Modern government regions are fine for modern studies (and not irrelevant to the study of past centuries, eg "To which authority should I write to check on the current locations of archives for Xville?"). But a genealogy site should have more obvious links to a list of the "traditional counties", because over 80% of the country's decades that are of genealogical interest had those counties as the basis of most public records. See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_counties_of_the_British_Isles
The same applies to Scotland, Wales, and (both current divisions of) Ireland.
Robin Patterson 00:37, 8 June 2006 (MDT)
I removed Place:United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from England's located-in field and made it a see-also place, since its existence in the located-in field was creating problems with some of the place review processes that are being run right now, but it raises a question: Should England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland be "top-level" places, or should they be located in the United Kingdom? Specifically, after the renaming should all places in England end in ", England", or should they end in ", England, United Kingdom"? The same question applies to places in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.--Dallan 18:40, 5 November 2007 (EST)
Note that I don't deal with English genealogy all that much, but my vote is that they be a part of the UK, since that is the reality of the situation in the modern era. I don't see the practical problem with having it listed as a member of the UK? --Joeljkp 11:53, 6 November 2007 (EST)
It just makes the links / page titles longer, since the full chain of located-in places are going to be appended to the place titles in the upcoming renaming.--Dallan 18:00, 8 November 2007 (EST)
