Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/UK or home nations in introductions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

UK geography terminology straw poll

THIS POLL IS NOW CLOSED. Please do not add any further names to this voting list. A summary of of the conclusions from this poll will follow shortly. If you have any further comments please feel free to add them to the bottom of this page under the post-poll discussion heading.


Note:Please do not add your reasoning in this brief vote section, but if you wish to elaborate, do so in the section below.

Please Note: If someone has suggested that you come here and vote in one of these categories in order to rig the vote, please remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Votes on Wikipedia are not necessairily binding and just used as a way of judging the spread of opinion. Votes as part of a suspicious voting pattern may be ignored.

  • 1. Tiered government (a name for each level of local and devolved government eg. Truro, Carrick, Cornwall, UK; or Edinburgh, City of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK; or Newry, Newry and Mourne, Northern Ireland, UK; or Charlton, Greenwich, London, UK; or Llanelli, Carmarthenshire, Wales, UK; ie., Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales would be mentioned, but not England, as England has no devolved government)
  1. Gulval 18:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) (or One Container) - This is the first edit by Gulval (talk · contribs) since 9 April 2006, and they have very few prior edits. --Mais oui! 09:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fooboo 20:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) - Fooboo (talk · contribs) has very few prior edits. --Mais oui! 09:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Yes I have only a few prior points because I'm relatively new to wikipedia...does that mean my opinion doesn't count? I joined before this page was created (to my knowledge) so I can hardly have forseen this page and joined before it existed in order to rig the vote. Fooboo 21:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. TGG 21:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) See (Reason)+(Revert Wars) - TGG (talk · contribs) has only ever contributed to this page. --Mais oui! 09:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. geoTamar 11:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC) - geoTamar (talk · contribs) has only ever contributed to this page, and that is their sole edit to Wikipedia. --Mais oui! 09:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Lyskerrys 11:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC) - This is the 2nd ever edit by Lyskerrys (talk · contribs). --Mais oui! 09:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. HunlefHunlef 15:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC) - Hunlef (talk · contribs) has only ever contributed to this page, and that is their sole edit to Wikipedia. --Mais oui! 09:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Kgclein 08:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC) - Kgclein (talk · contribs) has only ever contributed to this page and their User page. --Mais oui! 09:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. JDunstan 08:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC) - JDunstan (talk · contribs) has only ever contributed to this page and their User page. --Mais oui! 09:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Pendarvas 08:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC) - Pendarvas (talk · contribs) has only ever contributed to this page and their User page. --Mais oui! 09:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. Bretagne 44 20:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. JPellow 08:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC) - This is the 1st-ever edit by JPellow (talk · contribs). --Mais oui! 10:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. Trevorrow 08:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC) - This is the 1st-ever edit by Trevorrow (talk · contribs). --Mais oui! 10:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 2. One container (e.g Cornwall only, and let the reader follow the links and work out for themselves the geography if they need to)
  1. See Gulval (Tiered government)/Reason for votes cast
  • 3. Home nation only (e.g Truro, Cornwall, England, or Pontypridd, Glamorgan, Wales, the argument being that it is more specific)
  1. Mdcollins1984 22:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Summertimerolls 16:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC) - Summertimerolls (talk · contribs) has only ever contributed to this page. --Mais oui! 09:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Mais oui! 16:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Joe D (t) 18:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Necrothesp 19:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Lancsalot 19:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. josh (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Harrias 16:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Rex the first talk | contribs 12:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Blisco 12:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. Geof Sheppard 07:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. Jhollis60 13:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC) - Jhollis60 (talk · contribs) has only ever contributed to this page and their User page. --Mais oui! 10:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. 1990nightmare 11:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC) - This is the 1st-ever edit by 1990nightmare (talk · contribs). --Mais oui! 12:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  14. --Mal 13:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 4. Sovereign state (The Uk is the sovereign state therefore Uk only used for all places e.g. Pontypridd, UK, Cornwall, UK)
  1. LessHeard vanU 19:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 5. Home nation and UK (Cornwall, England UK - has the most information about the place, but some feel is a little cumbersome)
  1. Noisy | Talk 23:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Reedgunner 08:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. DuncanHill 09:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Waggers 09:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Mammal4 11:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Owain (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Bastin 11:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. --Robdurbar 16:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Hunlef1 14:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) - Hunlef1 (talk · contribs) has only ever contributed to this page and their user page. --Mais oui! 09:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Dippas 14:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) - Dippas (talk · contribs) has only ever contributed to this page and their User page. --Mais oui! 09:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 6. Other
  1. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Reasoning for votes cast

This section is for voters to give their reasons - please limit discussion to other areas.

3. Home nation only - more specific, less cumbersome, official usage (reminder that Cornwall's official status is a Duchy, regardless), consistancy is important. Mdcollins1984 22:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

5. Home nation and UK - I find the tiered government argument persuasive, but it omits the legal angle and therefore cannot be considered comprehensive. My heart tells me home nation only, but - even though it will involve massive upheaval - I have to go with the most informative option. Noisy | Talk 23:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

5. Home nation and UK Makes more sense to have links to the sovereign state and the home nation providing as much information for non-UK residents as possible, there is a massive misunderstanding about the constitutional make up of the UK among many users of English not resident here, for example often believing England to be the sovereign state and Scotland and Wales to be regions within England. Reedgunner 08:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

5. Home nation and UK Gives more information, clarifies relationship of constituent parts of UK for those unfamiliar with the subject. My heart tells me to treat Cornwall as an exception and use 'Cornwall, UK' but I do understand the need for consistency in Wikipedia. I do think that ceremonial counties should be used in articles about cities, towns and villages etc, eg. 'Tinytown, Somewhereshire, Homenationland, UK', again this is helpful to those unfamiliar with the geography of the UK. DuncanHill 09:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

5. Home nation and UK looks great for counties, cities, and larger towns. We might need to iron out more detail on what to do with smaller settlements, where the inclusion of things like parish and borough may also be necessary. Waggers 09:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Home nation only - More specific - people do know where England, Scotland & Wales are & the entries for those countries state that they are in the UK in the first sentence (!). It is also pointless and unethical to edit thousands and thousands of factually correct entries, just because some Cornish nationalists don't believe Cornwall is in England. An Encyclopedia should deal with facts, not wishes. Duplicating the same info will also bog articles down for no reason. Summertimerolls 16:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Home nation only - because that is how such information is presented in the real world, and especially in official usage . Oxford is in England. "Oxford, England, UK" looks as though it was either written by, or for, a person of below-average intelligence; or else a pedant-beyond-redemption. "England, UK" is tremendously patronising to the reader, and is a non-starter if we do not wish to diminish the elegant beauty of the English language. We should not let Cornish nationalists massively disrupt Wikipedia as a result of their WP:POINT campaign.--Mais oui! 16:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Home nation only, per above and all the other arguments here over the past three years. Joe D (t) 18:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Home nation only - I would be perpared to accept Home nation and UK, if it was expanded to United Kingdom (I dislike abbreviations in article headers, particularly that one), but I think it's unnecessarily cumbersome and would be no more acceptable to the Cornish nationalists than this one, so my preference is for this. UK only would cause an outcry among the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish, and would convey less information. One container doesn't provide enough information. Tiered government discriminates against England, the only home nation which doesn't have it. -- Necrothesp 19:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Home nation only - more specific and thus more useful. Addition of UK not necessary. Lancsalot 19:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

5. Home nation and UK(tentatively) - Despite my long involvement with this I still find it difficult to decide which of these options to choose. I am more concerned that whatever the final choice is, it should be presented in the proper way so that it is clear to subsequent editors why these decisions have been made. This absolutely requires a page describing the nomenclature decision (as I have mentionned above) in easy to understand terms that we can link to in future. This would necessarily include a paragraph specific to Cornwall (i.e despite the historical situation, Cornwall is administered as a county of England so that must be included in the designation...) as this is where these problems occur most regulary (but not the only place). There may have been other arguments here over the past three years but part of the reason that there has been a recurring problem with this is because no summary of the discussion is written down, and talk is often spread over dozens of pages with no clear idea or reasoning behind why things are done a certain way. The highhanded nature of many established editors who rv changes by newbies without explaining themselves also does not help. I like the one container model because it is concise, and lets the reader make up their own mind, but on reflection an encyclopedia should give enough information that an reader shouldn't have to. The tiered government model seems the most logical to me, The reason I don't choose this is because of the inconsistency it introduces between English and Scottish/Welsh entries which is the consequence of the political status quo, not the model itself. I don't even really like the Home nation and UK model because it is so coumbersome and doesn't really roll off the tongue. As a second choice I would be prepared to go along with a Home nations only strategy if the condition about a nomenclature page are met. Mammal4 11:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

4. Sovereign State - The constituent countries of the United Kingdom are not seperate entities unto themselves; they share common cultures, currency, language and perhaps most importantly populations. In every country there is a sizeable population that defines itself as being one of the others - and there is also within every country a population that defines itself not as English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish but British as they have no cultural history or affiliation with any of the "old" nations. In short, not every Briton living in England considers themselves "English" and the same is true of each of the other countries. I see that this is a minority view (no pun intended!), and I will of course abide by concensus, but it does question how accurate a defination of country is - outside of the purely geographical (which is British Isles anyway!)LessHeard vanU 19:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC) ah, well....

3. Home Nation only - More specific but still well known enough for the average international reader to get an idea of its location. josh (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

5. Home nation and UK - The name of the United Kingdom must be mentioned. To make the United Kingdom the solitary exception to the system adopted for the 190/1/2 other countries in the world seems truly bizarre; indeed, it's so bizarre that it seems (to me, at least) to be just POV-pushing to exclude it. However, whilst I sympathise with LeeHeard vanU's position, I also recognise two factors that may require the inclusion of the Home Nation's name. First, some people are more comfortable with using the names of the Home Nations. Second, some people claim that the Home Nations are countries, and those people therefore argue that the Home Nations ought to be treated with some of the privileges of sovereign states (including 'assuming' that their whereabouts is known). Hence, the compromise position between these is clear: Home Nation and United Kingdom. Unfortunately, this doesn't resolve the Cornwall issue, but the only way to resolve that is to make an exception for Cornwall, which seems just as bizarre as to make one for the United Kingdom. Bastin 11:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The UK would not be "the solitary exception to the system adopted for the 190/1/2 other countries in the world". Of the top of my head I can think of several exceptions:
  • Nearly every place in the USA gives just the state, without mentioning USA.
  • The majority of places in Trinidad and Tobago just mention one or the other island.
  • Places in Greenland and the Faroe Islands don't feel obliged to mention that they're part of Denmark.
Blisco 13:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. US places give the country's name. As it happens, I tested it earlier today, trying a selection of large and mid-sized cities: Denver, Buffalo, Trenton, Gary, Oakland, Charlotte, and Santa Fe. All give the USA's name in the first sentence. Try others if you want; as the SmackBot's updates of census places make reference to 'United States', I'm guessing that it's not restricted to large or mid-sized cities.
  2. Most places in Trinidad and Tobago give 'Trinidad and Tobago' as their location. Of course, since the country has the word 'and' in its title, there are reasonably good grounds for it being an exception in the mind of the main author (Guettarda). 'United Kingdom' isn't so complicated; if T&T and SV&G are the only countries that have such inconsistencies (not policies: sporadic use of one island's name in some cases), there's probably a reason.
  3. Greenland and the Faroes aren't part of Denmark. They are territories of Denmark, just as Gibraltar and the British Virgin Islands are territories of the United Kingdom. Thus, to call them part of Denmark would be wrong. Bastin 19:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

5. Home nation Taking Leeds as the example, I was happy to pick the most used format, I searched on Google for Leeds encyclopaedia and got three distinct pages with no mention of the UK [1][2][3]. I am sorry but added the UK is silly. Even Truro gets no UK mention [4]. I sympathises and where appropriate a link to the arguments about Cornwall's status is fine but the Home Nations are all that is needed in the title. Rex the first talk | contribs 12:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Home nation preferably, but as a general rule give whatever is most specific while being understandable by a general readership. After all, the purpose of including the country is merely so that an English-speaking reader from anywhere in the world can easily place the location in question. There's no need to state that Westminster is in England or the UK, because everyone knows where London is. Similarly, nearly everyone has heard of England, Scotland and Wales, even if many people in the world think the latter two are part of the first. There's no need to state the sovereign state in every article. Most of the articles in Category:Towns in Trinidad and Tobago state that the place in question is in Trinidad, or in Tobago; it's neither necessary nor particularly useful to say that they're in Trinidad AND Tobago. --Blisco 12:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't quite accurate - of the 44 articles in the category, 23 mention Trinidad and Tobago, 18 mention Trinidad alone and three mention Tobago alone. And, since I wrote almost all of the articles, it really doesn't say much, beyond the fact that my writing style is quirky and inconsistent. Guettarda 15:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - voted 5 because a number of non-British users are not familar with the concept of england/scotland/wales being in the uk; we may only mislead by not mentioning UK. That said, I don't see it as a big issue and I don't see a massive need for a standard.Robdurbar 16:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Home nation only While my feelings, and vote, are just for home nation only, I would be more than happy to treat Cornwall as an exception and let them use United Kingdom. Having lived and worked there on and off, I find the general feeling is much the same as people in Cardiff (where I have also worked and lived) distancing themselves from England. Myself, I've moved back "up country" so I no longer live in Cornwall, and I want my local town to be recorded as being in England, not the United Kingdom Geof Sheppard 07:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

6. Other We should show the state (UK) and NUTS 1 subdivision (Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland or English region). That way we would have objective consistency, and if Cornwall is successful in gaining NUTS 1 status it will be shown in that box. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

5. Home nation and UK - is fine for most of England with the exception of Cornwall. Due to Constitutional status of Cornwall it should remain Cornwall, UK

5. Home nation and UK as above, Cornwall should be exempt due to Constitutional status of Cornwall.... Dippas 14:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Tiered government or 2. One container My passport does not say or mention England or English. It says 'British'. Like it or not, the English are classed as British. I am Cornish, born in the Duchy, on the island of Britain which is part of Europe. The Kilbrandon Report (1969–1971) into the British constitution recommended that, when referring to Cornwall official sources should cite the Duchy not the County. This was suggested in recognition of its unique constitutional position. (please see Talk:Cornwall and the Constitutional status of Cornwall). Gulval 18:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Tiered government It gives enough info for those outside of the U.K., who may not be familiar with the various regions, to see where you are talking about without including any contested references. Personally I believe Cornwall is a Duchy and not part of England. Tiered government reflects that without directly negating others opinions which I may disagree with...it's an accurate and conciliatory solution. Fooboo 15:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Tiered government This is the only option that correctly reflects the truth of the legally created/restored Duchy of Cornwall - within which the administrative county is situated. (please see [[5]]) TGG 22:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Home nation only More specific and encyclopedic. Jhollis60 13:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

1 . Tiered Government. Cornwall is not a county, the Cornish are not English; why should we be lumped in with the English? Pengelly ITA

1. 1. Tiered government MY PASSPORT SAYS BRITISH ! Kgclein 08:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

1. 1. Tiered government Cornwall, UK is the correct terminology

1. 1. Tiered government More specific and encyclopedic Pendarvas 08:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've changed my vote to 1. Tiered government as this is the most objective of the options and it's better than wasting my vote on "other". I believe this option needs clarity, however, as despite being unelected the Government Office Regions are a tier of local government, and the abolished metropolitan county councils are not a tier of local government: therefore "tiered government" gives us "Truro, Cornwall, South West England, UK", "Leeds, Yorkshire and the Humber, UK", etc. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

1. 1. Tiered government see http://www.kernowtgg.co.uk/index.html JPellow 08:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

1. 1. Tiered government Many of the pro England tag pollsters appear to be England soccer fans who post on Northern Ireland and Scotland pages... (for instance see Josh - the correct term should be Cornwall, UK Trevorrow 08:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Home nation only. Inclusion of UK is unncessary on all geographical entries for England, Scotland and Wales - it looks horrible aswell. Home Nations is fine, I definitely don't agree with the tiered government option - the one container option would even be preferable to that. 1990nightmare 11:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Postdiscussion from straw poll

  • Re: Noisy (5. Home nation and UK) - you say "even though it will involve massive upheaval". Well, the fact that the Wikipedia community does not use "constituent country, UK" tells us that we do already have a consensus: it is what is going on throughout the entire project at the moment: constituent country only. We should not inflict "massive upheaval" on Wikipedia when we already have consensus occurring on tens of thousands of articles. --Mais oui! 17:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • One tier of government is clearly not sufficient; Truro, Cornwall is not enough. Given a worldwide audience many people simply will not know where Cornwall is. Apart from anything else, it might be Cornwall, Ontario. However most people will probably know at least roughly where England is, so Truro, Cornwall, England is sufficient. The same applies to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. England is more precise than UK, so let's go with that. DJ Clayworth 13:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Re: Yorkshire Phoenix (6 Other) - Is this not effectively the same as 5, but allowing the inclusion of Cornwall, UK if NUTS status is reached? Mdcollins1984 14:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, if Cornwall got NUTS1 status (and I hope it does!) it would be "Truro, Cornwall, UK", for the timebeing, however, it would be "Truro, South West England, UK". The difference between my position (if Cornwall was NUTS1) and 5 with Cornwall exemption is that it would consistently miss out the home nation for English places, rather than making an exception for Cornish places, because "England" is not a NUTS subdivision. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I misunderstood the NUTS1 status (not county and NUTS1 status) - thanks for clarifying that. So in fact, to summarise, you are proposing 6. Other Use NUTS1 status, e.g. "Truro, Southwest England, UK", "Selby, Yorkshire and the Humber, UK", "Edinburgh, Scotland, UK". Mdcollins1984 15:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
That's right: I feel anything else would be subjective, inconsistent or agenda driven (such as excluding UK for nationalist reasons). However: I must stress that I personally prefer "Truro, Cornwall, UK" (and thus hope they achieve NUTS1 status) and "Selby, Yorkshire, UK" (and thus hope the regions are one day redrawn) but these would be deviating from the objective approach we gain from using NUTS1. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Using NUTS1 regions is a bad idea IMO, as the English regions are possibly the least well-known and well-understood subdivisions of the UK. If we insist on following such a rigid bureaucratic structure we run the risk of getting imbroiled in the kind of petty wrangling over naming that has afflicted Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California. --Blisco 17:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
NUTS1 was purely a means I identified of being objective about this. If it is true, as written elsewhere, that it is government policy to refer to Cornwall as a duchy rather than a county and not to refer to it as part of England then we have our objective reasons without resorting to NUTS1. In this case I would be prepared to consider changing my vote to tiered government or one container (as pointed out elsewhere it says British on our passports, the home nations have no status except in sport). Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 07:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • RE: Dippas - (5 with Cornwall exemption) "Home nation and UK as above, Cornwall should be exempt due to Constitutional status of Cornwall...." Do you mean Cornwall should be exempt due to the potential change in the status of Cornwall, given that it is still classed as a Constitutional County of Cornwall? Mdcollins1984 14:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
My interpretation of this comment is that Dippas (or Dippas's puppeteer - see contribs) is presupposing that the "constitutional status of Cornwall" is as a separate entity from England. --Blisco 17:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • RE: 1990nightmare (talk · contribs) 3. Home nation only - You assume every reader understands the constitution of the United Kingdom: they don't! I've had several Americans ask "as in Wales, England?" when I used to tell them where I lived. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Idea: It is clear that Cornwall is part of the legal entity England and Wales and as the highest tier of local government is the South West England regional assembly it is part of the constituent country England. However: it is also clear that the Cornish nation is not part of the English nation any more than the Scottish and Welsh nations were part of the English nation prior to devolution. Could an appropriately worded compromise therefore be found that satisfies all parties? Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a good point that people often confuse England/English and Cornwall/Cornish. To say that Cornwall is part of England is not the same as saying that the Cornish are also English as well Mammal4 13:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions Re: Straw Poll

How long shall we keep this running? It looks like no real majority is going to be found between 3. Home nation and 5. Home nation and UK. The consensus that has been reached is that the Home nation needs to be included and the UK could be seen as optional. Where this leaves Cornwall is still open to debate, but it is still and Constitutional County of England, so not to include England is potentially inconsistent and may be fought over by the Cornish who wish to remain in England (as it stands at the moment). I agree that a policy page needs writing though. Mdcollins1984 15:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

When I initially suggested the poll I mentionned a time period of 2 weeks. Nobody has said otherwise, so if we stick to that timetable we should close the poll at the end of the 19th August. Mammal4 10:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC) other sugestions welcome. The only result I can see coming out of this is that the majority of people want the home nation to be included in some form (+/- UK) and that more that half want UK included in some form (+/- home nation) but that there is no clear majority for one of the 6 choices. What a mess! Mammal4 10:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, now that the sockpuppets have come to play I suppose this process has run its course! Of course, this was only ever dipping our toes in the water of this topic and several avenues were not explored, for example the tricky Northern Ireland situation (I note that we do not have a Template:Northern Irish infobox yet either); and the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics proposal made a late appearance.
I strongly disagree with you about Cornwall. I think that this poll has very, very strongly indicated a clear consensus for including "England" in the Cornwall articles: 19 people (excluding the 2 socks) voted for inclusion of the home nation (without or with the addition of "UK"); only 2 voted against inclusion (1 only wanted UK, the other wanted the NUTS 2 unit: South West England). We really ought to use this clear decision to include England to counter the on-going (and really very successful) campaign by the Cornish nationalists to erase all reference of England from the Cornwall-related articles. --Mais oui! 17:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Mais oui!, it appears that the English Nationalists are running a very successful campaign here, with their labelling of so called sock puppets and counting how times people have posted etc. ! Don't worry, with a population of 50 million compared with Kernow's of under 500,000, it's quite obvious who is going to win any straw poll. It seems that "might is right" once again ! Gulval 21:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Just incase you have misinterpreted what I said, I did not, and have not called for Cornwall to be a special case, in fact I have been advocating the use of England in Cornwall articles until anything is changed (I am from Cornwall, and am not campaigning for separation...!). I was being cautious, having seen the arguments that are already aired here. I voted Home nation, but would accept Home nation and UK, although either seem equally popular. Mdcollins1984 19:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The Cornwall situation thing isn't what is up for discussion - it is administered as a county of England regardless of whether it is in England or its constitutional status or ancient history or the fact that the people there feel Cornish. If we choose to have the home nation in the name then this is what should be presented. What is up for discussion is the best way of describing all places in the UK (Cornwall included). Mammal4 20:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it worth pointing this in the direction of the Cornwall portal? Mdcollins1984 19:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure - I'm actually the only one who edits that page so I'm not sure how much traffic goes through there. I was thinking of setting up a Cornwall Wikipedian's bulletin board as some other portals have, but from experience on other Cornwall pages they generally turn into circular arguments (as here) and no meaningful decision is made. This straw poll is the closest to a result that I have seen on any talk page from the last 4 years! Mammal4 19:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppet accusations

Can we stop all these accusations and labelling of sock puppets (and vandalism come to that!) and keep this discussion civil? I don't see the point of tagging editors votes with text claiming sockpuppetry, and its not even consistent (Summertimerolls has also only contributed to this poll but hasn't been flagged up)! Mammal4 20:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. It is much more likely that the new votes are from anonymous editors who have been encouraged to register in order to take part in the debate. As such they should be welcomed - not discouraged with accusations - in the hope that they become solid contributors in the future. WP:AGF is the rule. Noisy | Talk 21:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, I apologise for being over-hasty. --Blisco 21:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It is crystal clear that this poll has now become the target of sockpuppets. You are being extremely naive. --Mais oui! 23:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Mais Oui - You may find assume good faithcivility and etiquette useful links to read. Please can you stop disrupting the poll with your persistent unproven allegations. If you feel that there is sock puppetry at work then request an IP check and prove it, otherwise please stop this nonsense Mammal4 10:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
As a new user patroller, I sometimes spend time watching for new users that participate in suspicious behavior. I took note of one such user (namely Jhollis60) who participated in the above straw poll, and I strongly suspect of being a single purpose account as outlined at that page, from his contributions. As an outside and disinterested editor, I think that single-purpose accounts' opinions should be disregarded to prevent ballot-stuffing. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - there are actually quite a few such accounts in use on this page. Several have only edited here, and have also added a blank edit to their user and discussion pages so as to appear superficially as established editors rather than red link accounts. Very cunning I'm sure. Mammal4 15:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Could you leave something near their vote pointing out that this is there first edit and let others make up there mind about sockpuppets.Rex the first talk | contribs 17:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
While it's nice to encourage new users to edit and vote, we have to beware of the fact that they may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies and aims and the purpose of the poll, i.e. that this is a poll to decide how to word wikipedia articles to ensure they describe the world as it is, not a poll regarding internet users' opinion of Cornish devolution. Joe D (t) 18:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is CheckUser time. --Mais oui! 09:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Mais oui! has marked every supporter of option 1 (tiered government) as a sock puppets. At least one of them must be the puppet master! In any case the correct process should be used to identify multiple accounts: accusing everyone who registers to take part in this debate is not exactly encouraging new people to become wikipedians, is it? Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 10:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Why must one of them be a puppet master - why can't somebody control the alleged puppets who hasn't voted (maybe to keep an identity hidden? Mdcollins1984 10:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Good point, well made. Why doesn't someone get off their arse and get them checked then, instead of pointing the finger at every new user? I first registered to take part in a poll myself: you can do just about everything else without doing so. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 11:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The words "sock puppet" doesn't appear on any of Mais Oui!'s annotations, he's just identified those users who haven't made any contributions to Wikipedia other than this poll. It's fairly well established that the results of any straw poll are compromised by such users. --Blisco 10:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Again a fair point. The question begs to be asked: what do we hope to achieve by this straw poll anyway? Excluding the United Kingdom from the location of everywhere in it wouldn't exactly make Wikipedia an accurate encyclopedia, would it? Neither would ignoring the constitutional issues with Cornwall. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 11:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The point of the straw poll (I forgive you for not wading through the pages of arguments below) was to come up with some sort of consensus on what is the best terminology to use for these entries. There have been ongoing rv battles with this over the past several years, but nothing is ever decided definitively. As both England and Uk are correct terminology (neither is wrong as such) this can't really be considered vandalism as such but content dispute; both are equally Ok. The problem that flaired up recently was waves of unregisterd IPs knocking entries back and forth between England and Uk across multiple pages. The covert nature of these edits makes these instances clear cases of POV pushing and something we should be trying to stop. The idea of the poll was to come up with some form of policy on the matter, then write it down so that it can be refered to in future cases of dispute, and any more batch changes such as has been seen recently can be more clearly seen as POV driven. Reverting editors can then be directed to the policy page, which would hopefully lay out logical reasons as to the choice of wording used, and the whole process would seem less arbitrary that they do at present to new editors. Mammal4 13:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
If the nationalists got enough votes together to exclude the United Kingdom, the "consensus" would be unworkable due to WP:NPOV. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that we abandon the poll and go back to revert edit wars? Mdcollins1984 13:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Not likely to happen - there are enough votes on the list (excluding the obvious socks) that want the UK mentioned in some form that it would at least be an option to include UK(i.e use either Home nation or Home nation +UK with neither being wrong, but reverting being frowned apon, as with other simmilar cases such as UK/US English)Mammal4 13:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone considered the possibility that, rather than being sockpuppets, these new editors are being recruited locally by a Cornish Wikipedian with a vested interest? I think the matter has to be settled properly: we can't expect any consensus to be abided by if votes are ignored without confirming the use of sockpuppets using the official channels. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 10:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Look no further than here and you may begin to see why this is happening [6] (see posts by user 1549)(maybe not active recruitment or sock puppets, just a link - What do fellow users think of this? How much value is this poll worth? After all these posts are we destined to go back to revert wars anyway? Is concensus possible with the votes so evenly split? and Lastly how much longer should we run the poll? Reedgunner 10:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well spotted reedgunner - I think that explains where this rush of tiered government suggestions from one use accounts is coming from. I agree that we should close this down now - its not serving any further purpose, especially as it has quite obviously been hijacked by an outside website with an agenda to push. I agree with Mdcollins1984 that we should now build on this discussion and try and write some form of summary of all this to which future new editors can be directed when this problem raises its head again (and it will). I don't ever think that a true consensus is going to be reached here, but at least, as MaisOui says some useful information has come out of it. Mammal4 11:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Close it down now.
It has at least served one purpose: it has shown that the vast majority of established Wikipedia editors want to see the relevant constituent countries used in descriptors. We are clearly split however on the addition of "UK" or not. But I feel that we have made some progress, and we certainly have received the authority necessary to enforce usage of England on all Cornwall-related articles. As long as Cornwall remains part of England, that is what Wikipedia must report. --Mais oui! 11:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed - policy being Home Nation/Home Nation+UK at the discretion of the editor, no reverts between the two allowed. Mdcollins1984 11:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
No, we certainly have not gained any authority whatsoever to start making Wikipedia guidelines, let alone policy! We are a million miles away from the consensus required to write a policy document; and even if we were, this Project talk page is certainly not the correct place to do it. --Mais oui! 11:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, sensible conclusion drawn then...Mdcollins1984 11:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Lancsalot 11:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Suggestions that "we certainly have received the authority necessary to enforce usage of England on all Cornwall-related articles" and "policy being Home Nation/Home Nation+UK at the discretion of the editor, no reverts between the two allowed" are outrageous! Anyone who argues that "Cornwall is legally part of England therefore we must use Cornwall, England" must accept the accompanying argument that "England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are legally part of the UK therefore we must use Scotland, UK". You can't have one without the other: and what is the problem that Scottish nationalists have with the Cornish anyway? Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy and m:Polls are evil. Polls aren't the way we make policy here, especially ones as informally formulated and blatantly skewed as this one. All we have learnt is that the vast majority of editors who contribute actively to UK geography articles (and I don't mean just removing/adding England, or turning up for polls) want to see the home nation used universally, and there is scope for discussion on the adding UK. That will do as a rough rule of thumb until this is sorted out in the proper way - discussion and consensus-forming (not polls) which are well publicised and attended by a decent portion of the relevant editors - I suggest at [7] or some subpage thereof. Aquilina 18:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree - polls aren't the best way to sort out this thing, but this is the closest we've managed to get to people actually talking constructively about the problem since this stuff kicked off several years ago. All that we've had previously is mindless rv's and caustic comments on people's user pages interspersed with 2000 word rants about historical evidence, ancient charters and ethnic cleansing. If nothing else we now have a starting point to go forward from, and also a list of serious editors all in one place who should be involved in any future decisions/discussion. If you have a better idea on how to sort this out I'm sure everyone would be happy to take it on board. Mammal4 20:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Tiered government - what is actually being proposed here?

There seems to some misunderstanding of the "tiered government" proposal. As I remember from the initial discussion (I can't be bothered to wade through screenfuls of text to find it now), the idea was that each tier of government would be mentioned, viz. "Truro is a city in Cornwall, England, United Kingdom", or "Kyle of Lochalsh is a town in the Highland council area, Scotland, United Kingdom". However, the examples given - "Truro, Cornwall, UK" and "Edinburgh, Scotland, UK" - are doubly misleading: they seem to make a special case for Cornwall, putting it on the same level as the home nations, and the "Edinburgh, Scotland, UK" example is no different from the "Home nation plus UK" option. I think some Cornish nationalists are voting for this option on false premises. --Blisco 10:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Having checked the prediscussion I see there was some kind of logic: the idea was that each actual level of government would be given, and England doesn't have a government of its own. My point still stands that the examples given are misleading; if "Windsor, Windsor and Maidenhead, UK" had been given instead of "Truro, Cornwall, UK", I suspect it would have got far fewer votes. --Blisco 10:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
My bad - I picked a poor example to illustrate that option! Mammal4 15:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I think what they are saying is that as England doesn't have any government it shouldn't be mentioned. A pretty ridiculous idea which seems to be favoured mainly by Cornish nationalists. Let's not forget Cornwall makes up less than 1% of the UK's population and this is very much a minority position even in Cornwall. Lancsalot 10:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • quote: One approach is to do it by levels of government. So Truro (unless it's a unitary authority) would be Truro, Cornwall, UK (since there is no tier of government for England). This would mean that the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish entries would read like this: Dunblane, Stirling, Scotland, UK (since there IS a level of government for Scotland).

What the above is saying, as far as I understand it, is that because there is a government specific to Scotland and Wales (Scottish Parliament/Welsh Assembly) and there isn't purely for England, the tiers are simply Bath, Bath and North East Somerset (or is it South West England), UK and Aberdeen, Scotland, UK. The recently people voting Tiered government would do well to read this as I am not sure they understand this fully. Mdcollins1984 10:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I still fully understand all of the implications involved here. (And will the tiered government supporters go around changing all of the geographical entries of the United Kingdom? Mdcollins1984 10:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The other problem with this suggestion, that nobody seems to have mentioned is that the start of every article will become very wordy. For example:

Truro Cathedral was the first 'new' cathedral to be built in England (n.b. Truro isn't actually in England, but it may not be the first new cathedral in the United Kingdom) for 800 years since Salisbury was started in 1220. It is built in the Gothic Revival architectural style fashionable during much of the nineteenth century. It is located in the city of Truro, Carrick, Cornwall, South West England, UK.

and:

Truro is a city in the Carrick section of the Cornwall County Council branch of the South West England district of local government in the United Kingdom. It is the only city within the county of Cornwall, it is also Cornwall's administrative centre. It is the most southerly city in the United Kingdom, situated just under 232 miles (374 kilometres) west south-west of Charing Cross, London. It has a population of 20,920 [1].

Note that the phrase county of Cornwall would probably be edited to read Duchy of Cornwall rendering the factual information incorrect. (Many of the property holdings of the duchy are in the Devon and the South West).

I realise that these are very poorly worded, and may not be entirely accurate, but my point remains the same. It is unworkable across the whole of Wikipedia. Mdcollins1984 11:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There is clearly an inability, or unwillinginess, to comprehend what, de jure, is factually correct, or factually incorrect. Instead there would seem to be a dogged determination to ignore and dismiss what is being said about Cornwall and the Duchy of Cornwall. There has been a lot of discussion about this, via the various talk pages, and a consensus reached. A consensus that has serially been vandalised - hence this poll, for which the outcome was never in doubt! The 'private estates' of the Duchy of Cornwall are not the Duchy but simply part of the possessions annexed to it. It is the territory of Cornwall (Terra de Cornubia) that constitutes the Duchy of Cornwall and the administrative unit for Cornwall exists within it.
The failure of this option to show England as one of the tiers of administration simply highlights a major flaw in how the UK has been governed over the past 300 years. Meaning, of course that Westminster, itself, has always been construed as the administrative focus for England -- TGG 00:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Prediscussion for straw poll

Anons revert warring over England vs United Kingdom Just a heads up that there seems to be some mild revert warring being conducted by some anons changing definitions on smaller UK towns as to whether they are in England or the United Kingdom. See for example St Ives, Cornwall and 172.216.59.40. The IPs of the anons are moving around a bit, so it is one to keep an eye one. -- Solipsist 22:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This is specific to Cornwall - Constitutional status of Cornwall should explain their motives. See also this silliness. --Blisco 08:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
This isn't new, its been going on for years - it comes and goes in waves and I expect it will quieten down again in a few weeks. Mammal4 08:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Ahh thanks, I hadn't realised that it was only affecting Cornish places. I rather thought they were picking small backwater places in the hope that no one would notice ;-) So presumably the general response is to revert back to United Kingdom each time and leave it at that. -- Solipsist 10:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Its never clear which should be used as nobody has made a policy on it. Generally across the Uk geography pages it is the home nation that is used, but this I think is just because most of the orgininal stubs were created by a small group of people, and that is what they chose to do then. In Cornwall most of the England designations have been eroded to UK over time by many different casual editors, but the reverts back to England always seem to be from the same small group of editors. Personally I think UK is the better description for all the geography entries as this is the largest political entity and the sovereign state ( the home nations are not independendent - yet). Additionally, as England is erroniously used as a synonym for Great Britain by many non natives I think this makes it less confusing all round. I know a number of editors disagree with me here, but thats just the way it goes. I've tried to come to a compromise in the past by including both England and UK in designations but nobody is even interested in discussing it. Mammal4 12:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to come to a compromise... but nobody is even interested in discussing it. - a not uncommon frustration of working on Wikipedia I'm afraid. -- Solipsist 16:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Anonomous user/s is now currently working their way through all of the British universities changing all of the Uks to England Mammal4 15:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, if we don't really have a policy one way or the other, it can't really be considered vandalism. The trouble is that it looks like they are coming from random AOL based IPs, so it is difficult to engage with them. The latest one seems to be 172.214.64.62 (talk · contribs). If you catch them whilst they are actively making edits it would be good to drop them a note on their talk page to ask them why the are making the change (e.g. this one). -- Solipsist 16:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
From experience I don't think that they are interested in discussing it. To me this looks like a concerted effort to push a home nations rather than UK POV on wikipedia rather than genuine edits. Its a bit suspicious that all of a sudden all these unregistered AOL accounts and rampaging through and changing all the designations (never more than one or two edits per IP). I suspect that it is being orchestrated by one or two individuals (its not difficult to rotate IPs to give the impression of many editors like that) who probably also log in and contribute under a named account. its quite a clever rouse really as it is hard to pin down. Not really much that can be done except rv back again until they get bored!Mammal4 09:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Totally agree with you there. Indeed that's how I interpreted the original changes I saw. However, if we don't have a policy or general concensus on the choice of UK or England, it makes it a little more difficult to treat it as vandalism. If they fail to engage in discussion, that can probably be regarded as disruption, but we would still need to make the effort to try and inform them. But as you say the best approach is probably to keep reverting until they get bored. -- Solipsist 13:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it looks as if I've stumbled into the middle of something. I've been reverting anon edits made today, but I seem to be doing it in opposition to the way that you've been heading. In the two years that I've been here, I've never seen articles with UK in the intro until the last week or two, so I've been "correcting" them back to England. I'll have a wander and see if I can find other discussions. Noisy | Talk 17:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It certainly seems sensible to have a consistent approach one way or another. My preference is definitely to use United Kingdom as it's the correct political entity. Using the individual countries seems to me like it's trying to promote independence - a subtle case of POV editing - but as long as the approach is consistent I'm happy to adopt the alternative. Waggers 14:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The home nations are also political entities, convey slightly more information without confusing any additional readers (i.e. UK and England are equally well known around the world), and AFAICT are far more common at present. Joe D (t) 22:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with this point. It's telling that this debate is restricted to 'England' vs 'UK' - you don't see many articles about Scottish or Welsh places, let alone Northern Irish ones, that use 'UK' rather than the home nation. There seems to be an assumption that any place in the UK is by definition in England unless otherwise stated, and omitting 'England' tends to reinforce that assumption. --Blisco 09:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
As someone rather new to this, my impression of the 'Cornwall, Uk vs. Cornwall, England' malarky is that there are about 3 people with a strong 'England' POV, and a lot of people with a less strong POV who by habit refer to Cornwall as being in the UK rather than England - of course, this is just my own POV as an Englishman who grew up among Cornish people (and I'd never address a letter to 'Cornwall, England' - unless I wanted it to get lost in a Cornish post office!)--DuncanHill 22:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just surveyed all the entries in List of places in Staffordshire. There are 146 populated entries: England - 111, no country - 31, UK - 2, England and UK - 1, GB - 1. On this basis, I have to side strongly with using the home nation as the identifier. Noisy | Talk 10:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes England is a political entity, but it is not the highest authority. The Uk is the soveriegn state that signs treaties etc and has membership to the EU. Most non UK readers do not understand the difference between England and UK (they think it means the same thing), so to use England here, when it is not the sovereign state reinforces this misconception Mammal4 10:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If we used both designations (eg Truro, England, UK) then any further rv that removed either of the terms would be a clear case of POV and more easily mopped up? Mammal4 08:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm up for that. We need to beware about transferring this idea to biographical articles, though, because things become a trifle more sensitive when looking at historical places of birth and death, since the supra entity changed at various times. Noisy | Talk 09:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Some other ideas...
  1. One approach is to do it by levels of government. So Truro (unless it's a unitary authority) would be Truro, Cornwall, UK (since there is no tier of government for England). This would mean that the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish entries would read like this: Dunblane, Stirling, Scotland, UK (since there IS a level of government for Scotland).
  2. Another approach is to use only one "container" for any geography article, unless some disambiguation is required. For example, since (as far as I know) there's only one Cornwall (and in fact most of our county names are unique), we don't really need "England" or "UK" to be included; if someone doesn't know where Cornwall is, they can click on the wikilink to find out. This way we make sure that the information in the article is about the subject itself - "Cornwall [is in] England [which is part of the] UK" is not information about Truro, so strictly speaking doesn't belong in the Truro article.
  1. 'Only one Cornwall'. The disambig page lists 4 in Canada, 1 in Jamaica, 9 in the USA, 1 in Brittany, and a dragon! DuncanHill 14:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
One further comment is that I don't think that what the majority of articles currently do is all that relevant to the discussion. We need to distinguish between "best practice" and "majority practice" - quality, not quantity. Ultimately I think we need some really sound reasoning behind whatever decision we make, so that it's futureproof. Choosing between "England" and "UK" based on majority point of view is still an expression of a point of view - we need some objective reasoning for including or excluding the various levels. Waggers 12:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


The tiered government suggestion seems (to me) the most sensible suggestion so far as it has a sort of logic to it. Once we have come up with a consensus what we could do is insert a very small asterisk template into the opening paragraph of each article (about the size of a three letter word) that would link into another page called "nomenclature of UK place names in wikipedia" or something like that. There all the reasoning behind the decision could be laid out in simple terms, and any relevent discussion appended. The idea would be that the casual editor who comes through and alters the designation with the aim (in their eyes)of improving it will follow the link and realise that a lot of thought and logic has gone into the specific wording that we've used, rather than it just being arbitary. Hopefully they would be less likely to alter it without discussion. This doesn't protect against malicious POV changes from anonymous IPs but then again what will?! Mammal4 13:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There isn't any need to refer to the United Kingdom in cases of locations within Britain, as they are either in England, Scotland or Wales - there isn't any grounds for debate. To change and dumb down every entry to suit a handful of Cornish Nationalists who prefer the term United Kingdom to England is ridiculous and would be doing an injustice to Wikipedia - it is a POV held by few, that Cornwall isn't part of England. I don't see the relevant of the tiered governement suggestion, as that has little to do with actual locations, and covers more than one country anyway. The comment on the Cornwall entry regarding the constitutional status of Cornwall is sufficient. Summertimerolls 17:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to claim that 'only a handful of Cornish Nationalist' prefer to use UK instead of England - I'm not Cornish, not a Nationalist of any kind, and much prefer to use UK rather than England when referring to Cornwall. The tiered government idea does have the merit of making current administrative arrangements more clear, especially to those unfamiliar with the UK. Oh, btw Summertimerolls, you can sign posts by adding 4 tildes (these things~) at the end of a post - it helps people know who's said what. DuncanHill 17:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I have used the UK defination in Cornish related articles (I am a member of the Penwith (most westerly District of Cornwall) WikiProject) as I (would) have in any other "English" related subject. Although I now live in Cornwall I am most certainly not a nationalist, but only interested in best practice. I also work to the legal framework that the individuals/party I am able to vote for represent Parish, District, County and the United Kingdom. Unlike Scotland, and to a lesser degree Wales (and potentially Northern Ireland), law applicable to England is solely formulated and executed in the Parliaments of the Sovereign of the United Kingdom. As such I feel that UK is the correct political entity.
The manner in which anon accounts are used to solely to edit UK to England might suggest that this is a politically motivated campaign, whether pro English nationalism or anti Cornish nationalism or a combination of the two, which also indicates little possibility of concensus - anons are not good vehicles for discussion and reasoned argument. The number of anon accounts operating to a common ideal also precludes their edits being stopped by suspension or banning. Should a policy be adopted then it may be that Cornish (and any other entity so open to abuse) articles would have to be protected to stop anon (of either/any persuasion) reverts.LessHeard vanU 20:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is safe to say that this issue is restricted to Cornwall and isn't affecting any other locations within Britain, so I see no need whatsoever to change thousands of enties over the issue of one county in one country over political motives, to make things more unclear than before and give them a less encylopedic quality. The entries for England, Scotland and Wales make is very clear that they make up the UK, and the entry for Cornwall has clear mention of the so called constitutional status issue. Summertimerolls 17:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that comments like 'the so called constitutional status issue' show a degree of POV! There IS a constitutional status issue relating to Cornwall, whatever one's opinion of the various sides to the debate. Using 'weasel words' like 'so called' doesn't really help anyone. DuncanHill 19:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Its not an issue just relating to Cornwall - last week I watched as an anonomous IP went systematically through every university in the UK, and changed all the Uks to England. Various other people from across the wikipedia community went back through these and changed them back to UK. I'm guessing that this wasn't the work of Cornish nationalist, unless they've infiiltrated quite deeply into Wikipedia and go under cover by never contributing to Cornwall pages. There seems to be a movement by a few in Wikipedia to rob the UK of its political legitimacy - the Cornwall thing is just a symptom of that. Anyway, under the tiered government suggestion Cornwall would still have England in its tag, but just augmented with UK but there would at least there would be some method and logic to it. We could put a paragraph on the "nomenclature of UK place names in wikipedia" page I suggested about the status of Cornwall if need be, explaining that despite the constitutional status issue, under the current UK government Cornwall is administered as a county of England, (rightly or wrongly - make no juddgements) so that is why the entry is described in that way. At least then there would be an explaination on file that people could link to, rather than having this argument every few months with new people Mammal4 06:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't say I really see the point or like the idea of putting UK on every location entry for Britain, it seems a bit silly considering it affects extremely few entries. It's fairly well known around the world where England, Scotland & Wales are and the entries for those countries state in the first sentence they make up the UK - stating UK again on every location would just clutter things, I feel. The Cornwall entry already mentiones the issue anyway. From looking at some of the Cornwall locations, it looks like entries that have been started as Cornwall, England have been changed to Cornwall, United Kingdom and entries that started as Cornwall, United Kindom have been changed to Cornwall, England. I say either have Cornwall towns as being in Cornwall, England or just Cornwall and make no mention of the country. I think the Cornwall, United Kingdom suggests that Cornwall is actually a country, which is possibly the intention. Summertimerolls 11:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"To change and dumb down every entry to suit a handful of Cornish Nationalists who prefer the term United Kingdom to England is ridiculous and would be doing an injustice to Wikipedia". I agree. It is a tad patronising to the reader to tell them that New York City is in the United States ("New York City, New York, United States" - yukkk!); that Paris is in France ("Paris, France" - yukkk!) or that London is in England ("London, England" - yukkk!). Equally, it is totally redundant to have a list of places where a place is, à la "Mrs Miggins house, Strawberry Lane, Backwater-under-the-Lyme, near Greater Cheesbery, Worcester, Worcestershire, England, United Kingdom, Europe, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Universe, the great unknown". If people really, really do not know where, or what, "England" is, then they just click the link, and - hey presto - Wikipedia tells 'em, in the very first sentence, that "England is the largest and most populous constituent country of the United Kingdom." The information is already there, for all to see, if they really need to, which most do not. We do not need to treat every Wikipedia reader like a primary school child by repeating ad-infinitum that England is in the UK: it would get just a tad tedious. And how artificial it looks: only an American could write: "Oxford, Oxfordshire, England, UK" - yukkk! --Mais oui! 11:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


I resent the use of the term "Cornish Nationalists" for people who simply recognise Cornwall's unique constitutional position. Using the term shows POV bias. Until the constitutional position has been finalised, by people outside Wikipedia, Cornwall should only be described as "Cornwall, UK". Lyskerrys 11:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I do think it is interesting that Summertimerolls ONLY contributions to Wikipedia are posts in this thread. Maybe a single issue campaigner trying to use Wikipedia to promote a POV? DuncanHill 11:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's see if I can summarise where we're at so far:
  1. We don't want a huge address-style list for each article
  2. We do want a logical and consistant approach
  3. "UK" is out; "England", "Scotland", "Wales" or "Northern Ireland" should be used instead
  4. Using a local government-based structure is sensible (but we don't want to show every tier)
Can I suggest the following, then:
  1. For counties and unitary authorities, use the country only. "Aberdeenshire is an administrative county in Scotland"; "Portsmouth is a unitary authority in England"
  2. For cities, boroughs and towns (etc.) within the duristiction of a county's government, use county (or principal area) and country. "Colchester is a town and borough in the county of Essex, England"; "Truro is a town in Cornwall, England"; "Llanfyllin is a town in Powys, Wales")
  3. For civil parishes and villages (etc.), include borough (if applicable), county and country, and perhaps civil parish. "Compton is a village in Hampshire, England. It is administered by the civil parish of Compton and Shawford, and Winchester City Council"; "Ballyrory is a small village in County Londonderry, Northern Ireland", "West End, in the borough of Eastleigh, Hampshire, is a village in England"
Wherever possible, write the location as a sentence, not a list.
Any thoughts? Waggers 12:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

DuncanHill - I resent your accusation. I'm not promoting a POV, and I chose to register to engage in this discussion after looking at the edit summaries on the Cornwall page, and came to this page after looking at your contribs. What Waggers is suggesting seems sensible and makes sense and would go with that. Summertimerolls 13:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Summertimerolls - well, I'm glad that some of my contributions led to you coming to this discussion - at least it means someone is reading! The way you've expressed yourself a couple of times, together with this being your only area of posting, led to me asking the question above - it wasn't meant as an accusation, and I'm sorry that it could be read that way - like you, I'm quite new to this, so sometimes I may not express myself as clearly as I should.

On the question of 'Cornwall, England' vs. 'Cornwall, UK', my experience is that in Cornwall the most common usage would be 'Cornwall, UK', with a significant number of Cornish people finding 'Cornwall, England' offensive, for reasons relating to the ongoing debate about the past, present and future constitutional status of Cornwall, together with many people's sense of a distinct Cornish cultural identity. On the whole, I incline to Mammal4's suggestions above - tho' I doubt very much if a compromise could ever be reached between the handful on either side who take hardline 'Cornwall as a seperate nation' or 'Cornwall is just another English county' attitudes. DuncanHill 13:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Curious. The original anon edits that I noticed (linked at the top of this discussion), were actually changing from UK -> England. Perhaps they were actually anti-Cornish Nationalist (if that is the right term). In any case, it looks like this discussion is proving useful. -- Solipsist 18:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
"Perhaps they were actually anti-Cornish Nationalist". That sounds about right to me.
Minor point, but Aberdeenshire ain't an "administrative county" of anywhere. Scotland has had no counties since 1975. The standard term is "council area". --Mais oui! 19:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Godd point Solipsist, about anon changes from UK -> England. DuncanHill 20:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


(88.109.253.246 (talk · contribs) has been stirring the pot. I have reversed the edits and left a message encouraging the user to register and join the debate. Noisy | Talk 20:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC))


Just realised that I said that locations in England would still have an England tag under the tiered government suggestion but this is not actually true as there is no England government tier, so it would be Truro, Cornwall, Uk and Edinburgh, Scotland UK or Pontypridd, Wales, UK. I think I must have been half asleep when I wrote that! Mammal4

The one container suggestion does have some merit as it would avoid all arguments about designation and political POV as people can just follow the link s up the chain until they get to the UK page. What Waggers is suggesting is just a continuation of the status quo isn't it? It isn't going to stop people changing it back to UK. The problem specifically that I have with this is that, despite what Summertimerolls thinks, many non Brits have trouble with the internal geography of the UK. I've met Americans for example who don't know where Wales is, and when you try and explain it they say "Oh, so its in England then?" Even other Europeans use England/UK interchangably. Just using the home nation spreads the confusion! Mammal4 12:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

As for what started first UK->England rv or England-> UK rv its sort of chicken and egg and has been going on for years, not just a few weeks.{{subst:Unsigned|

The whole point of an encyclopaedia is to educate people, and it is hardly good pedagogy to say "all my pupils are daft: they don't know where Wales is - I know what I'll do, I'll just pretend that Wales doesn't really exist, and then the problem will go away!" A tad defeatist. Americans are not really that daft you know.
If we all knew everything anyway then Wikipedia would not have any links at all; in fact Wikipedia would not even exist at all. We would all be omniscient - God knows where Wales is, and I am certain that he doesn't read Wikipedia. --Mais oui! 13:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
This reminds me of the time that somebody tried to remove the descriptor "Scottish" from the Ronnie Corbett article, with reason provided: "I had no idea he was Scottish"! Err... correct me if I am wrong, but is the whole point of an encyclopaedia not to teach us things of which we previously "had no idea"? That's the whole fun of the project. Wales implies United Kingdom, but the reverse is not true; therefore the use of "Wales" adds additional texture and depth to an article, whereas "United Kingdom" unnecessarily flattens and conceals. --Mais oui! 13:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Waggers's suggestion above is the best solution. However, I'm sure it will still cause controversy among the minority of Cornish people who are virulently opposed to any suggestion that Cornwall might be part of England (as a proud Cornishman who is also proud to be English, I've heard all the tedious arguments many times over, and they still don't convince me). It's one of those things that is never likely to have a consensus. I should add that articles on unitary authorities should also state their former county. "Portsmouth is a unitary authority in England" is fine, but the fact that it also used to be in Hampshire (and is also a city) should still be recorded. I for one still consider Portsmouth to be in Hampshire. And I suspect that any suggestion that, for instance, York is no longer in Yorkshire because it's now a unitary authority would soon have Yorkshiremen everywhere rioting. And Truro is a city by the way. I do think it is perfectly reasonable, and in fact logical, to state which of the home nations a university is in. Why towns but not universities? -- Necrothesp 13:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi - time to throw my thoughts into the cauldron! (Thanks User:Mammal4 for directing me here). I'll just explain that I am a proud Cornishman, (who is an aforementioned anti-Cornish-Nationalist...Until any official decision is made (which is unlikely), Cornwall is still in England, just as though Brittany is technically in France, although they tend to become annoyed like the Cornish). I have also lived in the Unitary Authority of the City of York, which geographically is with in the boundary of North Yorkshire (is this an approach that can be used for unitary authorities (e.g. Portsmouth is a unitary authority in England, within in the geographical bounds of Hampshire). I think that whatever is decided, something should be made on the grounds of consistency. I like the government tiered suggestion, but it looks inconsistent to those who haven't read this article. I'd be happy with just using the home nations, but it does throw up problems with biographical articles too. Its a big issue, lets get it right. Can someone summarise this talk thread again? Its too long and complicated and has taken me 20 minutes to get through! I also used the "one container" solution until directed here. Mdcollins1984 14:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

As stated, a large number of Cornish people do not identify as English or see themselves as from Cornwall, 'England' for reasons relating to the ongoing debate about the past, present and future constitutional status of Cornwall, together with many people's sense of a distinct Cornish cultural identity - see Constitutional status of Cornwall. Since 2001 the Cornish have had their own unique ethnic UK Census code '06' similar to the Irish, Scots, Welsh and English, 2001 Ethnic Codes. Additionally, on many official forms it is now possible to register as Cornish as opposed to English. 217.134.75.62 09:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The use of the home nation after the town, village etc should be used universally. The use of the home nation gives more info than stating that it is in the UK and there would probably be edit wars everywhere if we tried to push my town, UK (never mind trying to state that Samuel Beckett was born in the UK). This rule should include Cornwall. By not doing so suggests that Cornwall has an equal status to the other home nations. Despite the protestations of some editors, Cornwall's offical status is a county in England. By stating otherwise is following the POV of those editors. We cannot base decisions on percived culture or how some belive the world order should be but on cold hard facts. josh (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. We cannot allow the (relatively speaking) tiny Cornish tail to wag the massive UK dog. It is a fact, perhaps to be regretted by some, but nevertheless a cold, hard fact, that Cornwall is a part of England. If some people do not like that fact then they are of course perfectly free to campaign for a change in the constitutional status of Cornwall, using their own web-based or other resources. But they must not be allowed to use Wikipedia to further their campaign. We will, indeed must, only report facts. It is not our job to put an angle on facts for the benefit of one side of a disagreement, over the other side. --Mais oui! 15:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Whilst Cornwall may well be declared 'officially' as an administrative county within England, it should be remembered that Cornwall is legally, and constitutionally, an administrative county within the territory known as the Duchy of Cornwall, which is not in England. Like Wales, it exists under the dominion of 'The Crown' within what was the Realm of England but not within England (the country). Why should the peoples' encyclopedia perpetuate the lies of an Imperial State? (please see [[8]]) --TGG 15:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Well then its not a problem then - word the Cornwall article to give the official line "Cornwall is offically administered as a county of England" and then bung the other interesting details into the Constitutional status of Cornwall page with an accompanying link from the main article (as I think it is done already). Problem solved. Mammal4 15:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Quote from the peoples' (sic) encyclopedia
The constitutional status of Cornwall, in the south west of Great Britain, is the subject of ongoing debate. At present, the Parliament and Government of the UK, as well as Cornwall County Council, treat Cornwall as an administrative and ceremonial county of England. Laws passed for England and Wales are presumed to take effect (and are enforced) in Cornwall. Cornwall pays taxes to the British Exchequer and elects MPs to the UK Parliament. Constitutional status of Cornwall
Key words to me include ongoing debate, Parliament/Government/County Council administrative/ceremonial county, enforced laws, elect MPs.
Also, I would be careful about advertising/promoting your website on Wikipedia, I believe that it is frowned upon.

Mdcollins1984 16:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"Cornwall pays taxes to the British Exchequer and elects MPs to the UK Parliament" this is completely irrelevent to the debate as to whether Cornwall is Cornish or English. Scotland pays taxes to the British Exchequer and elects MPs to the UK Parliament, but no-one in their right mind would suggest Scotland is English. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Can people stop trying to make out that this thread is only relevent to Cornwall - it is not only about nomenclature of place names in Cornwall, but across the UK. I'm not sure if people are trying to muddy the waters by bringing in all of this political crap, but its not really relevant to the question at hand. To summarise and try and get some focus here (as requested above)


Summary

1. There has been for several years a low grade revert war over UK geography nomenclature, this is not localised only to Cornwall but is most apparent on these pages because of the strong feelings being termed English incite here. I have seen this rv behaviour though on many other pages across the UK, albeit with lower frequency.

2. In order to contain the rv warring, we need a logical policy on what naming should be for all UK places. This would mean that everyone sings from the same hymmsheet, and any further rvs will be more clearly a case of POV pushing rather than content dispute.

3. I have suggested that after a policy has hammered out we create a page called "nomenclature of UK place names" in which the reasoning is clearly and logically laid out for anyone to see, so that anyone who want to change the designation on a given page can see that what was there before was not an arbitary decision, but is logically thought through.

4. The five useful suggestions for a solution so far are:

  • tiered government (a name for each level of local government e.g Truro, Cornwall, UK or Edinburgh, Scotland UK)
  • One container (e.g Cornwall only, and let the reader follow the links and work out for themselves the geography if they need to)
  • Home nation only (e.g Truro, Cornwall, England, or Pontypridd, Glamorgan, Wales, the argument being that it is more specific)
  • Sovereign state (The Uk is the sovereign state therefore Uk only used for all places e.g. Pontypridd, UK, Cornwall, UK)
  • Home nation and UK (Cornwall, England UK - has the most information about the place, but some feel is a little cumbersome)

5. As I think that reaching a consensus on this is going to be hard if not impossible, I now suggest that we put a time limit on discussion of say another week or two, and then open this up to a straw poll across wikipedia to come to an agreement.

I hope that this meets with everyones' agreement? Mammal4 15:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


BTW I have never suggested that American's were stupid, please don't put words in my mouth. I was illustrating the point with an example of a conversation that I actually had with someone (who happened to be American). It just as easily could have been someone from India or China with the same results Mammal4 15:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Mammal4 and I belong to the same Cornish related Wikiproject and we have always been able to arrive at concensus - one of the advantages of having and using talk pages. To date our Policy on this matter has been "Keep clear". I think we would be content to incorporate any concensus into our Policy, but we would continue to refrain from entering into any edit war (even within "our" articles) over the matter.LessHeard vanU 20:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Just pointing out an interesting variation I have just come across, the Minack Theatre was listed as near Land's End, Cornwall, British Isles. Is that another suggestion???!!! Mdcollins1984 10:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
It might be a suggestion, but I don't think it's a good one as it confuses political and geographical entities - it either makes British Isles sound like a country, or Cornwall sound like an island, or perhaps both. Waggers 11:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


Why don't we just condense our opinions here first, before opening up the debate. I'm not sure any more discussing will necessarily get anywhere, without people saying exactly what they want anyway. To that end, using User:Mammal4s excellent summary above, I will start by giving my choice (and briefly why). Mdcollins1984 22:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

UK/England revert wars (Cornwall and others)

Can we agree that once a policy is agreed upon that Cornish articles, and any others suffering from this time consuming conflict, be protected from editing by anonymous/new editors (with the appropriate explanation) to stop reverts from those not interested in concensus?LessHeard vanU 10:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with that - in fact I would suggest that UNTIL a policy is agreed upon, anonymous edits should be blocked.DuncanHill 22:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that a couple of users have been changing 'UK' to 'England' on many Cornish entries, citing the ongoing debate here as the reason to change - trying to pre-empt any decision? DuncanHill 22:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

One would, perhaps, expect the peoples' encyclopedia to go that bit further in presenting the truth in showing that Cornwall is a disputed territory and the instances of vandalism with respect to the Cornish entries/edits should be a matter of concern for all people with integrity. With this in mind, it seems proper for the Cornish entries to reflect a Cornish Truth with links to pages where the Imperial mentality can exercise its intolerance! (please see [[9]]) TGG 22:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This can be discussed in relevant pages, but not used to alter a seperate article. It is not an act of good faith to change an article where concensus has been reached simply because it does not suit an individuals viewpoint; my own preferred option is not going to be policy - but I am going to go with whatever is decided. I'm a Wikipedian first on these pages.LessHeard vanU 13:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of poll

Please can we leave this list alone until we close the poll - It makes more sense to tally up at the end when we close up an archive this poll and discussion. Doubling up on information in this way just makes it confusing and by disecting my comments away from my my vote you have subtley changed the meaning of what I have written. The (tentatively) in brackets is directly explained by the subsequent paragraph of reasoning - if you take away the reasoning then it leaves (tentatively) open to the personal interpretation of subsequent readers. I also don't appreciate a straight rv of my changes without discussion or explaination - this is just bad wiki etiquette. I don't think that putting my name under two different choices serves any purpose either. Thanks Mammal4 09:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing the votes of the 14 people who have already voted is vandalism, plain and simple. Stop it. --Mais oui! 10:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Trying to structure/re-structure a straw poll is hardly vandalism, is it? There's enough of a debate going on already, and it's still civil.

With the new format with the tally in place already, people are not bothering with the one-para statements that people were adding under the old structure. (The comments of Owain and Harrias might have contained forceful arguments.) I found those really useful, and might even have seen some new arguments that might cause me to change my opinion. I'd request that Mais Oui consider moving it back to the old structure. Noisy | Talk 11:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely no way: 14 people had already cast their votes before Mammal4 unilaterally decided to start the whole process afresh. He was not "re-structuring" it: he removed the votes of 14 people! If we keep his new format (and I think it is basically a good idea: much clearer to see the lay of the land), then those 14 votes must be duly recorded, in the date order they were cast. If "vandalism" is the wrong word to describe his removal of those 14 votes, then "dicking about" is perhaps a better way of putting it. --Mais oui! 13:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
"I found those really useful" - people still have every opportunity to give their reasoning if they so wish. If they cannot be bothered that is their prerogative. --Mais oui! 13:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


I'm not really sure why I would attempt to vandalise a poll that I suggested and started to organise in the first place - All I did was put the page back the way it was before Mais Oui started 'dicking around with it' as it was so eloquently put. As far as i can see no votes were removed as they are all recorded in the paragraph I reinstated next to their reasons. As Noisy points out this was a useful setup, and now people aren't bothering to leave reasons anymore under the new structure. If I have inadvertantly removed any useful text when I tried to put back what Mais Oui had changed (without consultation) then I apologise - As I have said before I'm only intersted in ressolving this ridiculous geography dispute once and for all. After having finally managing to bring this to a head after six months, and getting some meaningful dialogue going I find it an interesting insight into human nature that we've now found something even more petty to argue about.

Mais Oui - Giving me a vandalism warning here and on my talk page for what is obviously me reverting your unecessary restructuring of the poll is completely over the top and really isn't helpful. W Anyone who doubts my intentions need only look at my past record to see what sort of editor I am - its there for all to see. hy not discuss here why you think your restructuring is better? Take care Mammal4 19:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Mais Oui - adding that this might be the first page people have contributed to is not helpful. Perhaps this is the first poll they have felt strongly enough about to contribute to! Leave them alone! Lyskerrys 13:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that Mais Oui's point is that to have so many people, almost all voting in one category, come to the same page and make effectively their only edit to Wikipedia is suspicious at least. It suggests to me (and I guess Mais Oui) either the use of sockpuppets, or the recruitment of editors to deliberatly come and vote in the poll, under the belief that it is a binding one. --Robdurbar 19:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Poll Summary and statistical analysis

I have done some analysis into the results above to assist in drawing conclusions from the poll. Anyone who disagrees with them, or wants to ask about them can post on my talk page. Mdcollins1984 09:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

has Summertimerolls been included in the wikipedians with lots of edits analysis (as it seems to be below by putting "although Summertimerolls only contributions" after the home nation category) or is this just a copy error? Mammal4 10:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but probably a copy error also! Thanks Mdcollins1984 10:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Notes:

  • Gulval placed preference for Tiered Government, but said would consider One Container - I have given 0.75 of a vote for Tiered Government, 0.25 for One Container (although it doesn't affect a lot.
  • Summertimerolls has made a fair few edits, but only on this page. As the user took part in pre-discussion they are listed there, and therefore included in Pre-discussion/Pre-discussion+Major contributors/Pre-discussion+Major contributors+Cornwall only editors result categories.
  • Anyone who took part in pre-discussion were listed as such, with no mention of whether they have made lots of edits to WikiP; the implication being that for this analysis, they count as Major editors. They were considered in all result categories, with the addition of other major editors as necessary.

38 Contributors

Editors who took part in pre-discussion

Blisco
DuncanHill
Gulval
Joe D
Josh
LessHeard van U
Mais oui!
Mammal4
Mdcollins1984
Necrothesp
Noisy
Owain
Summertimerolls
Waggers

Editors not included above with substantial WP edits

Bastin
Geof Sheppard
Harrias
Lancsalot
Mal
Rex the first
Robdurbar
Yorkshire Phoenix

Editors not included above with WP edits restricted to Cornwall

Bretagne44
Foobar
ReedGunner

Editors registered for poll

Dippas
geoTamar
HunlefHunlef
Hunlef1
JDunstan
Jhollins60
JPellow
Kgclein
Lyskerrys
Pendarvas
TGG
Trevorrow
1990nightmare

Results

Face value Results: (38)

Tiered Government: 12.75 (0.75 from Gulval, 0.25 to One Container)
One Container: 0.25
Home Nation: 14
Sovereign State: 1
Home Nation + UK: 10

Results of those who have edited since voting: (20)

Tiered Government: 1
One Container: 0
Home Nation: 11
Sovereign State: 1
Home Nation + UK: 8


Results of those who took part in pre-discussion: (15)

Tiered Government: 0.75
One Container: 0.25
Home Nation: 7
Sovereign State: 1
Home Nation + UK: 5

Results of those who took part in pre-discussion, and serious WP contributors (ie lots of edits) (22)

Tiered Government: 1.75
One Container: 0.25
Home Nation: 12
Sovereign State: 1
Home Nation + UK: 7

Results of those who took part in pre-discussion, and serious WP contributors inc Cornwall only contributors: (25)

Tiered Government: 3.75
One Container: 0.25
Home Nation: 12
Sovereign State: 1
Home Nation + UK: 8

Results of 13 voters who have one or very few WP edits, and those who registered for the poll: (13)

Tiered Government: 9
One Container: 0
Home Nation: 2
Sovereign State: 0
Home Nation + UK: 2

Poll started 5th August, results after 12th: (14)

Tiered Government: 0
One Container: 0
Home Nation: 8
Sovereign State: 1
Home Nation + UK: 5

Results of first 19 voters (half of poll) (19)

Tiered Government: 0
One Container: 0
Home Nation: 10
Sovereign State: 1
Home Nation + UK: 8

Results at 15th August: (29)

Tiered Government: 5.75
One Container: 0.25
Home Nation: 12
Sovereign State: 1
Home Nation + UK: 10

Post-poll discussion

Does this mean that "Sovereign State" gets the nod as it is the only consistent response? Nope?(Grin) I note that the Penwith Project articles are still being reverted regarding UK/England, and not necessarily by editors involved in this poll.... Ah, well!

A little late for the poll, but it has occurred to me that Home Nation option would preclude some areas of the British Isles, including areas that fall under the UK designation. The Isle of Man and the Scilly Isles are not part of any home nation, and the Channel Islands are Crown Property outside of the United Kingdom - however, they are all considered part of Great Britain. There may be islands to the west and north of Scotland (but perhaps not now inhabited) in a similar situation.LessHeard vanU 21:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Part of Great Britain perhaps (I use the word 'perhaps' advisedly), but certainly not part of the UK. In any case these places should be - and are - treated as independent countries for the purposes of the geographical location of places within them. As in: "Ramsey (Manx: Rhumsaa) is a town in the north of the Isle of Man." Not every reader may know the IOM's location or political status, but further identification ("...a crown dependency of the United Kingdom", "an island in the Irish Sea between the United Kingdom and Ireland", etc. etc.) is too unwieldy to be helpful - that's what wikilinks are for. --Blisco 23:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Who considers the IoM or Channel Islands part of Great Britain? Great Britain has three meanings: a historical state that has since been expanded and renamed (i.e. no longer existing under that name); the largest island of the British Isles (i.e. not the Isle of Man); the United Kingdom excluding those parts within Northern Ireland (and the IoM is not in any part of the UK).
The Scilly Isles are ceremonially part of Cornwall and administratively a Unitary Authority within South West England. They do have a home nation. Joe D (t) 12:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
In response to Blisco, "...that's what wikilinks are for." Indeed, but that is what is at the heart of the UK/England debate - the desire to indicate a status/identity prior to the reader following various links to make their own determination. It is noted that the Isle of Man is a dependancy of, but not within, the UK - indicating at least some degree of seperation from the parent political unit. To Joe D, my mistake - I should have said "British Isles", that is Great Britain and the various surrounding islands etc. making up the physical land masses that bear no allegience to any other entity than the UK.LessHeard vanU 00:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Concensus?

Did we reach any consensus with regard to the straw poll? --Mal 16:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the statistics above, it clearly shows that: before the influence of external sources; after the voting of 'serious' wikipedians, Home Nation/Home Nation+UK were very popular results. Draw your own conclusions!

Mdcollins1984 16:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Whilst clumsy, I feel that the "England/UK" (or "(Home Nation)/UK") format should be adopted as being the one that reasonable Wikipedians can agree to; both legal entities being represented. At least any further editing to one or the other would indicate a nationalist agenda (unless a good reason being presented in the edit summary).LessHeard vanU 23:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Clearly this poll has shown that there is a divergence of views. Undoubtably there is a body of opinion from Cornish contributors which supports a view that (for Cornwall at least) supports a "tiered" approach (eg Cornwall, UK rather than Cornwall, England, UK). To ignore this body of opinion is (IMHO) a repression of a minority. Why should 50,000,000 "English" have the right to dictate how (up to) 500,000 "Cornish" see themselves. I don't doubt that this oversimplifies the view, but it does appear to be a repression of a minority. For some Cornish people any identification with "England" is abhorent. Further, I know that at least some in neighbouring Devon would prefer an identification with the UK rather than with England, and I suspect that is true in other geographies. Dewnans 08:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Clearly the poll shows that there are a lot of non-Wikipedians signing up to vote for the tiered option without considering the implications that were discussed in a separate section. This poll is not a Cornwall poll, it is a poll about the opening sentence of all UK places. We are not dictating how the Cornish see themselves. This is Wikipedia, we do not make the laws of the UK, we describe the world. And that is the point. We have to describe the world as it is, and how everyone in the world sees it, not just how some people who live in a particular part of the world would like the world to be. The fact that 50 million "English" (and the rest of the world) people think Cornwall is part of England is a fact equally as encyclopedic as the fact that a few people who live there would prefer it not to be. When coupled with the fact that all tiers of government are also in agreement with this fact it becomes especially worth mentioning.
I've tried being patient and polite, but could all the single issue editors bugger off and lobby parliament or something. Editing Wikipedia will advance your cause nowhere. Saying that Cornwall is not in England on an open-edit encyclopedia with little academic authority will not magically make it so. What do you hope to achieve by removing the word "England" from the Cornish articles on one website? Joe D (t) 11:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I see you live in Australia. I hear there are a lot of people in Australia who want the flag changed, the union jack removed etc. I don't know if it's a majority or not. But it's a fact that I would think is notable and worth mentioning on an article about Australia's flag. But if the government of Australia and everyone else from every other country in the world continued to use the old flag, don't you think it would be a bit weird for an encyclopedia to overlook the official flag and use something else? Joe D (t) 11:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I see this English kangaroo court straw poll is being fixed again by the little Englanders. Why was it closed 2 days early and pro Cornwall UK votes not respected ? Probably the same people who fail to recognise Cornwall´s status are the same ones who object to a United Ireland. The people will decide. Munster1 08:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually there was no set timelimit, I just suggested 2 weeks in the beginning and nobody commented on it. I closed it early because it was turning into a farce with votes being solicited by posting on an external site. Additionally, at least one of the contributors to that page had been unmasked as a sock puppet hereand I'm sure that there were several more. I'm sure you wouldn't be moaning as much if it had been the other way around and votes for Home nation only were being solicited it such a way. Oh and by the way, I'm not a little Englander but Cornish myself and fully support Cornish issues and aspirations. If you want to be taken more seriously on here and promote Cornwall that it would probably be better to do it through actually contributing seriously to the articles rather than altering the wording of the opening paragraphs of Cornwall articles to suit your world view and throwing a little tantrum when you don't get your way. It shouldn't be this way, but opinions tend to count for more if they are from serious wikipedians who actually add to the encyclopedia rather than redlink single use accounts as everyone else can more clearly see your motives. Just a thought Mammal4 12:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography/UK_or_home_nations_in_introductions&oldid=551570066"