Talk:Sennen

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cornwall Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cornwall, an attempt to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of Cornwall and all things Cornish. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CornwallWikipedia:WikiProject CornwallTemplate:WikiProject CornwallCornwall-related

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

See drop-down box for suggested article edit guidelines:

Be bold - if you know something about Cornwall then put it in! We value your contributions and don't be afraid if your spelling isn't great as there are plenty of spelling and grammar experts on clean-up duty!
Articles on settlements in Cornwall should be written using the standard set of headings approved by the UK geography WikiProject's guideline How to write about settlements.
At WikiProject Cornwall we subscribe to the policies laid down by Wikipedia - particularly civility and consensus building. We are aware that the wording on Cornish entries can sometimes be a contentious topic, especially those concerning geography. You don't have to agree with everything but there is no excuse for rudeness and these things are best solved through consensus building and compromise. For more information see WP:CornwallGuideline.
These pages are not platforms for political discussion. Issues relating to Cornish politics should be restricted to those pages that directly deal with these issues (such as Constitutional status of Cornwall, Cornish nationalism, etc) and should not overflow into other articles.
Most of all have fun editing - that's the reason we all do this, right?!

Steinsky - I apologise if this isn't the right place to save comments, but I've only recently Started contributing and am still finding my way around! Could you clarify for me why you think it is factually inaccurate to say Great Britain instead of England? I wasn't trying to make some PC point about Cornish nationalism or separateness. I was using Great Britain in a geographical sense (Great Britain being the name for the largest of the British Isles) not a political one (in which case I think United Kingdom is better?). I changed it to Britain not because England is wrong (although I think it should be 'in' England rather than 'on') but because it gives slightly more information. Do you think it would read better if it said"The village is the most westerly on Great Britain, being less......" or 'the island of Great Britain'? Would be great to hear what you think - R.

The reason I say it is incorrect is that the most westerly village on the British mainland is Portuairk in Scotland. (see Extreme points of the United Kingdom#Great Britain (mainland).) Joe D (t) 15:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies (learn something new every day). I will probably add some more to this page when I have time as there is a great deal more in Sennen than just a surf shop! - R(t)

Info box and text

I'm not a techie, or I'd fix it, but the shouldn't the text be to the left of the info box rather than below (as per the other articles in the Project)?LessHeard vanU 16:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you -mean, in my browser the text (article) is to the left of the box. Do you mean the picture at the bottom? Mammal4 08:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meger suggestion

Does anyone have any thoughts about merging the Sennen Cove article into the Sennen main article (possibly under a subheading)? The two have overlapping information in them, and as someone has just added a load of (useful) info about surfing to the main Sennen article, rather than the cove I wondered if maybe people not realising that there are two. Any thoughts? The alternative is a disambiguation link at the top of the article linking to the sister page (i.e for beach see Sennen Cove) Mammal4 15:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd prefer the second idea - a disambig link at the top. They are, after all, different places. DuncanHill 18:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well they are and they aren't. Sennen village is generally considered to be split between the top and the bottom of the hill, so they are actually both Sennen village despite the different location. If we use the disambiguation idea then I think we should shunt most of the surfing stuff to the cove page Mammal4 08:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sennen. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927050041/http://mapping.cornwall.gov.uk/website/ccmap/ to http://mapping.cornwall.gov.uk/website/ccmap/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]