Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cornwall/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Assessment

Hi all, The CornwallWikiproject template has been upgraded to include assessments for all Cornwall-related articles. For those who are interested, you can find more info about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall/Assessment where you can also find categories for all the different gradings. The extra template parameters can be found at Template:CornwallWikiproject. Right now most articles are in the "unassessed" category, let's try and give all the Cornwall-related articles a rating :-) Cheers, --Joowwww 12:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Caradon Navigation box

I have now created a Caradon navigation box - my thanks to Talskiddy and Mammal4, whose previous boxes I shamelessly copied(!), and added it to the existing parish articles - but there are still quite a lot of red Caradon parishes. DuncanHill 17:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Stub templates amended

I have amended the Cornwall-stub template and the Cornwall-geography-stub template, so that when added to an article they include a link to the Cornwall Wikiproject. I hope that this will encourage editors to visit and contribute. DuncanHill 22:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Resource

This website Falmouth Packet Archives looks as though it may be useful to members of this Wikiproject. DuncanHill 00:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

St Neot

Just a note to let you know, St Neot is now a disambiguation page, so for the Cornish village use St Neot, Cornwall, the saint himself remains at Saint Neot. DuncanHill (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Resources

I am compiling a list of resources relevant to Cornwall on my userpage here User:DuncanHill/Cornwall Resources. It includes both weblinks and books in my collection. If you have any suggestions for web resources, could you mention them here or at my talk page please? Also, if you need something looking up in any of my books, then please just ask at my talk page, and I will be happy to oblige. DuncanHill (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

ODNB People missing from Wikipedia

I have started a list of people connected with Cornwall who have entries in the ODNB, but who do not yet have articles on the Wikipedia - other editors may find this useful for suggestions for new articles. The list is here - User:DuncanHill/Cornwall People. I have started by concentrating on Cornwall's learned societies (The Royal Institution of Cornwall, the Royal Cornwall Polytechnic Society and the Royal Geological Society of Cornwall). DuncanHill (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry folks

Sorry everyone - I am going to take a wikibreak, which may become permanent. I am fed up with the pathetic lies and self-serving attitude of a few users (not from this project, I hasten to add), which are making it impossible for me to retain faith in the Wikipedia as a whole. I can be emailed through the email function at my userpage. You have my best wishes. DuncanHill (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, take care and thanks for all the work you've done on Cornish pages! --Joowwww (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I am sort of back for now - but feeling a bit battered and bruised! Thanks for all the supportive comments I have recieved from so many editors I respect. DuncanHill (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Merger of Associateship of the Camborne School of Mines into Camborne School of Mines

There is a proposal to merge the article on Associateship of the CSM into the main article for CSM. The debate can be found and contributed to at this link - Merger Proposal. DuncanHill (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Cornwall, England, UK

I presume we are going with the Cornwall, England, United Kingdom styling as exhaustively argued previously?LessHeard vanU 13:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes lets be bold! Mammal4 14:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, seems to be the least-worst option! DuncanHill 14:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
No. A three level comma separated name like this might look ok in a list or an address, but it is almost impossible to include in readable, grammatical text. Or at least the result looks really yucky. To me (a non-local) it seems over-specific, so I'm guessing the unreferenced exhaustive argument above hinged around political issues. I've no problem with this, but could somebody who thinks we need this level of detail come up with an english language phrase (as opposed to a list) that we can use. -- Chris j wood 11:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
If you can come up with a better phrasing that won't set off all the old arguments again I'm sure a lot of people (myself included) would be delighted! There was a long period of revert warring between the "Cornwall is a seperate country, and should never be referred to as part of England" opinion, and the "Cornwall is an English County with no distinctive history or culture" opinion. The formulation adopted above (after long debate at the Great Britain geo wikiproject) seemed to offend the fewest people, while avoiding the need to have an in-depth discussion of the Cornish Constitutional status question in every single article which had anything to do with Cornwall.DuncanHill 11:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I rather assumed it would be down to something like that. Unfortunately I can be a bit doctrinaire too, especially when somebody tries to persuade me to write what I see as really *crap* english. Whilst you were responding above, I was in the process of changing the entry at Par railway station which first brought this to my attention to read:
... in the county of Cornwall in England in the United Kingdom.
This is still pretty clunky english, but better (IMHO) than just commas. Do you think it would serve where we need to include the formulation in english text (I've no issue with the comma separated version in lists, infoboxes, etc.) -- Chris j wood 12:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be alright - certainly I have no objections - but it is one of those subjects where passions run high! DuncanHill 12:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Technically Cornwall is neither a county or part of england/UK. This has been successfully argued in the past. I thought that wiki dealt in fact but apparently you people don't believe that! Jellery 03:52, 04 June 2007 (UTC)
I favour "Cornwall, U.K." rather than "Cornwall, England, U.K." as i believe it to be a better and more concise description JonFlower26 22:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Why not simply style it Cornwall?Abtract 06:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
When this matter has been discussed previously, the suggestion of simply Cornwall was deprecated because many users of Wikipedia do not know where Cornwall is. The usage of Cornwall, England upset many, as it is associated with the Cornwall is just an ordinary English county, and has no special cultural or historical position brigade, while the use of Cornwall, UK breaks with the (more or less) standard WP practice of using constituent countries in articles about UK places, and may appear to give undue weight to a Cornish Nationalist position. The Cornwall, England, UK form was a compromise which was adopted in a largely succcessful attempt to end the edit-warring which had marred WP coverage of Cornwall. The compromise appears to me to have been working well until now, however over the last few weeks there have been sporadic outbreaks of anonymous edits either removing England or removing UK. If these continue, I feel that I shall have to take the whole matter to a UK-wide wikiproject, to see what the wider community feels appropriate. I do not particularly wish to do this, but I do not wish to see the good wor done by this wikiproject undermined by a fresh outbreak of POV edit wars. DuncanHill 08:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_settlements#Lead.2A says that constituent country should be used in writing about settlements. DuncanHill 08:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

How about "The Duchy of Cornwall, UK" as a copmromise? I do not think this will give undue weight to a Cornish Nationalist stance. one of the intriguing things about Cornwall is that it is legally an extra territorial land from England. The 1969-71 Killbrandon Report into the British constitution states that, " when referring to Cornwall, official sources should cite the Duchy". This was in recognition of it's constitutional position. You now have the right on some official forms to be able to record your Nationality as Cornish. The NHS and the Police accept your Nationality to be recorded as Cornish. Jack33 12:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There are Cornwalls in Connecticut, New York State & Ontario at least. British users are unlikely to need any qualifier, however many wikipedia users come from overseas and are less well informed about the geography of these islands. DuncanHill (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Lots more Cornwalls at Cornwall (disambiguation). DuncanHill (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

South West Coast Path

Hi, Can I ask for some expert local knowledge from members of this WikiProject. The article about the South West Coast Path is currently just a list of towns & villages, places of interest etc & has had banners added suggesting the lists would be better as prose. A group of us have started drafting a better (prose) version mentioning the key places along the route on the Talk:South West Coast Path page which, when finished, will move into the main article space. I've walked most of the path in N & S Devon but do not know it in Cornwall. Would anyone be willing to add to the article on the talk page so that it accurately reflects the geography and features of the area?— Rod talk 18:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know South West Coast Path is now a good article candidate - please help to improve it if you can.— Rod talk 08:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Saltash Tunnel

The stub Saltash Tunnel has been speedied without notification to the original author or this Wikiproject. I have asked the speedying admin to reinstate the article to allow editors time to work on it. DuncanHill 12:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have now recreated the article, with a little more context and cats and stubs. DuncanHill 14:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new stub category

I have proposed a new stub category for buildings and structures in Cornwall. You may join the debate here - Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2007/December#Category:Cornwall_building_and_structure_stubs. DuncanHill (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

New Building & Structures stub category

What ho, I have created a new stub category for buildings and structures in Cornwall. To add an article to this category, use {{Cornwall-struct-stub}}. I hope this will be useful in organizing the work of the Wikiproject. I have re-stubbed a number of articles which were previously in "Cornwall stubs" or "Cornwall geo stubs", but have probably missed some. So, if on your wikitravels you should come across any articles which would be better in the new stub cat, please re-stub them. Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Penzance Natural History and Antiquarian Society

The Penzance Natural History and Antiquarian Society has turned up in a couple of my recent Cornish People articles, but I am having difficulty finding out more about it. Anyone have any info? DuncanHill (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Count(r)y consensus

Could someone provide a link or links to the talk pages where consensus regarding the naming convention for Cornwall/England/UK/County/Country was formed? I can't seem to find a definate result. I'm hoping to make a shortcut page to be linked to in edit summaries detailing the issue and the resulting discussions. Many thanks --Joowwww (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it was on the UK geo-wikiproject, but it was a while ago! We had a sort of consensus near the top of this page for a while too. DuncanHill (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible for another vote and discussion in light of the recent torrent of publicity and progress from the Cornish Constitutional Convention (among other groups). I think we need to review the "count(r)y" staus on Wikipedia. Fletch_2002 Fletch 2002 (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Merging projects

Well, should georgraphy of Penwith be merged with here? This has effectively superceded the other one. Simply south (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Peter and the Piskies: Cornish Folk and Fairy Tales

This article was recently rated and marked as a stub. I think, upon further review, someone might agree that it's worthy of "Start" class. Can it be reassessed? Otto1970 (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Done! The stub-assessment on the Wikiproject template was done automagically, as the article itself was marked as a stub. I've removed the stub tag from the article, and rated as start for the wikiproject, which I think is a fair assessment. DuncanHill (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Photo requests

I have just discovered Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Cornwall - to add an article to it, type {{reqphoto|in=Cornwall}} to the talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

New Category

I have created a new category - Category:Cornwall lists, which is intended to contain all lists relating to Cornwall. I hope this will aid navigation. DuncanHill (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

A Merry Christmas and a peaceful and prosperous New Year to One and All. I shan't be online much for the next few weeks, so see you all later. DuncanHill (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas (Nadelek Lowen)–MDCollins (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

New member

Hi ... I am offering a WEA course on Local History in Penryn, and have been invited to join the WikiProject Cornwall, which I am pleased to do. I am not Cornish, but have lived in Cornwall since the turn of the Millennium, grew up in North Devon (which is much more similar to North Cornwall than anywhere in England), and lived in Plymouth for a number of years working for, amongst other organisations, the Devon and Cornwall Development Company. I have always had an enthusiastic amateur interest in history, an encyclopaedic knowledge of irrlevant facts about the past, and a passion for the dynamics about how the peoples of these islands have evolved and why, especially in this unique peninsula in which I was born and brought up and now live, very happily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian Watts (talk • contribs) (comment copied from MemberTalk)

Identify this Church anyone?

Can anyone identify this Cornish Church - I found it on an old film, and can't remember where I took it!

Cornish Church

Many thanks in advance, DuncanHill (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I like a challenge!! I think it's St Nectan's Chapel, Lostwithiel http://www.acny.org.uk/venue.php?V=2728

All good wishes Teapotgeorge (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Fabulous - that's it! I remember now it was on a drive about in that odd little corner beyong Lostwithiel, we went on down to Lerryn and had our thermos overlooking the river there. DuncanHill (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

There is a spelling mistake in your template for Cornish Nationalism "spearate" for separate. Teapotgeorge (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it. DuncanHill (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

St Michael's Mount & St Buryan & Isles of Scilly

St Michael's Mount and St Buryan & Isles of Scilly are candidates for the Wikipedia for Schools CD, about which you can read more at this link - [1]. DuncanHill (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the current status of this is? I used to write a lot for Wikipedia on Cornwall related issues (and set up the Cornwall wikiproject initially) but became disillusioned with all the in-fighting and bitching that often gets in the way of writing good articles, and don't really write much anymore. I have a personal interest in the St Buryan article as I pretty much wrote it single handedly and did considerable research/photography for it (it is also my home village). There are a few things that I have been meaning to add in order to fully round off this piece of work, which should make it suitable for featured article status (I have consulted wikiexperts on this). It would make sense to me that these things be finished before it was committed to CD rather than afterwards. If there is a deadline for this then I would be happy to tie up these last few things. Best Wishes 159.92.6.201 Mammal4 (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about the physical CD, but here is a link to the version of the St Buryan article used on the "Wikipedia for Schools" website. [2]. I'd just like to add - your contributions are sorely missed, the project and Wikipedia are poorer for your absence. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Hear hear :-) --Joowwww (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Godrevy Island Stub

There is a mistake on this page, the Mohegan and the Spyridion Vagliano were wrecked on the Voices, which is part of The Manacles off the Lizard and not Godrevy Island. I think the sentence starting 'Not far from the remains' through to 'bounced off to the north' is relating to another link. The sentence after this relates to the sentence concerning the SS Kintuck, therefore if you removed the sentence relating to the Mohegan the paragraph is correct. Hope this makes sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.39.155 (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

St Buryan

I have done some more work on the St Buryan article and have now put this up for peer review here. The idea is that it will be read by a broader section of wikipedians, and suggestions for improvements made. Eventually I would like to push this article to featured quality and this should hopefully help with that. If anyone has any comments about the article it would be great if they could add them to the peer review page.Mammal4 (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have put this up for featured article now Mammal4 (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Photographs of courts

If any Cornwall-based photographers could take snaps of courts in their neck of the woods (e.g. Truro Crown & County Court, Bodmin County Court, Penzance County Court, local magistrates courts) and add them to commons:Category:Courthouses in the United Kingdom, the photographs would be very much appreciated for List of courts in England and Wales and List of county courts in England and Wales. I'm also working on a list of closed courts, so photographs of former court buildings would be useful too. Thanks, BencherliteTalk 22:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Maker, Cornwall

A move request is in progress at Maker, Cornwall to move it to Maker. Which is currently an unambiguous redirect. Comments are welcome. Parable1991 (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

ODNB People missing from the Wikipedia

Re my earlier post (now archived at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cornwall/Archive_3#ODNB_People_missing_from_Wikipedia), I have now completed people associated with both the Royal Cornwall Polytechnic Society and the Royal Geological Society of Cornwall, and have just the Royal Institution of Cornwall people to do. The list is at User:DuncanHill/Cornwall People. DuncanHill (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The Chough of Appreciation

I have created a "Cornish Chough of Appreciation" to be awarded to anyone who you feel deserves it, for good work on Cornish articles. To use it, type {{subst:User:DuncanHill/Chough|your message here ~~~~}} which produces

File:Chough.JPG The Cornish Chough of Appreciation
your message here DuncanHill (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The signature and timestamp will be replaced by your own when you use it. Any feedback/ideas for improvements etc would be welcome. DuncanHill (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The first one has already been awarded to Jimfbleak, whose work on Chough inspired its creation. DuncanHill (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
This no longer works as I have had the userpage deleted. DuncanHill (talk) 01:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

An Awhesyth

Help with this article about a Cornish language folk song would be appreciated. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Bossiney Haven

can someone please work on Bossiney Haven and make it no longer an orphan? Thanks, Kingturtle (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Cornish toponyms

Hello WikiProject Cornwall,

I just wondered if there are any places (settlements specifically) outside of Cornwall (perhaps those in neighbouring Devon) that have a verifiable place-name in the Cornish language?

If so, would this project expect that name to be included in the article, even though it's outside of Cornwall? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Museums in Cornwall

Could I ask for some help accessing local knowledge, from members of this wikiproject, on the behalf of the new WikiProject Museums? We are currently trying to identify articles within the Museum projects scope (& develop guidelines to help improve them etc). There is a List of museums in Cornwall. Could you take a look at the list for your local area and see if any are missing or create articles for any red links. Could you also add the new project banner "{{WikiProject Museums}}" to the Talk pages of the articles, so that we can identify those in need of work etc. Any help appreciated &, if anyone is interested you are welcome to join the project or discuss Museum related articles on the Project Talk Page.— Rod talk 13:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Tregenna Castle

It was suggested by SuggestBot that I may like to improve the Tregenna Castle article. After a little bit of research, I concluded that Tregenna Castle is just a hotel with crenellations. It had a brief initial spell as a private house to the High Sheriff of Cornwall, apart from that I could find nothing notable. I was tempted to AFD it, but felt uncomfortable doing that as an outsider. (I have to visit Cornwall later this year). So I decided just to bring the article to the attention of the Cornwall project, to get some local input on its notability. MortimerCat (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This was one of the first railway-owned resort hotels (as opposed to hotels at junction stations and terminals). I'll see what I can do to flesh it out. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've expanded it and put it in for DYK, but I can't find any references that support the information about the original builders and sale date of 1871. Can anyone help with these? Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Cornwall

There is a debate about the style of Template:Cornwall, I invite you to add your contributions in reaching a consensus at Template talk:Cornwall. --Joowwww (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

British people

I'm trying to argue the case to have the Cornish ethnicity included as one native to Great Britain at Talk:British people#Cornish, however I'm not entirely sure of the distinctions between nation/ethnicity/identity etc. Is there anyone with a bit more knowledge on the issue that can clarify things there? Thanks --Joowwww (talk) 10:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Bodmin Moor

I've been adding more details and references to the Bodmin Moor article and others connected with the moor. The Dartmoor article has a list of settlements template..should the Bodmin Moor page have one too? Teapotgeorge (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 1154 articles are assigned to this project, of which 155, or 13.4%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:

{{User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription|banner=CornwallWikiproject}}

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - an excellent idea, I shall add the template! DuncanHill (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Assessment categories rename

Currently the assessment categories are called "X-class Cornwall-related articles". After seeing this page, would it be worth adding them to CfD to get them moved to the conventional "X-class Cornwall articles"? --Joowwww (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. DuncanHill (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Missing geographical coordinates

Many Cornwall articles are missing geographical coordinates. Finding the latitude and longitude of locations, and entering coordinates into articles is straightforwards, and explained at Wikipedia:Geocoding how-to for WikiProject members. Having coordinates on articles mean that they turn up in GoogleMaps, MultiMap and other such places which link to wikipedia based on geo-coordinates.

It is now possible to get lists of Cornwall articles that have no geographical coordinates via Wikipedia:CatScan, for example:

Alternatively, if CatScan is down or very slow, you can find them by looking through Category:United Kingdom articles missing geocoordinate data.

The articles in the lists above are currently marked with {{coord missing}} templates, which need replacing with filled in {{coord}} templates containing their latitude/longitude data (or else have lat&long entered into the infobox).

There are about 247 articles missing coords - I hope you'll consider adding coordinates so as to make Cornwall articles more visible on the web. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

recepe insertions

is it permissable to place recepies into food based articles (eg. cornish fairings)Gwaytya —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC).

What's the point?

I expanded and added verified encyclopedic information to the article on Zelah, Cornwall. It was reverted to the stub.

I would like to contribute and make Wikipedia a more informatibve source. But all my recent edits have been reverted. What is the point of me continuing? (Please reply on the Zealah Talk page)

The bot didn't like the link you provided; I have reverted the bot and manually removed the link. If you wish you can try to insert the link again, if it gets removed then that is the problem but the content remains. If the link is suspect you may wish to find a different link. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

England/United Kingdom

I'm terribly sorry to go dragging this up once again but I feel that, in light of recent surges of interest and developments in the Cornish constitutional movement, we need to re-address the topic. I recently received a message from our moderator - LessHeard vanU about my removal or substitution of the name "England" with "United Kingdom". Granted, I should have come here first of all to discuss and that's what I am doing now. One thing that LessHeard vanU said was: 

"the use of both England and United Kingdom in Cornish related articles is a compromise worked out between both sets of nationalist minded editors".

I find it hard to beleive that anyone on the Cornish nationalist side would stand to have Cornwall described as a part of England. That one phrase was my reason for rebooting this particular thread. That isn't a compromise. That's the one side getting their own way, there is no compromise about it!
"United Kingdom" or "Southwest United Kingdom" seems like a neutral ground for both sides. The latter describes the location of Cornwall as accurately as "Southwest England" does. The acceptance of the use of "England" seems very one sided on the English side of the argument. The fact of the matter is that the constitutional status of Cornwall is in limbo and has been for a number of centuries. There is very strong evidence to suggest that Cornwall is illegaly governed by England and also that Cornwall is territorialy distinct from England and in respect of that we do need a neutral ground, not a one sided descision. comment added by Fletch 2002 (talk 14:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

While I fully support greater autonomy for Cornwall in whatever form, I am still able to accept the reality that Cornwall is currently administered as part of England, whether or not I like it, and whether or not it shouldn't be. If/when the situation changes, then that's the time to start making changes here. I'm not sure that a few posts on the Guardian's comment pages counts as a surge in interest. As for "Cornwall, UK" being a neutral term, I'll leave that for other editors to chime in. --Joowwww (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


There is a wealth of evidence to prove that it has been illegaly annexed to England and, in that respect, we should come to a conclusion based upon a completely neutral and unbiased viewpoint (that includes the viewpoint of the British government). The opinion of the British government is that cornwall is a county of England. However, the evidence given towards the fact that the British Government have illegaly annexed Cornwall to England negates that viewpoint and as such we need ot eliminate the British government from this discussion. I am able to accept that Cornwall is administered as a part of England and all I'm suggesting is the fact that the definition that everyone decided on seemed to be less of a "compromise" and more of a one sided "final word". the fact of the matter is that the constitutional status of Cornwall is not set in stone.Fletch 2002 (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is that Wikipedia tries to describe things as they are, and as they can be verified to be. Cornwall is administered as part of England, and that is what "reliable sources" will say. That is not to say that it is constitutionally or legally correct for Cornwall to be administered in this way, just that that is what actually happens. We also have to consider the needs of a worldwide audience, for whom to see Cornwall described as "Cornwall, UK", when other counties are described as being in England, could be confusing. "Cornwall, England" offends many, and "Cornwall, UK" may be confusing, and also seems to spark off a number of English Nationalists too. "Cornwall, England, UK" has worked fairly well in stopping edit-wars and not excessively confusing or offending too many people. Until Cornwall's constitutional status is properly clarified, I fear that we will never be able to come up with a form of words that will satisfy everyone - so "Cornwall, England, UK" seems to me to be the "least-worst" option. That said, I think it is fair enough to revisit this problem from time to time, and I look forward to following it. DuncanHill (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I see your Point DuncanHill, but the fact of the matter is that one is offensive and the other is confusing to an international audience. Leaving neither as suitable candidates. I feel that we need to discuss further alternatives. Alternatves could involve extended description and a supplement on the Cornwall wiki page, which explains the reasons behind the differences. We could also opt for "Duchy of Cornwall, United Kingdom". I should imagine that the amount of international readers reading the Isle of Man Wiki article may be confused and wonder which country it is in but further research would tell them that it is a distinct entity from the UK. The same would apply for the Duchy suggestion in that the international audience would be able to read further into it if they wern't sure what a Duchy was. As long as maps are provided then I don't see a problem as far as geographical location is concerned "Duchy" would seem to be the only accurate and mutualy acceptable option as backed up by the Kilbrandon Report (1972) and the Tamar Bridge Act (1998). The use of "Duchy" describes things as they are, and as they can be verified to be. This is even accepted by the government and the Duke. The fact that these the government accepts that Cornwall is part of England and also that the Duke has sovereign right over is completely contradictory but that's another story, neither has been settled to be more true than the other. An example: Penzance, Duchy of Cornwall, United Kingdom.Fletch 2002 (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

One possible issue is what the Duchy "officially" describes itself as, a private estate with holdings in Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Herefordshire and Wales, making up an area of 571 km², far short of Cornwall's 3,563 km². Even if "duchy" means all of Cornwall and the claimed cover-up conspiracy is valid, it would be very difficult to say so on Wikipedia when the policy of using reliable sources (meaning saying what they say they are) exists. --Joowwww (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I am as pro-Cornwall as anyone but imho Cornwall should be treated just as another English county so far as article naming and place descriptions are concerned. Discussion on its status naturally has a place but it is not a central/core issue that should disrupt general encyclopedic Cornwall articles. Abtract (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As a newcomer to WikiProject Cornwall (and as a foreigner living 'up country'), I feel a bit nervous dipping my toe in this water. But sod it - I will. I have no ancestral ties to Cornwall but I've been visiting regularly since a relative moved to Four Lanes in the early 1960s and most years I get down at least twice (and six times this year). So I'm passingly familiar with the arguments of Mebyon Kernow and the Cornish Nationalist party and, to some extent, sympathetic to their aim for autonomy.
However, as DuncanHill has said above, the fact is that Cornwall is currently a county of England and represented in the UK parliament by five constituencies. Therefore, whatever the aspirations towards self-rule, it is at this time part of the United Kigdom (and also part of England, of course). As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, I cannot see any justification for describing Cornwall as anything but a county of England and part of the UK. However, if the consensus is to favour the description 'UK' over the more emotive 'England' I would go along with that.
As contributors to an encyclopedia, I think we need to deal with what is, not with what might be. Cornwall may indeed gain greater political autonomy in the future. (That said, one should not confuse devolution with independent nationhood - personally, I think full independence is unlikely for Cornwall in the foreseeable future.) And the 'what is' right now is that Cornwall is an English county and part of the UK. Andy F (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Andy. Slightly off topic and just to fill you in I thought I'd explain some of the deeper reasons behind the uncertainty.
From what you've said it seems that, whilst you're aware that there is a nationalist movement, you perceive it to be without historical or political basis. The reason for the many many debates on this topic are based around the fact that there is a pletora of evidence, statutes, laws and charters, still standing in modern law, that prove that Cornwall has not ever and never can be a part of England. Obviously the British Government's stance is that Cornwall is a part of England and generaly that's how Cornwall is treated.
It's a very interesting situation and if you want to find out more then a good place to start would be to go to cornwall24.co.uk.
There s some extremely important and interesting stuff going on at the moment concerning human rights, European courts and various court battles. However, we have digressed...Fletch 2002 (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Au contraire, Fletch. I have always accepted that Cornwall was one of the six Celtic nations and the rot set in when the Normans annexed it - but then they annexed the rest of England too. Of course there is strong historical precedent for a 'nation of Cornwall' but the present situation is as DuncanHill and others have set it out.

Back on topic. I can see where everyone is coming from but the fact still stands that there is currently no one choice which is better than the other. Are there any other suggestions that could neutrally convey the right message?Fletch 2002 (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I disagree (depending on how one defines 'better'). The better (in fact, the best) choice IMHO is the factual choice. And - at the risk of sounding like a stuck record - the fact is that at present Cornwall is a county within England and is therefore part of the UK. So my first preference would be 'England, UK' and my second choice 'United Kingdom' or 'UK'. Andy F (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Um, firstly, I'm not a mod (I don't look right in a parka sitting astride a Lambretta) - but a once active editor on this project; I still keep a few things on my watchlist and use my since acquired admin bits to do whatever sysop action is needed. Secondly, it has to be remembered that there is a English nationalist opinion that was very vocal (and disruptive) in their attempts to have only England as the "parent" authority over Cornwall, which is why the rather awkward appearing "Cornwall, England, United Kingdom" term was agreed upon. In many ways nobody is really pleased, but it was accepted since it meant "the other side" didn't get their way either. I don't think it is possible to alter the status quo without another prolonged edit war (likely ending in much the same compromise we have now). As DH says, it may be worthwhile looking to see if there is a case for changing the term every now and then but until there is a consensus (in any form) any editing to either viewpoint should be reverted (and the editor advised why). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Twelveheads Press

A new article on the Twelveheads Press has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please add your views to its talk page. Vernon White . . . Talk 19:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify - it's not up for speedy deletion, but has been tagged for notability. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Cornwall Template

Hi All. I seek guidance or consensus to ensure consistency when editing Cornwall-related pages.

Some pages have the raw Cornwall template { { Cornwall } } which displays in full whereas other pages have the collapsed version { { Cornwall|state=collapsed } }

Do we have a policy or any strong preferences? My own feeling is that if displayed in full by default, the template can overwhelm other content especially in the case of short articles. So my preference would be to always use the 'collapsed' option. What do you reckon? Replies to Template talk:Cornwall please Andy F (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Coordinates and OS Grid references

I have just been through all the A entries in the List of places in Cornwall adding the Cornwall template and expanding where poss.

While doing this, I found that in many cases either the OS Grid Ref or the Latitude and Longitude coordinates were incorrect when checked on the maps at stable.toolserver.org/geohack/geohack.php

Sometimes they were only wrong by a few hundred metres but in some cases they were miles out. I have corrected them using the OS 'Get A Map' service at http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/getamap/ for the grid refs and the locater at http://pagesperso-orange.fr/universimmedia/geo/loc.htm.

Would someone care to check my work on:

Has anyone got any advice or opinions on this topic? Andy F (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


More on this: One reason, I suspect, for inaccurate coordinates in articles is that often the latitude and longitude are rounded down to two (sometimes only one) places if given in decimal - for example, 50.31165 gets entered as 5.3 or -5.17799 becomes -5.20. Similarly, OS grid references are rounded down to four figures whereas, for accuracy, they should be six figures. Any thoughts, anyone? Andy F (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Transport in Cornwall

I have been working on the Transport in Cornwall page. I'd be grateful if WP:Cornwall members would have a look and expand it and/or edit it as necessary; you can leave comments and suggestions on my talk page, of course.

The article needs further expansion, especially of the sections on bus travel and air travel. It also needs content on the government's and Cornwall County Council's transport policy and plans (I've started researching this). Can anyone help in these areas?

Andy F (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Missing geographical coordinates

173 articles in Category:Cornwall articles missing geocoordinate data do not have geographic coordinates. Coords are useful for making the article appear on Google Maps & many other mapping services; and they allow our users to click through to see the article subject location on a map. There's a short guide to on how to add geocodes to articles ... it really is very easy to do. I hope you'll take some time to ensure that Cornwall is as well represented as it can be on wikipedia by fixing up the listed articles. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk)

I'll second that! I've been plodding through the lists of places and parishes adding and/or correcting coords. My caveats are set out above, though. So if adding coords, please clik them once the page is saved and check a map link from Geohack to make sure the location is correct. Andy F (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
So far, I've done roughly 90-100 from the list. Hope to finish them all before Christmas. Andy F (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Done it! I've added coordinates to all 165 articles originally listed above. I also added the Cornwall template where it was missing. Happy Christmas, everyone Andy F (talk) 11:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You are a star, Andy F. (Now please consider adopting another county or two. We still have, err, about 93,000 missing coordinates that we know of, across the world.) But really, excellent work, thank you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Translation request

If anyone could translate the following, I would be grateful "Yo, a Dhuncan, a vab an gusul wann, yth os kepar hag eghen nownek!" Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Your guidance on notability, please

Hi All, I've been blueing redlinks in List of places in Cornwall.

Today one of the new articles, Bodbrane, copped a 'notability' tag. My comments and rationale are put to the tagger here.

I'd be very grateful if WP:Cornwall members could have a quick shufty and see what they think. Let me know here. Also, we can then perhaps reach a consensus on whether or not the all redlinked places in Cornwall should have article written. Ta, everyone Andy F (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

A brief PS to the foregoing. Duncan points to an interesting essay: Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. It seems to fit this case, I reckon. Andy F (talk) 06:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Announcement: The 2009 Structural Changes in Local Government in England: A Taskforce

  1. On 1 April, 2009, a number of changes will occur that will affect a number of counties and districts in England, including some which fall within the remit of your project and/or county.
  2. The changes will necessitate a large number of changes to various articles on wikipedia.
  3. New articles may have to be written, old ones may have to be changed because they will then describe abolished former districts, etc, and numerous changes will have to be made to templates, category names, and articles about individual settlements to update information about local government.
  4. Because of this the Uk Geography Project has set up a specific taskforce to identify the changes to be made and then to coordinate the work of preparing for the changes and then implementing them when the changes occur on 1 April.
  5. The name of the taskforce is Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/2009 local government structural changes task force or WP:2009ENGLAND.
  6. You are invited to join this taskforce to help us all improve wikipedia in these areas by making sure the information is kept updated, and accurate.

Many thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC) (on behalf of the taskforce)

I have made the infoboxes for Cornish districts and boroughs in my sandbox ready to replace the current infoboxes on 1 April. Jolly Ω Janner 22:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

South West Coast Path

South West Coast Path has now been a stable GA for over a year, with recent additions particularly in relation to some places in Cornwall. Apart from a few sections without citations I was wondering what others think would be needed to achieve the Featured article criteria? Would anyone from this wikiproject be interested in working on getting the South West Coast Path article to FA? I've started a discussion on Talk:South West Coast Path and comments are probably best put there.— Rod talk 11:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Left over pages

What should be done with the left over pages from the merge from way back?

Pages still to be sorted:

Simply south not SS, sorry 19:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:00, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Local chapter for the Wikimedia Foundation

We are Wikimedia UK - the group of local Wikimedians helping the Foundation to create
"a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge".
Love Wikipedia? Based in the UK?
Can you support us in projects such as generating free-content photographs, freeing up archive material and media relations? Or are there other projects you'd like us to help with?
if so, please click here to Join up, Donate and Get Involved

AndrewRT(Talk) 21:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Twin town labelling conventions

I noticed, while viewing twin town entries to Cornish towns, that there seems to be a slight difference in conventions used with which to label the reciprocal towns in Brittany. The Truro page has adopted the style of listing them in English with the county (France) as the largest geographical region against the national flag, such as Birmingham does. Whereas a lot of other Cornish towns, such as Camborne, list them in Breton with Brittany as the largest geographical region against the flag of Brittany, no doubt emphasising the Celtic links. I think there should be a concensous on this to allow for conformity over the large number of location articles and that WP:Cornwall should be responsible for this, as it has the primary interests in these pages. Discussions around these subjects have also been found here and here. The formats could be:

I personally think that it should be listed as * Brittany 'English name of town', Brittany, France - As it highlights the reasons behind twinning but does notify the reader of where the town is located and does not add confusion by being written in Breton, as I doubt there's many topographical publications written in Breton compare to English/French. Zangar (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

A lot of twin towns were changed to their Breton version by a Breton nationalist a while back, and I didn't get around to changing them back. I don't mind which flag is used as I think the Celtic link is a good one to make but I think the name should be whichever is used in English, most often matching the French one. --Joowwww (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The main article on Cornwall

It may perhaps be helpful if more editors actually within Cornwall could contribute constructively to the interminable and increasingly fractious debate that is taking place on the Talk:Cornwall page about Cornwall as a "Celtic nation". Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Six Celtic nations?

"As one of the six historic Celtic nations, Cornwall has a distinct culture and identity." As the Cornwall article no longer has six perhaps this needs editing but there do seem to be five others.----Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Complete rewrite of Cornish people

User:Jza84 has proposed a complete rewrite of the Cornish people article. If you agree, disagree, want to help write a new article, or want to improve the existing one, please join the discussion at Talk:Cornish people#Rewritten completely?. --Joowwww (talk) 10:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder that I plan to overwrite the Cornish people article with this draft very soon. That is, unless there is objection? If there is, please direct it at Talk:Cornish people. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Cornish people in its new version is now a candidate for Good Article and can be reviewed by anyone who has not made significant contributions to it.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Cornwall Template

Following a brief discussion at the talk page of Template:Cornwall, its clear there is a need for further input and this was the suggested location. Last night i came across the Cornwall template and noticed a big problem with it as far as im concerned. In the politics section it currently lists just one party, this does not seem neutral and appears to be promoting a single party unfairly. I made a change and removed that political party to make the template neutral but it was undone and talk on the talk page has led us to here anyway...

  • If we look at Scotlands template, it does not list the Scottish National Party.. just links to a list of ALL parties involved in Scotland. Template:Scotland_topics.

There are 3 solutions to this problem.

  • Add the other main parties in cornwall politics to the template (British Labour, British Conservatives etc)
  • Remove MK from the template
  • Remove MK and replace it with "list of political parties in cornwall" that could be placed on the Politics of Cornwall article.

Any feedback on this matter would be most welcome thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I note that the Scotland template to which you refer links to "List of political parties in Scotland" - an article on "Politics of Cornwall" could fill a similar rôle in the Cornwall template, and would avoid any perceived bias in linking to one party only. Articles on "Liberalism in Cornwall" and "Conservatism in Cornwall" and "Socialism in Cornwall" could potentially be another way of addressing the perceived problem. I will add, as someone who contributed rather heatedly to the debate at the template talk-page that I am not saying that there isn't a problem with the template at the moment, nor am I saying that there is, but I do feel this merits a period of debate rather than a quick fix. DuncanHill (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think each county in England needs an article on "Liberalism, Conservatism, Socialism" for them. Such articles are probably not notable enough for an encyclopedia. IMO it should just be made easier by cutting all parties from the template. Certainly one unsuccessful party should not be promoted there on its own, when they have never had an MP elected or even come within a million miles. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
We're not here to define a template for "each county in England" (and it is POV to include Cornwall in that, just as it is POV to exclude Cornwall from that). We're here to discuss how the Cornwall template could be improved. DuncanHill (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
We're meandering into obscurantism here. Its a verifiable fact that Cornwall is a county of England. Not a matter of POV. Dislike like the verifiable fact? Meh, not really the concern of the encyclopedia is it. We're not here to take care of sensitivies, only to report verifiable fact. Though the point in response to your proposal on the template; I don't think articles for a county called "Liberalism in", "Conservatism in", "Socialism in" would be encyclopedic, especially when there are specific political parties for such info. My position; I think it would be best to simply have no parties promoted in the template; its certainly better than partisan promotion of one unsuccessful party. We're an encyclopedia remember, not a lobby group. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
So Yorkshirian, how about my suggestion of a "Politics in Cornwall" article? DuncanHill (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Theres already an article called Politics of Cornwall. - 20:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I would support creating a new section on the Politics of Cornwall article where there is a list of all the different parties the way List of political parties in Scotland does. We could then pipelink it. That would resolve the problem with the template for me. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that there are major problems with the existing Politics of Cornwall article, particularly the Introduction and the History section, which are largely unreferenced and highly politically partisan. I have no problem whatever with an article, specifically for Cornwall as a unique area, which cross-refers to Cornish nationalism, issues of constitutional status, and even the Stannary Courts and Parliaments. But, it needs to do so in a way which is non-partisan, and which recognises the needs of global readers for unbiased information. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps if a "list of political parties" link in the template went to the most recent election results in Politics of Cornwall? That would be most useful I suppose. And I agree with what Ghmyrtle is saying here, but unfortunetly this isn't unique only to that article; there seems to be a pervasive partisan promotion of this sort of thing across many Cornwall articles. Certainly needs looking at. - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The Politics article could certainly do with some changes, i dont quite understand the structure of it either. It doesnt seem to actually list voting history in Cornwall, the only real table on there is an England wide local election from 2007. Theres clearly ref / neutrality problems, i was considering adding a couple of tags.
"Two of the main influencing factors in Cornish politics is the disputed position of Cornwall as separate constitutional entity within the UK and the rights of the Cornish people as a minority"
This is clearly not the case, and the source is just an online petition which only 600 people have signed. 600 out of 500,000.. clearly a main factor. I also agree with Yorkshirian, there are a number of articles which have the same problem.BritishWatcher (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, because every one of those 500,000 people knew about the online petition, and had access to it. It was advertised in the local media for weeks and the government even sent out flyers to every home. It was almost like a referendum. Hah, your arguments are getting more and more ridiculous as time goes on, BW. --Joowwww (talk) 08:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I see so its only an important thing to the people of Cornwall if the government tells them about it, if its so important surely they wouldnt need telling? The fact remains there is a claim that main influencing factors in Cornish politics are its status in the UK / Cornish minority rights and this is only backed up by the source of the 600 votes online (which anyone can sign dozens of times each). That claim is a damn right lie and we all know it. Jowww you have attacked me elsewhere for being a neo unionist or something along those lines. It is obvious to anyone that comes at this from a neutral point of view there are quite a few articles linked with Cornish nationalism that are grossly misleading people, putting nothing into context and showing clear bias.
I honestly am amazed that this has happened, i find it very strange that most articles linked to Scottish nationalism or Welsh nationalism are far more reasonable and neutral yet this Cornish nationalism which is supported by far fewer numbers seems to of spread across wikipedia like a virus.
Anyway as it appears the politics of Cornwall article needs some work, i think we should remove MK from the template for the time being so its neutral and not promoting a single political party. Then once the politics article clearly lists the political parties involved in Cornwall, we can add the "List of political parties" or something along those lines. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not the one making claims about how much support Cornish nationalism does or doesn't have. You are. And you're doing it without providing any references, backup or evidence. All of your arguments are based on a "I don't think it's true, so it can't be" mentality. That is what I have a problem with. If you can show me some reliable sources that show that Cornish nationalism is not a significant part of Cornish politics, then they can go in the article. Until then, all I see is a neo-unionist having a tantrum because he doesn't like what he sees. --Joowwww (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
LMAO I think you have it the wrong way around. It is for people to provide sources for something IN articles, the current source does not support the claim. If a new source count be found i will delete it. However if you are looking for evidence i would say the tiny share nationalist parties get in Cornwall would be a very good start.BritishWatcher (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
You mean the party that beat Labour? --Joowwww (talk) 13:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Given that MK is the only significant party which is wholly Cornish, it seems to me to be quite reasonable to include it in the Cornwall template. Of course, articles which deal with politics of Cornwall more generally should refer fairly to all the parties involved. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

MK is not the only party that is involved in Cornish politics though. We can not just list a single political party.. its hardly neutral. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes Joowwww did make a personal attack of "neo-unionist" on the template talk. But it seems somebody would have to be a pretty old unionist to regard the unification of all of Dumnonia with Wessex as part of a "unionist politics" current haha. Perhaps Dumnonians were "unionists" too? Aything beyond one man in a cave during the prehistoric period falls within the new definition of "unionism" aparently. Back to the topic at hand; certainly I think until the politics of Cornwall article is substantially improved so that we can list parties (I think a link to last election results being best), we should remove MK from the temp, rather than partisan promotion. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There is also Cornish Nationalist Party, so to just include MK on the grounds that its a cornwall only party is clearly a problem too. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Although the CNP is not a registered political party (which can be seen on the Electoral Commission's website), therefore only considered a pressure group so MK would be the only 'Cornwall only party' in the strictest sense.
I do feel that it's strange to not mention the Lib Dems in Cornish politics (referring only to the template) as they are the most represented party in Cornwall, both at national and regional level. But it would get silly if we started to list and have Cornwall specific articles for each political party that stands in Cornwall (and also very time-specific). So I'd agree with Duncan and Ghmyrtle that the Politics of Cornwall article should be listed in the politics section of the template, and do this soon, before the proposed full 're-vamp', to hopefully encourage others to participate in it's progression. Zangar (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, i didnt read the CNP article fully and notice it wasnt registered. The Politics of Cornwall is already linked on the Template:Cornwall it is linked from the "politics" title in the template in line with other things like Economy of Cornwall linked from Economy. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone object to me removing the only political party listed on the template for the time being? To ensure its neutral. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Any decisions on the template should be based on the guidance set out in WP:CLN and WP:NAV. As a WikiProject Cornwall exists, I'd also defer to the decisions and majority views of that group, in preference to the opinions of an admittedly non-neutral single-issue (British unionism) editor. I also do not think that the inclusion of a uniquely Cornish party on the template violates WP:N. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
wow that was more harsh than usual from you Ghmyrtle. I honestly did not think the removal of MK would be a controversial issue which is why i removed it, then when my revert was undone i was happy to discuss it on that talk page or here. If other editors here have different views i have no problem with hearing them.. But i have yet to see templates which promote a single party in the way the current template does. MK is not the only party involved in Cornish politics, there for its not fair for that one party to be listed. Even Duncan who undid my original edit has said hes not defending the current version. I cant see on those WP pages where it says about to handle a matter like this. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The issue so far as the template is concerned is not about "balance" at all in my view - it's about directing readers to the party which specifically represents the nationalist voice in Cornish politics. Having said that I'm not really concerned about it in a fundamental way - though if Cornish editors wanted it reinstated I'd support them. Obviously the Politics of Cornwall article should cover all parties - that is a totally different matter. But BW, you can hardly complain about being labelled a single-issue editor, can you? - I've certainly never seen you expressing any views on any other matter! Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I wasnt complaining, you just came across more direct than usual. I accept fully i have strong views on these matters, but i dont consider myself a single issue editor, i take an interest in many issues not just linked with nationalism / unionism. Anyway will wait and see other peoples opinions on this. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of the term "British unionism" in relation to Cornwall is complete WP:FRINGE. Its like saying Truro being part of Cornwall is "Cornish unionism". The fact that MK get owned so hard in the election booth proves so. A fringe party, which is unable to gain votes, doesn't deserve partisan promotion over successful parties just on the basis that they are nationalistic in regards to Cornwall. This is like saying that nationalism as a political ideology, is more worthy than any other, no matter how unsuccessful. Pretty much an open and shut issue. If I start a political party right this momement called "United States Nationalist Party", would I deserve to get this entity in the USA template over the Republicans and Democrats even if my party was a complete failure? Should UKIP be the only party listed in a United Kingdom template on politics instead of Labour and Conservatives. I rest my case. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the last election results. In Cornwall, Labour is more of a "fringe party" than MK is. This is just more proof that you really haven't got a clue what you're talking about. --Joowwww (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Language orthographies merge

I have proposed that Kernewek Kemmyn, Kernowek Standard, Modern Cornish and Unified Cornish be merged into one article at Cornish orthography. Please discuss, support or oppose the proposal here. --Kernoweger (talk) 12:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit?

I am concerned about this edit:

Is this appropriate? --Mais oui! (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with the removal - the category doesn't really seem appropriate to use here.—MDCollins (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
The Cornwall article provides a multitude of reliable external refs attesting to the fact that Cornwall is a nation.--Mais oui! (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Goustien seems to have added it by mistake. Cornwall is a geographical area, which is a county of England, within the state known as the United Kingdom. It is not widely accepted to be a "nation". Though feel free to add "national" categories on Shetland and Orkney's articles. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Cornwall is not a nation and does not belong in that category. BritishWatcher (talk) 05:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the category contents, it clearly does not apply to current countries or states, but in large part to historical nations such as, for example, Kingdom of Jerusalem and Captaincy General of Santo Domingo. There are certainly multiple sources to confirm that, for a period in the past, Cornwall was a kingdom separate from Wessex (or, more arguably, from England), and on that basis there seems no good reason to exclude it from this category. But I'm not going to revert on what is clearly both a contentious and (in my view, in this specific instance relating to the content of an obscure WP category) a relatively minor matter. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
There is certainly more justification in including it as a past nation, along with others listed and ones like the Kingdom of Wessex too. I only strongly oppose including it if its on the grounds its a nation today which is just the view of some and not fact. Some of the things included on that category seem pretty strange and random, if there were two categories, one for former nations histories and one for current nations history i think it would be less problematic but im not sure on the title of it either and im not a big fan in general of all these different category pages that are springing up repeating the same things over and over again. Either way i agree its a very minor issue and i wont lose sleep over this either way, but its not an inappropriate edit or an unreasonable one as far as im concerned. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know, I've put in a request for a popular pages list that should soon hopefully appear at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall/Popular pages. This creates a list of the top 500 (this can be increased) visited articles that have been tagged as belonging to WikiProject Cornwall in their talk pages. It records the total views and the average views per day as well as their quality/importance assessment, an example can be found here. Hopefully this can help focus efforts for article improvement for general users. Also I like statistics! :) Zangar (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Devonwall pages

I am concerned with the number of "X in Cornwall and Devon" articles appearing, e.g. Cuisine of Devon and Cornwall, Mining in Cornwall and Devon, which I feel represent an unnecessary merging. Wouldn't these topics be best covered with separate articles for the two areas, in line with pretty much every other topic and area on Wikipedia? --Joowwww (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think cuisine should me merged. That article itself divides Devon and Cornwall with sub-headings anyway. Not sure about mining. A lot of work has gone into that article and I can't see a lot of dividing between the two counties through sub-headings etc. The mining of Devon and Cornwall is linked, beacuse it's mostly tin mining. There are many ex-tin mines near to where I live in Devon. Jolly Ω Janner 15:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Cornwall to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 06:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Resigned Bards of the Cornish Gorseth

According to the List of Bard on the Cornish Gorseth website, Nicholas Williams, Craig Weatherhill and David Mudd were all at one time or another elected as Bards, but have resigned. Does anyone have cited material they can add to the relevant articles about this, or at least any idea of when/why each resigned which would facilitate further research. I've googled around a bit, but haven't found anything relevant yet. DuncanHill (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have found a thread at [3] with comments from Weatherhill, Williams and another bard who has resigned which gives the reasons. Not sure if it can be used as a citation for Wikipedia though. The thread is called "More on bys/bes words and diacritical marks". DuncanHill (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Article for Deletion notification: Shadow Minister for Cornwall

The article Shadow Minister for Cornwall has been relisted as an Article for Deletion, in order to generate further discussion on the matter. As this article is in the scope of this WikiProject your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadow Minister for Cornwall‎ and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

- Zangar (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Problem with co-ords displaying on infobox map

Re the Delabole article

The infobox map does not reflect the location of Delabole. This was pointed out by User:Felix_Folio_Secundus on Talk:Delabole. I spent some time double-checking the co-ords, double-checking the OS grid ref and fiddling with the info box. I still couldn't get the map to display the correct location. Can someone else have a go please and let me know what they find on my talk page or here? Ta Andy F (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine on my computer. Where is the red dot for you? --Joowwww (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Joowwww, here is a screengrab. To me, the red dot looks as if it's at tintagel - I reckon it should be a bit further inland and a bit further southwest. As i say 9above) it was User:Felix_Folio_Secundus who raised the matter so I'll point him to this topic to comment. Andy F (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Screengrab of Delabole infobox

Ah yes, on closer inspection it does seem to be a few pixels too north. It might be caused by the map's longitude and latitude waypoints being slightly off. Fixing it would probably involve delving into a huge template's ridiculously complex code, which is beyond my ability. Probably not worth the agro. --Joowwww (talk) 01:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, looks to far north to me too. I can confirm the OS grid ref is correct (well, it's in a field in the middle of the village). Haven't got a clue how those maps work though. DuncanHill (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
From the comments made it looks like something which can't be solved in WP Cornwall but arises from the interaction between the systems holding the data. Some other places in east Cornwall have looked slightly wrong to me as well; I think these could have been near the Tamar where the red dot looked as if it was over the border.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed the same, especially with the eastern settlements. I think it would be best to ensure the co-ords in the infobox are accurate to the settlement and other mapping services (I tend to use multimap.com on the OS scale), as this will be more beneficial to readers and correct, and just leave the infobox map to it's own devices (hoping for a fix). Zangar (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm always careful to check the co-ords and the OS grid ref are right. As Joowwww says, it is more likely to be in the infobox code. Besides, the info box map is relatively small and is probably sufficient as a rough guide - after all, the reader can click on the co-ords and Geohack will provide planty of maps. Alternative, the OS grid ref can be entered in the OS Get-A-Map searchbox to bring up a 1:50000 scvale map. Incidentally, both the co-ords and the grid ref in the Delabole article lead readers to the correct location. I don't think we can go much further with this. Andy F (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Here's what would need fixing: Template:Location map United Kingdom Cornwall - the template's border coordinates need to be aligned with what the map represents. --Joowwww (talk) 13:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't know where to start! Is it worth it? Andy F (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
This reminded me about the misleading map for Tresco.I am not sure what can be done apart from creating an outline map of significant features which would show Old and New Grimsby and the site of the Abbey. "The map needs to be replaced with one that shows the positions of New and Old Grimsby, the heliport and the abbey gardens. There is no settlement called "Tresco" as shown on the map.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)".--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) It should actual be an easy fix, what you would need would be to get acurate lat and long for the four edges of the map. With those you could edit the values in {{Location map United Kingdom Cornwall}} which would calabrate things correctly. Alternatively you could get the coords of at least 4 easily identified points in the map and work out the coord of the border from there. --Salix (talk): 15:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles up for deletion

A number of aricles have been added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall/Articles up for deletion. The deletion discussions are linked from that page. DuncanHill (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Bugle (the village north of St Austell)

What has happened to this page Bugle, Cornwall? Bugle is a reasonably large village yet its page is a redirect to Treverbyn, which is a small place two miles away near Stenalees. The only possible justification would be that Bugle is in the same parish but I strongly feel that Bugle should have its own page. Some of the original Bugle content is in the Treverbyn page. It is not obvious to me when this redir was done nor by whom. Any comments anyone? Andy F (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the page has only ever been a redirect [4], but I agree wit should have a page of its own. DuncanHill (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Change the redirect into a very short stub. Treverbyn is actually the parish its in.--Salix (talk): 20:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Excellent! We now have a decent stub article on Bugle – thanks, guys. Andy F (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Bodilly article needs attention

The article on Bodilly needs attention. I can't make much sense of it in places. Apart from tidying up the lead, a bit of copy-editing, checking the coord and adding oscoor, so far all I've done is remark-out the more confusing items and also tag it for {{refimprove}} and {{Cleanup-rewrite}}. The historical material is a bit outside my scope so perhaps someone more knowledgable than me could have a look at this article and unravel the information and sources? Andy F (talk) 10:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall/Archive 3/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall/Archive 3/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.
There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.
If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 01:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Okip, I think such a list would be very useful. DuncanHill (talk) 10:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Your welcome. I am glad that I can help. Thanks for your dedication to the project. Okip 01:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Seven Bays ?

A new article has come to my attention. It is Seven Bays, an unreferenced unpatrolled page about the north Cornwall coast. I have not heard the phrase 'Seven Bays' for the area round Trevose – anyone here familiar with it? The article itself reads like a press release to promote the beaches and St Merryn. This article needs critical eyes running over it. Andy F (talk) 07:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Checking coords and oscoor

I am slowly working my way alphabetically through all the bluelinks in the List_of_places_in_Cornwall. I'm adding an OS 1:50,000 map reference to each place to verify the geographical information. At the same time, I am also checking (with Wikipedia:GeoHack) that the oscoor and coord are accurate for each place. I want to avoid duplicating effort so please let me know on my talk page of places where oscoor and coord have already been independently checked. Andy F (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Update   It's taking longer than I thought! I'm adding the {{Cornwall}} template as well where it's missing and copy-editing as necessary. I've got to N (28 April) so far. When I've finished I'll go back and start blue-ing all the redlinks. Andy F (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Lizard – political

I've added a map and text about the political administration of The Lizard peninsula here >>>The_Lizard#Political.

If anyone has specialist knowledge, I'd be grateful if they would check the new material. Ta, Andy F (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

New Wikiproject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms

Hey all, thought you might want to know that a new project has formed called WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms which will be dealing with Anglo-Saxon and English history from the Roman withdrawal in 410 to the Norman Conquest in 1066. We could always use help, hope to see you there!!!Sadads (talk) 11:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


Updating parishes and local councils

In view of the changes to Cornwall's civil administration that took effect in 2009, I have recently compiled (from the official list on the Cornwall Council website) a new list of Cornwall's current civil parishes with parish, town or city (Truro only) councils. It is here: User:Andy F/Sandbox2.

The list is intended to either replace entirely, or to supplement and update in parallel, this list: List of civil parishes in Cornwall .

I'd be grateful if members of WP:Cornwall could have a look, check the entries and indicate whether the updated list should replace or run parallel with the old list?

Andy F (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Well done for compiling the updated list (as far as I can see the list looks complete). I personally think that perhaps we should have two sections in the List of civil parishes in Cornwall article - the main list of current civil parishes (as Andy has compiled) and underneath a list of former civil parishes (since the original list was compiled - I think a couple might have been renamed/changed) in Cornwall.
This then raises other questions as to the articles on former civil parishes - do we keep them for historical purposes (such as with the District Councils and historical parliamentary constituencies, or do we scrap the old ones, merge the content and keep only current ones?
Then we have to also consider the nav boxes, which at the moment are aligned by the old districts - do the new civil parishes conform totally within the former districts? Unfortunately I haven't seen any online OS maps with the new civil parish boundaries marked. - Zangar (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Good work Andy, and some interesting points Zangar. I do agree that it is valid to retain information about former CPs, the list Zangar suggests as an addendum to the list of current ones makes sense. As for articles on former civil parishes, how many are there and how much text is involved? Could a "Former civil parishes in Cornwall" article with sections for each one work? The article titles could be converted into redirects to the individual sections (as happens with many of the disused railway stations).
As for the navboxes, these have been on my mind for some time. I too do not know for sure if all the current parish boundaries align with the old districts (I suspect they do, I think the last lot of reparishing orders were made in advance of the decision to go unitary) - but I suppose it is inevitable that in time there will be some "drift". We also have to consider the propriety and utility of retaining the former districts as a navigational aid. In the 30 years since UDC and RDC abolition, memory of which former authority a place was in has largely faded, and the same will happen with the districts. On a related matter, we need to reconsider the categorisation of parishes by districts - this was never quite completed before abolition, and is starting to seem redundant. That said - there are a lot of parishes in Cornwall, and some way of breaking them down into more manageable geographic batches is desirable. Hundreds anyone? I think they still have some relevance for brewster sessions! DuncanHill (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
You guys have raised some very interesting and relevant points. When it comes to post-2009 changing of boundaries obviously the major change is to parliamentary constituencies. At town/parish level the largest single change (as far as I can discover) is the creation of the four new CPs for the St Austell area. These are well documented (and mapped – I'm working on a simplified version ATM) on the Cornwall Council website. I've written about that change at the foot of the page here: User:Andy F/Sandbox2. I have also added a section to the St Austell article here: St_Austell#Administrative] (which I'd be grateful if you'd all check).
I'll have a think about the other points raised but my initial feeling regarding the former Districts is that, although they certainly need to be fully recorded by Wikipedia, they will – as Duncan says – become less and less meaningful as years pass. Andy F (talk) 06:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I will check all the parish articles and add the cat [[Category:Civil parishes in Cornwall]] to any where it's missing. Andy F (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Update: I have been through the list once to check and correct Wikilinks and add [[Category:Civil parishes in Cornwall]] to articles as necessary. I am now running through the list a second time double-checking everything. As soon as I've done that, we can discuss how to proceed. Andy F (talk) 08:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


To: DuncanHill) Hello again, I am not at all sure how to tackle these civil parishes and districts and their problems. The districts which were effective from 1974-2009 will need to be treated differently (they have already disappeared from the text of many parish articles and infoboxes). The Hundreds article lists civil parishes within each of the 10 hundreds up to 2008/9. The hundreds are very significant historically but should not be emphasised in the articles. Related to them are the rural deaneries which can have the same name without having the same boundaries (e.g. Trigg Major); they have also changed in 1875 and again more recently. Could you explain what the "brewster sessions" are? Best wishes.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Duncan makes a good point that District Councils will fade in memory at some point, and with some having geographically abstract names it doesn't make sense to keep these to navigate the civil parishes. Perhaps using the UK parliamentary constituencies as a divider would be preferable? There are 6 of them, as with the old districts and as far as I can see it's only St Agnes that doesn't fall entirely within a single constituency, being split equally between Truro and Falmouth and Camborne and Redruth. Also the "Former civil parishes in Cornwall" article idea seems better than keeping abolished/renamed CP (if there are any at this time?) articles, as the only things needed to be recorded would be boundaries, anything notable above the ordinary particular to that former parish and links the new CP that was formed from it. Zangar (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Hundreds & Brewster sessions: Hi Felix, my comment about hundreds was just a throwaway joke - while of great historical importance I don't think they would be suitable as a navigational aid nowadays. Brewster sessions are the court sessions when magistrates issue licences for pubs - I think that the areas used for this are based on the hundreds. DuncanHill (talk) 12:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Above was prompted by the unfamiliar term "Brewster sessions": I am undecided about the larger issue. Apparently the hundreds have never been formally abolished and remained important until the establishment of County Councils.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 06:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


Next stage?

OK, I've checked every entry in the new list of parishes and councils.

Each entry points to the correct article: each article has the link [[civil parish]] in its text: each article is in Category 'Civil parishes in Cornwall': and, additionally, I have copy-edited each article lead for consistency.

So now we need to decide on what to do with the updated list. It appears to me we can either simply replace in its entirety the existing text in List of civil parishes in Cornwall and discard the old text: or we can move the existing article to a new title (thus preserving it for the record) and substitute the new text in the namespace. What do you think?

It seems to me this would also be a good time to reach a consensus on what to do about the former districts as they relate to parish councils and town councils. We currently have Categories for 'Civil parishes in XXX' for the former Districts. Roughly half the parish articles have such a category. I would suggest deleting these Categories from each article.

Additionally, many of the articles also include the navboxes (at the foot of the article) listing parishes in each former District. Obviously that historical info needs to be preserved somewhere (perhaps in an article of its own) but do we need to retain these navboxes in each article? Over to you again ... ?

Finally, a handful of parish articles (mostly in Penwith) still have the page-heading parish infobox linked to the former Districts (see, for example, Ludgvan). There are very few of these left so I propose we delete them, not only because of the abolition of the Districts but also for consistency.

Please comment to build consensus. Andy F (talk) 09:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Good work Andy! I think now we should now replace the entirety of the List of civil parishes in Cornwall article with your new version. As for the entries of the old UDC/RDC/MB’s, I’ve taken Duncan’s advice and created a List of former administrative divisions in Cornwall article, which also lists the old District Councils, so all that is preserved. We can then try to blue link all the entries with separate articles.
You might want to consider putting in the Isles of Scilly info in some way into your list of parishes (as is in the current list), as I imagine people going to this article for that information.
I agree with deleting the 'Civil parishes in former district' category, just stick with the Cornwall civil parishes category, there’s no need to sub-categorise further. Do we think we would need a ‘Former administrative division of Cornwall’ category for articles in List of former administrative divisions in Cornwall?
As for the civil parishes nav boxes, leave that with me - I’ll have a go over the weekend to get some new ones implemented.
Andy’s right that the old page-heading infoboxes should be deleted (they’re probably left over from styles used by the old Penwith wikiproject). Where there is a village of the same name as the parish then {{infobox UK place}} should be used, but if not then {{infobox England and Wales civil parish}} can be used. Hope that helps! Cheers Zangar (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I think I would agree with the above proposals by Zangar; since the 1974-2009 district councils only lasted for that period they will have to be relegated to be listed elsewhere rather than in the navboxes on the parish articles. Minor details on names in the list: St Michael's Mount still officially has an apostrophe; St Thomas the Apostle Rural has 'the' in article title.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
To reply first to Felix's points. The Cornwall Council website page spells St Michael's Mount with no apostrophe (hence my perpetuating the error) but if we change it on Wikipedia I think links will break. I will, however, change it in the article's text. Not sure what you mean about St Thomas... are you referring specifically to the lowercase 'T' in 'the'? If so, I see no reason why we can't move the page (as long as we leave a redirect from the lowercase version).
EDIT Ah! Got you, Felix! I've now changed them to suit. Andy F (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Zangar's new list, well done! Perhaps we should append the 'old' list of parishes to it, perhaps headed "List of parishes in Cornwall prior to the 2009 administrative changes" or words to that effect?
Let's wait a bit longer to give other editors a chance to comment before replacing the old List of civil parishes in Cornwall with the updated one. Andy F (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
HeritageGateway at http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/ still uses the districts as a way of restricting a search so keeping a record of them will be useful.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Zangar's suggestion above that we delete the 'Civil parishes in former district' categories and just stick with the Cornwall civil parishes category. As no-one has objected so I shall implement the suggestion. Andy F (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Update I have now removed the redundant categories from all parish articles. As the categories concerned (Category: Civil parishes in North Cornwall, Category: Civil parishes in Kerrier, Category: Civil parishes in Restormel, Category: Civil parishes in Penwith, Category: Civil parishes in Carrick, and Category: Civil parishes in Caradon) no longer have any articles in them, is is possible to delete them?
I have also converted the few remaining 'parish' infoboxes (left over from Penwith mostly) to the standard 'place' infobox.

Civil parishes articles rearranged

I have now copied (not moved) the original content of List of civil parishes in Cornwall to a new article titled List of civil parishes in Cornwall (pre-2009). I have similarly copied (not moved) the contents of the associated talk page. I have have replaced the content in List of civil parishes in Cornwall with the new list we have been discussing based on the Cornwall Council website. Please have a look and add categories, wikilinks, references and so on as appropriate. Andy F (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Civil Parish navigation boxes

Following the discussion above about the list of civil parishes, I've created a trial version of a new(ish) civil parish nav box. As I say, I think it would be reasonable to base the breakdown within Cornwall around the current UK parliamentary constituencies of Cornwall, as 200+ is too large for one nav box and these are the only real larger administrative/electoral division still in existence. The one here is for St Ives parliamentary constituency:

  • //wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Zangar/Sandbox1&oldid=362838247

As you can see I've kept the same format of the current CP nav boxes, with same colourings and layout, just a slightly different list and different map. Wendron is in brackets as a minor portion of it is in this constituency and the majority being in Camborne and Redruth (1 of only 2 CPs that do this as far as I've seen). Let me know what you think and I will make a start on the other 5 (it's taking a little while longer than I thought to compile the CP lists from the map). All suggestions welcomed, cheers. Zangar (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I think that's a very good idea, Zangar, and your trial execution of it looks good too. Andy F (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
How is this progressing Zangar? Andy F (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Cornwall constituencies
Coincidentally, I recently drew this map of the new constituencies and uploaded it to Commons.


Andy F (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


Now I'm back in the UK, the nav boxes for civil parishes by UK parliament constituency have been populated. North Cornwall is a lot more populated than the others, but this is the case with the district as well. All 6 are shown below:

If everyone's happy with these I'll wait and roll them out over the weekend, to give time for any comments. Just something to consider:

  • Do we put forward the old CP by district nav box templates for deletion or keep them? - I think we should keep them for historical reasons, as Andy F points out in the previous section, and display these boxes in the Districts' article pages and also on List of former administrative divisions in Cornwall article.

Let me know your thoughts/comments. Zangar (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent IMO! Well done, Zangar. I see you've started appending them to articles, yes? Andy F (talk) 07:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 Done - There, all rolled out and double-checked. Thanks everyone for the input and getting the civil parishes topic closed! Zangar (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Well done, Zangar -- good work Andy F (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Statistics page

Just to let people know, I've started a project statistics page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall/Statistics. At the moment it contains the top 25 articles visited each month within the scope of WikiProject Cornwall (from the popular pages list) as well as statistics on the project's cleanup listings, although the last dump for this was on 2010-03-12 as WolterBot is down indefinitely at the moment.

I'll try to keep the page up-to-date, but anyone else can feel free to update it. Also any other suggestions for statistics to be recorded are welcome! Cheers, Zangar (talk) 10:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

British Isles, England, etc.

Please see Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples#Geevor Tin Mine. DuncanHill (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Civil parishes - new article under construction

A new article on the civil parishes of Cornwall is under construction at User:Skinsmoke/Sandbox/Civil parishes/Kernow. Comments and suggestions for its improvement are welcome at its talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The upgrade has now been rolled out at List of civil parishes in Cornwall. There is still a standing issue with the lack of adequate information about the 1974-2009 Districts, but this is hoped to be solved through a map in the near future. Zangar (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Constitutional status of Cornwall

Could an experienced editor with a better grasp of the nuances of Cornwall's history than me take a look at the edits by User:Salmon123 - here - particularly (but not exclusively) at Constitutional status of Cornwall. I'm tempted to revert them en masse as being WP:FRINGE and not supported by reliable sources - but there may be some points of substance worth retaining, and I'm aware that these issues may be contentious to some. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I think your approach on Constitutional status of Cornwall has been best so far, in tagging the edits. I'm not an expert in these matters, but I'll leave a message on Joowwww's talk page as I think he might be able to assess these edits and find sources if they're out there. Zangar (talk) 10:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cornwall/Archive_3&oldid=1137388105"