Scotland comprising Great Britain, and then Great Britain and Ireland comprising the United Kingdom. I also masked the circles (they are all circles, no ovals) with the flag of each nation, with the same flag being used for UK, GB, and Britain (the latter two being transparent, showing UK's flag.) What do you think, is this a more suitable diagram for this article? Timmytim6912 ( talk) 22:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
According to Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use, Ordnance Survej of Great Britain and International Organization for Standardization UK consisting 4 constituent parts: 2 countries (England and Scotland), 1 principality (Wales) and 1 province (Northern Ireland) [1], [2]. So, informations in this article are wrong. Aotearoa from Poland ( talk) 17:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
But, there are no sources in this article, so this is rather OR. Paper [3] is very official, because this is official documet presented by UK athorities on Ninth United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names (August 2007). So, if there are no official sources for terms "nation" and "country" they should be replaced by terminology from official documents (and informations about "very widely used" terms "nation" and "country" are allowed in annotations). Aotearoa from Poland ( talk) 22:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
If you look at the talk page on Constituent country you will find numerous citations of UK Government web sites which use the phrase country. I repeat them here.
-- Snowded ( talk) 01:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The vast bulk of the UK text on the Constituent country would be more appropriate on this page. -- Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 21:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
* (Support) I agree with the merge.
Subdivisions of the United Kingdom should discuss the subdivisons not
constituent country.
WikipÉIRE
\
(caint)
13:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
As the country issue at Wales is now successfully resolved, I've made the merge.
I found it impossible to completely remove information on the UK in the constituent country article. Basically, it is because the term is in use for the UK, and so needs to be covered to some degree on the main article, including on a semantic level (ie the word "constituent"). Plase bear in mind that a lot of articles link to constituent country (like Cardiff in its infobox).
I've cut it down to (what felt like) the minimum text though, and linked to here as the 'main article'.
A lot of useful information has been moved over here. The new 'History' section may include some duplicated information and need some work. Looking through it seemed OK, but this is more something to work from than the finished article. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 17:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The Laws in Wales Acts are important to the history of Wales, but not particularly significant as far as the formation of the United Kingdom is concerned. By the time the Acts were passed, Wales was already controlled by England and the Acts just formally annexed Wales to put it under English law. That is totally different from the Treaty of Union which led to the Acts of Union in 1707 - in this case, two sovereign states agreed to merge to form a political union. If we are going to include the Laws in Wales Acts, what other events may we also have to include? The clear starting point for the United Kingdom was 1707 with the Treaty of Union - not the Laws in Wales Acts. Cheers Fishiehelper2 ( talk) 18:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Its an interesting question. I think you can either take the Statute of Rhuddlan or the Laws in Wales Acts, Rhuddlan is probably the most significant for the history of the UK - how about that? -- Snowded ( talk) 19:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
UK, now known as Northern Ireland. See History of the United Kingdom."
(outdent) in the absence of further comment I implemented the earlier suggest of Fishiehelper2 to use the third paragraph, leaving the introduction as it stands.
Come look see here and vote. MickMacNee ( talk) 02:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
How many of these articles which describe the geographic and political terminology with regard to the British Isles now exist?!? This is getting ridiculous! Feel free to merge this with one of the others. -- Setanta747 ( talk) 01:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Better version: "The subdivisions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the 'United Kingdom', or 'UK') is a term that is used to describe the political union of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. All of these (variously described as countries, constituent countries, and nations) have developed into the current structure of the United Kingdom over hundreds of years. Wales is also referred to as a principality, and Northern Ireland as a province. Calling Northern Ireland a both a country is disputed, particularly within the nationalist community.[citation needed]"
I've re-written to the above, because if this is going to be linked to in Wales (or anywhere else), it think it needs to be clear and unambiguous. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 18:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Just coming into this from a different perspective; I'm concerned we're writing original research here. "The subdivisions of the UK are England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland", um, are they? Who says? My point is that the UK is not subdivided on the basis of four parts, but rather, united on this basis. Also, a publication submitted by the UK to the United Nations Economic and Social Council states England (and Sco/Wls/NI) "should not be considered as a first-order administrative division". [1] The traditional subdivisions of the UK have been the county and the ecclesiastical parish, whilst historically, the ward and constituency are also the UKs political and pan-uk subdivisions. -- Jza84 | Talk 22:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
References
Would anyone complain if I get photoshop out make Wales red and England white, as they tradionally are? The neutrals are grey, so nothing would clash. I'll also label each UK country (but no other, to avoid confusion). I'll give the image a new name so people can still use the old one. Some people are colour blind, so Wikipedia shouldn't so often only label things via a colour-key, anyway. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 01:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) You could try it out, posting the map here (may be even with a few others so long as it does not make too much work for you). Then we can have an actual look at the possibilities and see what it is or they are like. Just a thought. (Let's hope no one gets too sensitive over the idea that yellow may be associated with the Pope.) DDStretch (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
So is it only Snowded and myself that think that Wales should be yellow and England should be red? -- Phoenix ( talk) 23:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Eight possibilities originally came up in the end (the last two - which I personally don't see as possibilities - have since been added). I couldn't see others that worked, myself. Mauve etc all looked too close to the two blues (or too close to green or orange). I think one country has to be very dark, unless yellow is used.
The arrows are a bit 'freehand' (but they can be done properly later - all these can be 'saved-over' easily) - this is about the colours and text placement. These are the same size as currently used, but can be made smaller/larger. I'm running a high resolution, and they look quite big, so I don't think they can really be made bigger as the thumbnail.
I think I favour the first - one of the first four anyway. Maybe number 7. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 02:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
My first preference would be for 7, followed closely by 3, then 1. DDStretch (talk) 08:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how you missed #9 after all that is what a few of us have been talking about! -- Phoenix ( talk) 10:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Note 1 & 3, and 2 & 4 were identical so I have removed the images that were repeats. -- Phoenix ( talk) 10:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
![]() | |
![]() |
![]() | |
![]() |
![]() | |
![]() |
![]() | |
![]() |
![]() |
If you have a second or furher choices, please leave them in order in brackets.
7 (3) -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 14:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
7 (3) (third: 1) DDStretch (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
7 (3) - looks like we have a clear winner Bazonka ( talk) 16:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Go with 7 -- Snowded ( talk) 17:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
3/1 (9 7); Any of the 3 would be ok, But do they have to have the text included? That is not an objection b.t.w. I think it looks good, but does anyone foresee it causing any problems? -- Phoenix ( talk) 19:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I've put number 7 in. I'll improve the arrows slightly at a later date (the England one extends just a fraction too near to Wales!) -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 15:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
First off, my sincere apologies over my recent edits to Image:United_Kingdom_labelled_map7.png and linked pages. User:Ddstretch pointed out that there was a discussion here on the choice of colours. I think that is great that editors from GB took such a responsible approach to the colouring of the map, but I do think it has been taken a little far.
Green is of course the colour of Northern Ireland and used by many "national" organisations: NI Commonwealth Games Federation, NI Football team, Sport NI, Northern Ireland Tourist Board, Police Service of Northern Ireland (and the RUC before that), Athletics NI, the Royal Irish are just a few. On a second point if you don't want to offend anyone using yellow wasn't the best choice as can be seen on an Über-Republican Irish Tricolour incorporating the flag of the Roman Catholic Church.
Therefore I would like to propose changing the colour to green , however if GB editors don't want green then there are other suitable/sensible alternatives:
Thanks for reading - and sorry once again. Any thoughts? Roadnote ♫ 19:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)If I can go back to the suggestions of Roadnote: If the blue were to be adopted, we might (and I think we would) have a problem with there being too many blues in the map unless enough differences in the contrast and/or saturation (or slight differences in the hue) could make them sufficiently distinct. Since the blue for Scotland seems to be a good idea, if we really want blue for Northern Ireland, then the blue to change would be the colour of the sea. I'm not sure how easy this would be to manipulate. In these circumstances, I wonder whether abandoning the attempt to make the colours at all relavent in some way to the countries would be best. DDStretch (talk) 10:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
|
|
|
![]() ![]() |
OK, I've done a lot of uploads. -- Evertype· ✆ 12:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
At Talk:Countries of the United_Kingdom#Merger proposal.
OK, I made a change to the lead but this was reverted as "too bold" (see the comparison here). My objections:
I suggest a restoration. -- Jza84 | Talk 10:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The Introduction of this page says "The United Kingdom, a sovereign state to the northwest of continental Europe, comprises England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales." Shouldn't it read "The United Kingdom, a sovereign state to the northwest of continental Europe, comprises of Great Britain ( England, Scotland and Wales) and Northern Ireland." As a result of the Acts of Union 1707 then the later Act of Union 1800. Mr Taz ( talk) 19:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
hello, i wan see a comparative square of "Countries of the United Kingdom" England, N Ireland, Wales, and Scotland, something like i see in States of USA, with: Official Country Name, Flag, Area, Population, Capital, Most Populous City. Or like i see in "Demographic" table in Provinces of Argentina, like in every other "Articles of first-level administrative division". I feel like you dont know what are you doing, discussing about "not or no". Somebody talk me the real facts of UK subdivision, please. sorry for my engrish hahaha, i not acount in that wiki languaje but i will back to revise -- 201.255.40.34 ( talk) 03:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Can we actually detail what might be biased on both this and the Countries of the United Kingdom article? Neither need be so (an yes they are overlapping - though we needn't delete either).
There certainly is a lot of nationalism in the UK, but bias or intent does not necessarily mean the information isn't sound or appropriate. Regarding the title "Countries of the United Kingdom", it is a commonly-used phrase. The alphabetical ordering of "England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales" unfortunately isn't. We can't go after "intent" on Wikipedia (I've had my fingers burnt there myself) - and we need to just accept that the word "country" is simple more flexible than " sovereign state" (why else do we have this other term?). The US was calling Georgia the "sovereign state" not so long ago, and saying how the "they must be respected" - it is where the international power lines are, but the situation showed how politics has its own language - Abkhazia and South Ossetia were not Georgian culturally, and were called "breakaway states". I'm certainly not comparing this with the UK (a different situation entirely). But the principle of 'country' being the 'non-political' word is the same - I see as much bias trying to deny it as trying to overplay it, but to me the word simply esists. We certainly don't call ourselves united 'states' in the UK, because we were always countries (or a country formed out of the division of a pre-existing country, like Northern Ireland).
By the way, I will soon be applying some more citations to the term "multicultural" (if that is a problem of bias, I don't know). It is more leftfield to say the cultures in the UK are not 'multicultural', than it is to call the UK multicultural (the winning Olympic bid, and the traditional - and in my view correct - view). Some sociology can crawl inside iteself on these things IMO (as sociology often does - it's a multifarious field to say the least). Most of the UK articles seem to be shy on tackling ethnicity. I worked on the Haringey article last year (now in the news, of course), as I noticed in passing that it basically manipulated ethnicity statistics to claim there are less than 50% white people in Haringey (it focused only British decent). I found out that around 65% of Haringey's population were white (and the Irish and others, of course, are not 'non-white'). The truth is that Britain is full of different cultures, whether British citizens, or British-decended or not. Some people are certainly British full stop, as it means something to them other than being Enlgish, for example. When someone becomes a British citizen why should they be made to be 'English' too, just because they moved to England? Britishness for them is clearly keeping their culture (first from the old empire, but it rubs off on other immigants too). We all know the millions Polish are very different culturally (which is why its argued that we should have gone back to the old empire, or the 'commonwealth', when we were searching for workers, as they are closer in identity). Great cities like London have always had a kind of cultural life of their own too, and are a significant part of the wider identity.
Anyway (I'm not even sure if that the identity section is a problem) - can we detail what is wrong, so it can be addressed?
(PS - lets not make "Wales is not a real country" etc an 'issue' again here, please - it will simply obscure debate and prevent progress.)-- Matt Lewis ( talk) 12:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm concerned about how problems are being "addressed" here. Jza84 summarized what this page is merely about ("merely about how the UK is subdivided"). There are two problems with Jza84's sumarizing language and overall conception of this page. First, in terms of dividing territory geographically, there is no "merely" involved. Territorial division is a serious and often deadly issue. Moreover, Brits tend to be more tolerant of the mixing of cultural, ethnicity, and legal issues because they live without a written constitution. Jsa84 could learn from this attitude. The second revealing problem with Jsa84's language is that Jsa84 underscores geographically as if this modifier is going to clarify anything. The discpline of geography is made up of several branches and, until you specify whether you mean political geography or other kinds of geography, you haven't resolved anything--you haven't even begun. This page is one of the more inconsisent pages available, and not just internally, but in relation to other pages that deal with consitutional and cultural issues in the United Kingdom. I recommend that Jza84 begin to accept the help of others in the Wikipedia community. Otherwise, these pages will continue to look confused. Dylan Hunt ( talk) 19:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Dylan Hunt -- Dylan Hunt
I'm not insensitive to knowing alot of work went into this and countries of the United Kingdom, but I've been bold over the last 24 hours and tried to refocus the two pages as to why they are distinct from one another. I'm keen to make it more clear that they are seperate topics.
As such, I've removed alot of the repetition from this article that is found in "countries". I've also swapped out the map for something that not only shows the home nations, not only shows some kind of subdivision of the UK, but also helps explain that there is "no common stratum of administrative division of the UK" - which is probably the most notable and most important thing we ought to get across to our readers.
There's nothing sinister been going on - no politics behind this, it's just something that has been bugging me for a long time that this article effectively was, well, wrong as to focus on ENG/SCO/WLS/NI as divisions. Hopefully this change is viewed as a positive. -- Jza84 | Talk 13:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
There is a section in this article that enumerates the various subdivisions within geography corresponding specifically to the constituent parts (i.e., Scotland, England, Northern Ireland, and Wales). In an apparent inconsistency, the article makes clear that the official subdivisions of the UK do not conform to the most widely known vernacular subdivisions (i.e., Scotland, England, Northern Ireland, and Wales). Nonetheless, the section goes on to enumerate the various subdivisions within these constituent parts. Can anyone in a position to do so please explain why this article is so structured? Notice also that the section previously bore the vacuous sub-heading "In the United Kingdom". Where else but *in the United Kingdom* would you expect to find subdivisions of the United Kingdom? The section has since been renamed to "Subdivision in the Constituent Parts of the United Kingdom", but it remains an oddity given most of the statements in the article. Dylan Hunt ( talk) 00:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
On a related but separate issue, I would accept that the section dealing with the constituent parts is about Local Government. However, neither the past nor the present title of the section indicates the section is primarily about local government. Moreover, it is no more clear why local government would feature so prominently in an article about subdivisions. There is of course the possibility that the subdivisions exist because of local government, but this is not stated anywhere in the article. If that were the preferred reading, then the article as it now stands is inside out, or back to front, depending on your preferred colloquialism. Is this article about subdivision or about local government? Dylan Hunt ( talk) 01:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Good try, guys, but this United Kingdom wikipedia club is not quite reaching quality levels of communicaton. Jza84 and ddstretch both say they agree with Snowded, but what do they agree about? I certainly don't have any transcendent knowledge about their agreement and they don’t say. Please state your own opinions clearly rather than making a blanket agreement statement. If what I wrote is not clear (if that is what you agree with), I will restate it, but please specify what I need to clarify. It seems obvious that the four constitutent parts are getting more than their fair share of the attention in this article. The article already states (with a citation) that the four parts are not official divisions ('"should not be considered as first-order administrative divisions"'). Then it says that, historically, other divisions (county, parish, not to mention districts that succeeded the ecclesiastical districts, then ward and constituency) have been the subnational divisions. It is anybody’s guess whether he latter are official divisions, relatively more official divisions than the vernacular ones of the 4 countries, or co-existing divisions with the 4 countries in the multiplistic complex arrangement that is the UK. Moreover, despite the statement that there is "no common stratum of administrative unit encompassing the United Kingdom", the structure of 4 (Scotland, England, NI, and Wales) is used as just such a common stratum to describe local government and to structure the article. This is a good, pretty textbook example of inconsistency. If any of this is not clear, please be a good administrator and/or editor and be specific about should be clarified. Thanks. Dylan Hunt ( talk) 06:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
BritishWatcher: Thanks for your courteous and transparent question (the first I have seen from the UK clique since I got "involved"). I'll address your second point. If my answer to that is not clear, there is little point taking the time to suggest actual changes. Your clarifying question mentions the premise that each part of the UK has its own subdivisions. The article states this, but your phrasing implies that the parts are not themselves subdivisions. The article says nothing about that. Besides the lack of clarity on that point (assuming your reading is correct), there is another confusion in the article: I think the majority of the people reading this article will understand that the four countries are the focus of the article and that the title of the article (Subdivisions...) refers to them. If it is the case that the parts are not themselves subdivisions, then the article is far from clear on this point (except to the three or four who have been "involved"). Hence, there are two confusions in the article: 1) the title suggests that the parts are subdivisions (because of the structure and general content of the article) and 2) since the article explicitly divides the UK into the four countries, this suggests that the parts are themselves subdivisions. Your reading suggests that the title of the article should be "subdivisions of the four parts of UK", not "subdivisions of the UK". Until these confusions are addresses, I think the article casts more shadow than light on the subject. Dylan Hunt ( talk) 18:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
These all seem to be reasonable solutions, if a little stop-gappy. I think my problem is that I am seeing this as an outsider to this UK group and the UK group might be seeing the article as a group of insiders writing for insiders. My initial problem with the article was that it is unclear and allows different incompatible readings. "Administrative geography" certainly makes the article more consistent, but I'm not sure it makes the title more understandable (unless, of course, you are a geographer or know all the branches of geography). To benefit neophytes (perhaps I presume too much in thinking this is the intended audience of wikipedia and any other encyclopedia articles) on the subject which this article addresses, I would make the following suggestions. 1) Gut as much of the introduction as possible regarding the four countries and, instead, refer people to the article on the Countries of the UK (since it already exists; which would also resolve some problems people have with repetition between these two articles. 2) Explain what "administrative geography" addresses (e.g., national and local government hierarchies) and how this relates to this article. 3) For the love of God, rename (to whatever is appropriate) the section entitled "In the UK" (or eliminate this title) because it serves no purpose whatsoever--perhaps to "contemporary administration" or something that transitions from "History"; although for reasons beyond my comprehension, some people are apparently wedded till death to that vacuous phrase (i.e., In the UK). 4) Move the last paragraph of the Intro (beginning with "Historically...") to the History section or exapnd on the themes it introduces. 5) Identify the referent of "This structure" in the History section (i.e., answer the question, "What structure?"). 6) Follow strict style guidelines for the terms "division[s]" and "subdivision[s]" throughout this article if either is a significant concept for this article. 7) Incorporate the "Parliamentary representation" section into the section preceding it. This would give a structure of [Introduction], History, Contemporary Administration (or whatever), Informal (Sub)Divisions, International (Sub)Divisions. As things stand, having a separate section for informal divisions suggests the rest of the article is about formal divisions, which would be fine if the sections reflected a more transparent and sensible organization to the article currently lacking. Dylan Hunt ( talk) 03:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Allow me to reiterate: whether the intro is "clear" or the structure "logical" shouldn't be the issues (and I don't think logic is on anyone's mind in this discussion). The issue should be whether the random person is going to come away more confused than before (i.e., *to whom* is the article clear (or not)?) If Jza84 reads it over and over, I suggest it will remain clear to her/him. On the other hand, the random person looking for answers about the administrative geography of the UK is likely to find it unclear for the reasons mentioned above. Dylan Hunt ( talk) 16:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
According to this article the reason why there are no single defined terms for the subdivisions of the UK is solely due to the lack of a single document written constitution. This is a false and unverified statement.-- jrleighton ( talk) 02:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Administrative geography of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I thought that because of the complexity of the divisions of the UK it would be useful to have a diagram so I made one. I didn't want to add it without someone else looking at it first in case there are mistakes or typos. Please tell me if there are any, if anything else should be added or any other suggestions.
GarmTýrfingsson ( talk) 02:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Country | United Kingdom | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Legal jurisdiction | Scotland | Northern Ireland | England and Wales | ||||||
Country | Wales | England | |||||||
Region‑level | — | — | — | Administrative region (London) | Statistical regions | ||||
County‑level | Unitary authorities | Districts | Unitary authorities | City of London | London boroughs | Metropolitan counties | Non‑metropolitan counties (unitary authorities) | Isles of Scilly | |
District‑level | Metropolitan districts | Non‑metropolitan districts | |||||||
Parish‑level | Civil parishes | Civil parishes | Communities | Wards | Civil parishes |
You're right, I should get rid of the Greater London county, I just didn't know where to put the London boroughs, I guess they're ok on their own as unitary authorities. The GLA is like the combined authorities, right? Only they don't cover whole regions. I thought about putting them there somwhere but decided against it because they don't cover specific areas, they're just agreements between already existing local authorities.
What about the wards? I liked including them but I don't think they have any power or government of their own. I was trying to avoid the ceremonial counties because they don't really have any administrative purpose, so maybe don't include the wards either?
About comparing England with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, I hadn't thought about making it that way, they're pretty different to England and putting them side by side would take a lot of space, but maybe I can think of something.
I should also add Welsh communities.
GarmTýrfingsson ( talk) 08:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Here's the new version
GarmTýrfingsson ( talk) 01:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
For now these are the things that need changing:
-Remove regions (Do metropolitan counties have administrative purposes? Even if they don't I think they should be included, maybe do the same with the regions, with a caption. Maybe change those two to another colour like grey to include them but making it clear that they don't have administrative purposes?)
-Make key more legible
I know there's no consensus yet whether to add the diagram or not but I'll keep improving it with the comments posted here. GarmTýrfingsson ( talk) 01:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I've modified the key's font so it's clearer. Because no one said anything I decided to keep the regions of England even if they don't have administrative purposes, following the logic that neither do the metropolitan counties or the parishes of the Isles of Scilly and those are included.
There's an explanation in the key to clarify, I hope it's enough.
GarmTýrfingsson (
talk)
01:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Whilst the diagram has visual impact, to be honest the table conveys the same information in a more concise and readable format. How about adding the diagram's notes to the table (keyed using letters or numbers, as not everyone can distinguish coloured dots)? It would also be easy to turn the table cells into wikilinks where there's an appropriate target such as Metropolitan county. Certes ( talk) 11:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
My intention was to make something that flowed from top to bottom, spacious, visually attractive and not in black and white, that's why I made it that way and with diagram form. If you'd like to make a table please go ahead. I could replace the dots with numbers. GarmTýrfingsson ( talk) 12:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Good idea to split it into 2 tables, it looks better. I don't think the Overseas Territories or Dependencies should be excluded, it doesn't matter if they're not technically part of the UK, they're still the UK's responsibility. We should just find a way of displaying it all in an efficient and attractive way.
We could add the "C" for councils in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, I agree. However Wikipedia says civil parishes in Scotland were abolished in 1975, and I can't find any mention of them on the Scottish Government website. Same for Northern Ireland, it looks like the only local authority are the district councils. Even if the Community Councils exist, they're not equivalent to the English and Welsh ones, so I don't think they should be included. I'd also be good if the parishes of the Isles of Scilly were separated from the other English parishes, as they don't have councils. I'm no expert either, I just wanted to take the information in all those articles and condense it into a visual document to avoid other people the trouble of reading so much to just get an idea of the divisions of the UK.
Otherwise, the tables look good, and I would be ok with adding them to the article. It would be good to let more people know though, have the opinion of more users, some kind of vote? But I wouldn't know how to do that, RFC maybe?
Also, the diagram was never intended to be read without opening it. When browsing Wikipedia I often have to open the images/diagrams/maps, then enlarge them with Ctrl+ to be able to see them in detail, that's why I thought it would be fine to have a diagram like that in the article. GarmTýrfingsson ( talk) 04:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I have boldly added the table to the article. Perhaps it will reach a wider audience there, who may correct and improve it in situ. Certes ( talk) 11:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Although it's out of scope for the article title, if we're including The Crown then should we also mention the Commonwealth Realm: Australia, Canada etc? (Comment inspired by this diagram. I'm not citing it as a RS but it may prompt helpful thoughts.) Certes ( talk) 17:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
What happened to the context table? Are you still including it? Also the parishes of the Isles of Scilly don't have councils so they should be separated from the rest of England's parishes. And are you keeping the parishes of Scotland? I thought they were abolished. Same for Northern Ireland, all I can find is that the only local authority are the district councils. GarmTýrfingsson ( talk) 00:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I boldly removed the whole section because it had not been verified eleven years after being queried. I looked for verification but found none that suited. In the circumstances I think I had every right to remove that section. I had considered first bringing this to talk, which I accept was an alternative approach, but not necessarily a better one. My personal view is that this topic is so fraught with subtleties and misunderstandings that care needs to be taken when inserting text, and as such a total properly sourced re-write was the best approach, probably resurrecting much of the detail in the now deleted text. If the section is to be put back then I think it is more than reasonable to have good citations inserted without delay. Thank you to Ghmyrtle for making an issue of this. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 08:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Sirfurboy not just for those A1 sources but also for explaining your reasoning: restricted access sources can be a nuisance for the average editor who will not be able to verify the statements being written. As an aside, I have often wondered just how much incorrect information is put into wp simply because editors are misusing sources. Checking citations against what is written is an exercise in itself. Citations that cannot easily be verified always make me suspicious. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 10:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
The legislature for Wales, formerly known as the 'National Assembly for Wales', is now known as 'Senedd Cymru' or 'the Welsh Parliament' in both English and Welsh. It is also commonly known and referred to, in both Welsh and English, as the 'Senedd'.
Please see the Senedd's guidance on the name change for more information - https://senedd.wales/en/abthome/Documents/External%20content%20guide%20FINAL.pdf.
There are currently two references to the institution in the Wikipedia article. Namely:
Reference A - "Wales has an elected, devolved legislature, the Senedd Cymru – Welsh Parliament, from which the Welsh Government is drawn."
Reference B - "Constituencies also exist for the devolved Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru – Welsh Parliament and Northern Irish Assembly".
Note the use of the definite article in Reference A and B. In order to be grammatically correct, the definite article 'the' should not precede the term 'Senedd Cymru', although the definite article should precede the term 'Welsh Parliament'. For clarity, it would be correct for the definite article to precede the term 'Senedd'.
In addition, the Welsh Government's Style Guide ( https://llyw.cymru/bydtermcymru/style-guide) notes that the Government's own policy is to refer to refer to 'Senedd Cymru' as the 'Senedd' in Welsh and in English. The Government also uses 'Senedd Cymru' in (English and Welsh) when the institution is mentioned for the first time in documentation, and as 'the Senedd' in any subsequent references to it within the document. There is discretion to use the term 'the Welsh Parliament' in addition to the use of 'Senedd Cymru'. The Senedd's own guidance also supports these conventions.
I therefore suggest that references A and B should be edited in line with this edit that was undone. Namely:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Administrative_geography_of_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=962759526 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammyjames60 ( talk • contribs) 10:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)