This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

UK geography This template falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles England This template is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles

I suggest we do not include admin counties that were within larger counties (or if we do we do it for all of them). I think it would make the template too large and complex. 09:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove content. In my view it is necessary for a template of English counties (in three sections) to give a complete list. Counties in themselves, ie. counties corporate and later, county boroughs are distinct and not to be confused with administrative counties; these are excluded. It is entirely proper that the Soke of Peterborough and Isle of Ely, bona fide administrative counties with multiple districts, should be included.

Please also remember to sign your posts here by typing four tildes. Chrisieboy (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-09T17:17:00.000Z","author":"Chrisieboy","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Chrisieboy-2008-02-09T17:17:00.000Z-Divisions","replies":[]}}-->

The list at the moment is not complete. If we are to include all administrative counties (which were sub-divisions of counties) we should also add:

But is it right that we should be presenting what are effectively major divisions such as Isle of Ely and West Suffolk as counties? MRSC • Talk 11:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-10T11:33:00.000Z","author":"MRSC","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MRSC-2008-02-10T11:33:00.000Z-Divisions","replies":["c-Chrisieboy-2008-02-10T14:47:00.000Z-MRSC-2008-02-10T11:33:00.000Z"]}}-->

Absolutely, if they were counties in the time period specifically referred to, they should clearly be included in this template. Otherwise the apparent completeness is misleading. This is an encyclopedia and we need to be accurate. No one editor can "select" what should or should not, in his/her opinion, be included or excluded, where there is an official definition. Either they are counties or they are not counties and either this is a template of English counties as defined by law or it is a template of some English counties, the parameters for inclusion in which are entirely subjective. Chrisieboy (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-10T14:47:00.000Z","author":"Chrisieboy","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Chrisieboy-2008-02-10T14:47:00.000Z-MRSC-2008-02-10T11:33:00.000Z","replies":["c-MRSC-2008-02-10T15:24:00.000Z-Chrisieboy-2008-02-10T14:47:00.000Z"]}}-->

The Local Government Act 1888 defines both 'counties' and 'administrative counties'. In most cases the county and administrative county is the same (or similar give or take county boroughs) so here the situation is clear. It is not accurate to call places such as West Suffolk or the West Riding a county on this basis as they were defined by the Act as 'administrative counties' within other 'counties'. MRSC • Talk 15:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-10T15:24:00.000Z","author":"MRSC","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-MRSC-2008-02-10T15:24:00.000Z-Chrisieboy-2008-02-10T14:47:00.000Z","replies":["c-Chrisieboy-2008-02-10T15:56:00.000Z-MRSC-2008-02-10T15:24:00.000Z"]}}-->

Please revert your last edit, while there clearly exists opposition to it. Chrisieboy (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-10T15:56:00.000Z","author":"Chrisieboy","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Chrisieboy-2008-02-10T15:56:00.000Z-MRSC-2008-02-10T15:24:00.000Z","replies":["c-MRSC-2008-02-10T16:00:00.000Z-Chrisieboy-2008-02-10T15:56:00.000Z"]}}-->

I've divided the period 1889-1998 into two sections as it is the 1889-1974 part we are interested in. I cannot see a way to accurately and concisely include those administrative counties that were not counties in that section. Most importantly, the addition must make the distinction clear. I do not specifically object to the full list of major divisions being added to the 1889-1974 section but it must be done in such a way to fully explain the situation. MRSC • Talk 16:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-10T16:00:00.000Z","author":"MRSC","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-MRSC-2008-02-10T16:00:00.000Z-Chrisieboy-2008-02-10T15:56:00.000Z","replies":["c-Chrisieboy-2008-02-10T16:05:00.000Z-MRSC-2008-02-10T16:00:00.000Z"]}}-->

I didn't ask for a justification of what you have done, I asked you to have the courtesy to revert your edit while discussion was taking place. Chrisieboy (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-10T16:05:00.000Z","author":"Chrisieboy","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Chrisieboy-2008-02-10T16:05:00.000Z-MRSC-2008-02-10T16:00:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

A bolder option would be a change of approach where, instead of including just the former counties, all counties extant during the period are listed with status indicated. The same would then be created for 1974-1998. The sections could be collapsible. MRSC • Talk 16:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-10T16:08:00.000Z","author":"MRSC","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MRSC-2008-02-10T16:08:00.000Z-Divisions","replies":["c-Ddstretch-2008-02-10T16:09:00.000Z-MRSC-2008-02-10T16:08:00.000Z"]}}-->

I'm not sure what is happening here. If "No one editor can "select" what should or should not, in his/her opinion, be included or excluded, where there is an official definition", then why are the the counties in themselves chosen to be omitted except by one editor's opinion and for reasons that haven't been explained? Can more explanation be given as to why it is thought that there should not be entries for: Bristol, Coventry, Lincoln, London, Gloucester, Norwich, York, Gloucester, Canterbury, Exeter, Lichfield, Worcester, Kingston-upon-Hull, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Nottingham, Poole, Southampton, Caermarthen and Haverfordwest (all as given here.) so long as they were considered as counties at the time and, as stated before, ""No one editor can "select" what should or should not, in his/her opinion, be included or excluded, where there is an official definition"?  DDStretch  (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-10T16:09:00.000Z","author":"Ddstretch","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Ddstretch-2008-02-10T16:09:00.000Z-MRSC-2008-02-10T16:08:00.000Z","replies":["c-Chrisieboy-2008-02-10T16:15:00.000Z-Ddstretch-2008-02-10T16:09:00.000Z"]}}-->

If you are not sure what is happening here I suggest you read the above discussion and related template edit summaries. Then you might have something useful to contribute! Chrisieboy (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-10T16:15:00.000Z","author":"Chrisieboy","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Chrisieboy-2008-02-10T16:15:00.000Z-Ddstretch-2008-02-10T16:09:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ddstretch-2008-02-10T16:22:00.000Z-Chrisieboy-2008-02-10T16:15:00.000Z"]}}-->

(edit conflict) I have read them, and I was asking for clarification. Just because I am asking you to justify a decision doesn't make it a useless contribution. On a related point, your overly combattive writing style makes for discussions that can easily get out of hand. I invite you to consider that it was you who appeared to introduce new changes that were then reverted, and so the obligation appears to be on you to provide the justification, rather than dismissing requests for clarification as being somehow not useful. Now, could you please attend to answering my polite request for clarification?  DDStretch  (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-10T16:22:00.000Z","author":"Ddstretch","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Ddstretch-2008-02-10T16:22:00.000Z-Chrisieboy-2008-02-10T16:15:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

It might be worth clarifying what is included in this template at the moment:

• "Current (since 1998)" - Ceremonial counties of England i.e. those counties as at the Lieutenancies Act 1997
• "Former (1974-1998)" - Metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties of England [only thoses that were abolished during the 1990s UK local government reform]
• "Former (1889-1974)" - counties (not administrative counties) as defined by the Local Government Act 1888 [only those that became obselete by or during 1974]
• "Ancient (before 1889)" - the Historic counties of England

Hopefully that will clear up any confusion as to why they were 'selected' in the first place. MRSC • Talk 16:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-10T16:19:00.000Z","author":"MRSC","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MRSC-2008-02-10T16:19:00.000Z-Divisions","replies":["c-Ddstretch-2008-02-10T16:27:00.000Z-MRSC-2008-02-10T16:19:00.000Z"]}}-->

Many thanks. It always helps one's case to respond politely! Then, I might ask, why are the twons and citiesw I included in my last-but-one message (which were considered to be counties in themselves) not included in the loist of "Historic Counties"? I guess one could always include them as a separate subsection, and use a collapsing table to get rid of the problem of the size of the template getting out of hand.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-10T16:27:00.000Z","author":"Ddstretch","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Ddstretch-2008-02-10T16:27:00.000Z-MRSC-2008-02-10T16:19:00.000Z","replies":["c-MRSC-2008-02-10T16:32:00.000Z-Ddstretch-2008-02-10T16:27:00.000Z"]}}-->

A separate collapsible list of now-defunct counties of themselves/county corporate is probably the best solution. It does follow that if we are including the likes of Bristol/London for completeness the historic ones should also be added.MRSC • Talk 16:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-10T16:32:00.000Z","author":"MRSC","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-MRSC-2008-02-10T16:32:00.000Z-Ddstretch-2008-02-10T16:27:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ddstretch-2008-02-10T16:39:00.000Z-MRSC-2008-02-10T16:32:00.000Z"]}}-->

Exactly! And it may well be that neither the historic county stuff nor the counties of themselves/county corporate should be included, which depends on what the purpose of this template actually is. Another aspect of clarification that is required.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-10T16:39:00.000Z","author":"Ddstretch","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Ddstretch-2008-02-10T16:39:00.000Z-MRSC-2008-02-10T16:32:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ddstretch-2008-02-10T16:45:00.000Z-Ddstretch-2008-02-10T16:39:00.000Z"]}}-->

I would be in favour of all but the current ones being removed from this template, and the older ones not currently having any function being handled in some other way (in perhaps some article to which people could be directed within the template if they wishes to look at non-current counties.)  DDStretch  (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-10T16:45:00.000Z","author":"Ddstretch","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Ddstretch-2008-02-10T16:45:00.000Z-Ddstretch-2008-02-10T16:39:00.000Z","replies":["c-Chrisieboy-2008-02-10T16:50:00.000Z-Ddstretch-2008-02-10T16:45:00.000Z"]}}-->

I second that. The effect of which is to reverse User:MRSCs original edit on 01 December 2007. Chrisieboy (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-10T16:50:00.000Z","author":"Chrisieboy","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Chrisieboy-2008-02-10T16:50:00.000Z-Ddstretch-2008-02-10T16:45:00.000Z","replies":["c-Chrisieboy-2008-02-10T17:19:00.000Z-Chrisieboy-2008-02-10T16:50:00.000Z"]}}-->

This is awful. Please revert to the version in place before your edits of 20 January 2008 or 01 December 2007. Chrisieboy (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-10T17:19:00.000Z","author":"Chrisieboy","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Chrisieboy-2008-02-10T17:19:00.000Z-Chrisieboy-2008-02-10T16:50:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

I've added the complete list of counties as requested earlier. Your position seems to have changed from advocating the addition of all counties (be they administrative or otherwise) to a selection based on criteria. Focussing on the literature and data, on what basis should this information be included/excluded? MRSC • Talk 17:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-10T17:22:00.000Z","author":"MRSC","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MRSC-2008-02-10T17:22:00.000Z-Divisions","replies":["c-Ddstretch-2008-02-10T17:37:00.000Z-MRSC-2008-02-10T17:22:00.000Z"]}}-->

Can I just add that, in my opinion, the only feasible and sensible criterion is whether the counties are ones that are current, as I stated above. However, the question wasn't directed at me.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-10T17:37:00.000Z","author":"Ddstretch","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Ddstretch-2008-02-10T17:37:00.000Z-MRSC-2008-02-10T17:22:00.000Z","replies":["c-MRSC-2008-02-10T17:39:00.000Z-Ddstretch-2008-02-10T17:37:00.000Z"]}}-->

I would advocate division into "past" and "current" rather than division by period as there is so much repetition. MRSC • Talk 17:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-10T17:39:00.000Z","author":"MRSC","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-MRSC-2008-02-10T17:39:00.000Z-Ddstretch-2008-02-10T17:37:00.000Z","replies":["c-Jza84-2008-02-11T00:08:00.000Z-MRSC-2008-02-10T17:39:00.000Z"]}}-->

If I may add my opinion here, I like the template as it is appears at the time of my sig; what seems to be the version advocated by MRSC. I would however also like to see the divisions by date changed to something with more context, so for 74-96, "Counties of the Local Government Act 1974", "Metro and Non-Metro counties of England" or something simillar, just for clarity. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-11T00:08:00.000Z","author":"Jza84","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Jza84-2008-02-11T00:08:00.000Z-MRSC-2008-02-10T17:39:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ddstretch-2008-02-11T00:21:00.000Z-Jza84-2008-02-11T00:08:00.000Z"]}}-->

I actually don't like it, as at the moment it is overly large and overburdened with things which are no longer current, when I thought the purpose of this template was to show the current state of affairs. However, if those non-current entities are to remain, I really do think one should be consistent and add back in the counties of themselves/county corporates.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-11T00:21:00.000Z","author":"Ddstretch","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Ddstretch-2008-02-11T00:21:00.000Z-Jza84-2008-02-11T00:08:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Another approach would be to go back to a simple template with just the current list and employ the "backwards/forwards" thing used on templates such as this:

{{European Parliament constituencies 1999-2004}}

This would achieve the same result but would be a bit neater. MRSC • Talk 09:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-11T09:58:00.000Z","author":"MRSC","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MRSC-2008-02-11T09:58:00.000Z-Divisions","replies":["c-Ddstretch-2008-02-11T10:29:00.000Z-MRSC-2008-02-11T09:58:00.000Z"]}}-->

So long as all were included, that would be much much better. So long as there is a clear-cut "end date" for them, which I think there is (it could even be set at 1974, at a stretch)  DDStretch  (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-11T10:29:00.000Z","author":"Ddstretch","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Ddstretch-2008-02-11T10:29:00.000Z-MRSC-2008-02-11T09:58:00.000Z","replies":["c-MRSC-2008-02-11T10:54:00.000Z-Ddstretch-2008-02-11T10:29:00.000Z"]}}-->

I've implemented this. It appears to be a good compromise between the competing needs of aesthetics, comprehensiveness and relevance. MRSC • Talk 10:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-11T10:54:00.000Z","author":"MRSC","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-MRSC-2008-02-11T10:54:00.000Z-Ddstretch-2008-02-11T10:29:00.000Z","replies":["c-Chrisieboy-2008-02-11T11:48:00.000Z-MRSC-2008-02-11T10:54:00.000Z"]}}-->

This is certainly an improvement. However, if counties corporate are included, I think county boroughs should be too. Chrisieboy (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-11T11:48:00.000Z","author":"Chrisieboy","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Chrisieboy-2008-02-11T11:48:00.000Z-MRSC-2008-02-11T10:54:00.000Z","replies":["c-MRSC-2008-02-11T11:56:00.000Z-Chrisieboy-2008-02-11T11:48:00.000Z"]}}-->

I agree. These would be a good addition. MRSC • Talk 11:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-11T11:56:00.000Z","author":"MRSC","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-MRSC-2008-02-11T11:56:00.000Z-Chrisieboy-2008-02-11T11:48:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Good implementation. I think it will look good once it is finished off with the latest suggestions.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-11T12:11:00.000Z","author":"Ddstretch","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ddstretch-2008-02-11T12:11:00.000Z-Divisions","replies":["c-Chrisieboy-2008-02-12T13:33:00.000Z-Ddstretch-2008-02-11T12:11:00.000Z"]}}-->

Is MRSC implementing this..? Chrisieboy (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-12T13:33:00.000Z","author":"Chrisieboy","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Chrisieboy-2008-02-12T13:33:00.000Z-Ddstretch-2008-02-11T12:11:00.000Z","replies":["c-MRSC-2008-02-12T13:37:00.000Z-Chrisieboy-2008-02-12T13:33:00.000Z"]}}-->

I don't plan to in the short term, so feel free to do it. MRSC • Talk 13:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-12T13:37:00.000Z","author":"MRSC","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-MRSC-2008-02-12T13:37:00.000Z-Chrisieboy-2008-02-12T13:33:00.000Z","replies":["c-Chrisieboy-2008-02-12T14:23:00.000Z-MRSC-2008-02-12T13:37:00.000Z"]}}-->

In that case, I am in favour of just having the current counties listed on this template. Chrisieboy (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-12T14:23:00.000Z","author":"Chrisieboy","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Chrisieboy-2008-02-12T14:23:00.000Z-MRSC-2008-02-12T13:37:00.000Z","replies":["c-MRSC-2008-02-12T16:53:00.000Z-Chrisieboy-2008-02-12T14:23:00.000Z"]}}-->

If you feel strongly that the list of county boroughs needs to be added, please add them. As I said before I do not oppose this addition. For the avoidance of doubt this addition, like any other, can be completed by any editor. MRSC • Talk 16:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-12T16:53:00.000Z","author":"MRSC","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-MRSC-2008-02-12T16:53:00.000Z-Chrisieboy-2008-02-12T14:23:00.000Z","replies":["c-Chrisieboy-2008-02-12T17:42:00.000Z-MRSC-2008-02-12T16:53:00.000Z"]}}-->

I was under the impression that was the agreement we had reached. For the avoidance of doubt, can any editor revert to a simple template of the current (ceremonial) counties and a separate template for previous counties? Chrisieboy (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-12T17:42:00.000Z","author":"Chrisieboy","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Chrisieboy-2008-02-12T17:42:00.000Z-MRSC-2008-02-12T16:53:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

[Copied from User talk:MRSC]:

Sorry, I was under the impression you were agreeing to do the work. I really do not think this should be left as it stands. I've left a note to that effect on the talk page. Chrisieboy (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-12T16:40:00.000Z","author":"Chrisieboy","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Chrisieboy-2008-02-12T16:40:00.000Z-Divisions","replies":["c-Chrisieboy-2008-02-13T09:52:00.000Z-Chrisieboy-2008-02-12T16:40:00.000Z"]}}-->

You do not seem to be watching the talk page. As stated above, I really do not think it should be left in this condition. Please finish what you started or restore to the original separate templates in the interim. Chrisieboy (talk) 09:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-13T09:52:00.000Z","author":"Chrisieboy","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Chrisieboy-2008-02-13T09:52:00.000Z-Chrisieboy-2008-02-12T16:40:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

[end of copied text]

The legitimacy of the entire template does not rely on the addition of a list of county boroughs. If you are certain these need to be added, please do so. You misunderstand the Wikipedia project if you think you can demand other editors "do the work" as you put it. MRSC • Talk 10:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-13T10:19:00.000Z","author":"MRSC","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MRSC-2008-02-13T10:19:00.000Z-Divisions","replies":["c-Chrisieboy-2008-02-13T10:59:00.000Z-MRSC-2008-02-13T10:19:00.000Z"]}}-->

I'm not demanding anything, but I do think you should finish things that you start. You appeared to agree to do this above. Although I have no objection to their inclusion, I would not have added counties corporate and county boroughs myself. What I do object to is half finished and incomplete work, which others then have to tidy up for you and which you presumably expect to be done in the fashion you have started. Chrisieboy (talk) 10:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-13T10:59:00.000Z","author":"Chrisieboy","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Chrisieboy-2008-02-13T10:59:00.000Z-MRSC-2008-02-13T10:19:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

[Copied from User talk:MRSC]: In that case I propose to make some changes, the effect of which will be to revert to two separate templates: (1) ceremonial and (2) historical, as was in place prior to your edits of 01 December 2007. Chrisieboy (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC) [end of copied text][reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-19T14:03:00.000Z","author":"Chrisieboy","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Chrisieboy-2008-02-19T14:03:00.000Z-Further_changes_to_template","replies":["c-MRSC-2008-02-19T14:11:00.000Z-Chrisieboy-2008-02-19T14:03:00.000Z"]}}-->

Is this not what we have now? MRSC • Talk 14:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-19T14:11:00.000Z","author":"MRSC","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-MRSC-2008-02-19T14:11:00.000Z-Chrisieboy-2008-02-19T14:03:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

I've copied this template over to the ANG Wikipedia so that that wiki can get the English counties (relatively easy translation effort). But when I go there, the translations don't seem to show on the Isle of Wight page, and I get script errors that don't show on the EN wiki. Would someone mind helping me see what I'm doing wrong in either translating or getting the scripts to work? Scripting is not my forté, so other than copying, I'm at a bit of a loss. --JJohnson1701 (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-08-28T16:10:00.000Z","author":"JJohnson1701","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-JJohnson1701-2014-08-28T16:10:00.000Z-Translating_for_ANG","replies":[]}}-->