Talk:St Just in Penwith

The following is an archive of a discussion which was started at User talk:Pediac, moved here, and continued at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography. While discussion may be continued after this section, please do not alter the archive. The concensus reached at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography was that home nations should be mentioned in all articles about places in the UK. No cencesus was reached regarding the additional mention of the United Kingdom, and this remains optional. Joe D (t) 15:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

By removing context from place articles, which makes the articles less concise and less useful to Wikipedia readers, you give the impression that your motive in editing is not to improve the encyclopedia. I hope I am wrong in considering that posibility. Please stop! Joe D (t) 19:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Steinsky.... By replacing context from Cornish place articles, which makes the articles less concise and less useful to Wikipedia readers, you give the impression that your motive in editing is not to improve the encyclopedia. Why is it so necessary to emphasise Cornwall is in England all the time? Surely using "United Kingdom" is neutral enough to suit both POVs, and is still factual. Also the continual badging of Cornish articles with English flags is not helpful. Please stop! Pediac (t) 20:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Your childish reply does not fill me with confidence. There are several reasons why I consider you and Mammal4 to be incorrect that using UK is adequate and WP:NPOV, but right now arguing that point is not near the top of my priority list. I have again reverted your edits to the infobox however, which are just plain incorrect, and had an irrelevant edit summary. Joe D (t) 04:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok guys - calm down! This England/United Kingdom issue keeps cropping up again and again see Talk:Carbis Bay. Neither England nor Uk is wrong. However, unlike other England geography articles, most writers for Cornwall entries use Uk. This is the consensus, and this opinion should be respected. I have tried to come up with some compromise on this, by using both England and Uk in the description (e.g St Just, Cornwall, England; a constituent of the United Kingdom. I think that this is the fullest answer, and covers both points of view, however, I have had no feedback on this. Unless some sort of agreement is reached, then this will continue to crop up again and again. I'm sure we could all spend our time better by improving the depth of content in these articles, rather than reverting back and forth over this small point! :) Mammal4 20:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I think UK should be correct, it is the political entity that is legally recognised outside of the British Isles (ps. that is a useful geographical term without political connections). The United Kingdoms are those of England and Scotland, and as the principality of Wales is included within the definition of Enland in that context - then Cornwall in whatever political interpretation is too. (er, does that make sense?) Mind you, I agree with the opinion of "lets get the article detail out, and worry about policy later".LessHeard vanU 23:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

However, unlike other England geography articles, most writers for Cornwall entries use Uk.

In my experience this is not true. A small number of editors systematically edit out references to England from Cornish articles, often making them factually incorrect in the process, e.g. with Land's End, Sennen, St Just and Cape Cornwall. For example, the reference to England that you deleted from the intro to the Penzance article was added by a Mebyon Kernow member who recognises that Wikipedia is here to describe the world as it is, not how they wish it to be. Most of the early articles about Cornish places described them in England, until these few hard working editors removed all such references.

This is the consensus, and this opinion should be respected.

Where was this consesus agreed upon? There is an appearence of consensus because a few POV pushers have devoted a lot of time to creating that appearence (and not much time to anything else on Wikipedia), which other Wikipedians without the vested interest have not been able to keep up with.

I have tried to come up with some compromise on this, by using both England and Uk in the description (e.g St Just, Cornwall, England; a constituent of the United Kingdom. I think that this is the fullest answer, and covers both points of view, however, I have had no feedback on this. Unless some sort of agreement is reached, then this will continue to crop up again and again. I'm sure we could all spend our time better by improving the depth of content in these articles, rather than reverting back and forth over this small point! :) Mammal4 20:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss this further, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography may be the best place for it. Joe D (t) 04:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I did not edit out the England on Penzance's page as Steinsky suggests, but actually put it back in to try and resolve an editorial conflict. He is either confusing me with Pediac (who removed the England) or Reedgunner the hard working Mebyon Kernow editor? :) Mammal4 07:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

In reference to the comment about a small number POV pushers editing England out of Cornwall articles - having just looked through a lot of the articles in question, I'd say that firstly, it is not a small number but many different users who often also add significantly to the article with useful local knowledge, not rv ping pong with the term England (in the style of User:Team Kernow). Secondly, a Uk/England consensus was not agreed apon as such, but the fact that so many Cornwall editors write this means that it is worthy of discussion - Just because the original stub creator wrote England does not make it bullet proof! - I have been trying to get some sort of agreement on this Steinsky, but you have ignored/not commented on the suggestions thar I have made! Mammal4 08:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)(t)

[edit] Here is some previous discussion from Talk:Carbis Bay that I think is relevent

Steinsky, Is there a wiki-policy on this Uk/England thing with respect to Cornwall? A lot of the Cornish towns and villages entries I feel could do with expansion/wiki-integration, and as I know something about this, I am prepared to put in the work here. I notice this England/Uk thing cropping up on several pages going back and forth between the two designations. Some of these seem to be motivated by Cornish nationalist sentiment; the place for which I think is here where there is a well balanced article discussing both sides. I personally think that Uk is the better way of stating the designation. It’s not wrong to say England, but England is not a fully autonomous country (there is no English parliament), being part of the United Kingdom. It would make sense to me that the location be stated using the larger political unit - the United Kingdom signs national treaties and has membership of the EU, not England. Carbis Bay, Cornwall, England, UK would also be fine I suppose, but I think it is a bit longwinded! What do you think? - R 11-Apr-06I don’t really want to get stuck in the middle of some editor clash, I would rather spend my time improving these Cornwall entries, but would also rather that the entries I expand be consistent - Mammal4.

England is probably the most concise way of describing it--go for a larger area and you loose some of the details, go for a smaller area and half the readers won't know what you're talking about. 95+% of settlements in the UK use the home nation, so it's also good to keep some consistency between articles. Joe D (t) 15:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

There is some merit to what you say about consistency, it does seem that a lot of the articles use the home nation. However, it certainly seems much more prevelant in the Cornish settlement articles that either Uk is used, or that there is some friction over the use of terms. It seems sensible to come to some sort of compromise about this, otherwise people who have a problem with the idea of Cornwall being part of England will continually keep coming in and changing the wording to country of Cornwall, or Duchy of Cornwall - I even saw Palatine of Cornwall somewhere! If wikipedia is about consensus then it would seem sensible to include this variation in opinions into the articles. I think that United Kingom is actually more concise, as it includes more information about the geo/political status, but understand that you think England should be included. How about something like "Carbis Bay is a bay, beach and village near St. Ives in the county of Cornwall, England, United Kingdom" or "Carbis Bay is a bay, beach and village in the southwest of England in the county of Cornwall,United Kingdom"? - Mammal4 11-Apr-06

Don't see the issue here. England and UK are both true; both terms are equally well known and England is the more precise term. So England should be preferred. If there is a consistency issue we can change the other articles. DJ Clayworth 17:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Cornwall has a small but active nationalist element. The debate seems to be whether changing the style of one of the identifying larger political units. as an edit of itself, is NPOV. A very loose analogy would be the spelling of Quebec/Quebecque being a matter of edit/reversion.LessHeard vanU 18:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)