Jump to content

Talk:Kent

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Kent/Comments)
Former good articleKent was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 27, 2007Good article nomineeListed
July 17, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 2, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
April 6, 2015Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Coordinates

[edit]

I hope no one minds but I changed the coordinates, as the old coordinates pointed near the border of Kent, in fact possibly even the Greater London side of the border. The new coordinates point to somewhere near the middle of the county, which makes much more sense to me.

Carlwev 15:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Epbr123 15:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Education

[edit]

I have posted a comment on User talk:DinosaursLoveExistence ClemRutter 09:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC) And the response was User talk:ClemRutter#Kent Schools. Any comments, or is this a straight rv- on grounds given? ClemRutter 12:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I missed what sparked this off. Kent does have some bona fide comprehensive schools, is someone saying it doesn't? Or is it just the number in question? --LiamE 14:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to delete the lot for now. This article is of GA status and we can't have giant chunks like this uncited and NPOV.
In my humble experience there are schools in Kent (sorry Kent and Medway) that style themselves as comps. While the Hundread of Hoo school and Minister college (IIRC) are two that i know of set up as comp's in what the reader might understand a true comp to be. most of the others i can think of (Thomas Aveling, in Medway springs to mind) claim to be comps but are high schools (or secondary moderns as the editor in question put it).
In the long term some sort of *robust, cited* comparison of the Kent's education system ie high schools and grammars, with few separate six form collages, and few independent school at both GCSE and A-level. until someone comes up with some bloody good stuff along these lines, this area would be rife with POV and origional research.
hope everyone understands what i'm on about ; Pickle 20:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article

[edit]

Anyone fancy attempting for FA status again?

Just reading the failure points on the previous attempt, I think the MP's should be removed from the infobox. Although they represent areas within Kent, they do not represent Kent itself. The article is about Kent, not an accumulation of facts from everything within Kent. MortimerCat (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Arms

[edit]

Hallo, on the German version of Wikipedia the coat of arms of kent is discribed to have a historic link to the saxon coat of arms (today part of Northrhine-Westphalia and Lower-Saxony). Both have a white horse... Does anybody know more about it? --Westfalenbaer (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try Invicta, White horse of Kent & Flag of Kent. Ian Dunster (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Kent/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I am doing the GA Reassessment for this claim as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have reviewed the article and decided to keep it as a GA. It meets the GA Criteria. Reference [30] is a dead link and should be fixed but otherwise the article is fine and I will keep it as GA. H1nkles (talk) 02:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cantium

[edit]

I support the proposed merge of Cantium into Kent as a good idea. RP459 (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One and a half years later: I agree. --Kurtle (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

River Medway

[edit]

The Environmental Authority described the River Medway as being 112 km (70 miles) long [1]. As such, it would seem appropriate to describe it this way in the text, especially as the rest of the geography section of the article puts metric measures first followed by the older measures in parentheses. Is there any objection to this change? Michael Glass (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

As there has been no response in 72 hours I have changed the text as per the above proposal. Michael Glass (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As this is an article about a UK-related subject, the measurements should be in the form imperial (metric). Mjroots (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I realise that there is controversy over the use of the metric system in the UK, so I don't want to be too dogmatic. However, the Manual of Style says, " [F]or the UK, they usually are metric units for most measurements, but imperial units for some measurements such as road distances..." [2] and the Times Style guide says, in part, "The Times should keep abreast of the trend in the UK to move gradually towards all-metric use...". [3] Nevertheless, in this case, a more immediate consideration is that the other measurements in the section are metric first, so having the River Medway the other way round breaks the style. Also - correct me if you feel I'm wrong - the preference for miles is for road distances, and as the Medway is a river, and the Environment Agency puts kilometres first, perhaps the preference for miles does not apply so much to natural features such as rivers.

So that's my two cents about the issue. However, if you still feel strongly enough to change the order, I hope you'll follow the policy which says, "Where footnoting or citing sources for values and units, identify both the source and the original units." [4]. However, as it breaks the style of the section to change it, I hope you'll leave it as it is. Michael Glass (talk) 11:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a battle not worth fighting. Footpaths are measured in km, it is only road signs that persist in using a measurement system that has not been taught in schools for at least 30 years. OS maps went metric in 1976, so you can't even measure the length of a river using the piece of string method, without dividing your result by 1.6093. --ClemRutter (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Save Rochester Castle

[edit]

www.restorerochestercastle.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.213.229 (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Borders of Kent

[edit]

Didn't Kent used to include a bit of land north of the Thames in Woolwich? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.204.22 (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly did: roughly between Royal Victoria Gardens and Barking Creek. I used to know why, but I've forgotten now. I'll try to find out again. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fabled version, with no discernible element of truth whatsoever, is that it was ceded to the parish of Woolwich in payment of a debt owed by parish authorities north of the river. According to the tale, a fisherman of Woolwich came upon the body of a seaman on the Essex bank, and told the parish authorities. They refused to accept the charge of the burial (as they should have done), and so the cost fell upon the parish of Woolwich. Woolwich sued for their money, and won. The Essex party still refused to pay, and so, by decree of the royal court, a parcel of land was made over to Kent in recompense. A more prosaic explanation is that Haimo, eleventh century Sheriff of Kent, owned land on both banks and, to suit his convenience, his acreage on the north bank was included in "his" county. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The area in question is North Woolwich. The story on that article is that Haimo was granted land on both sides of the river to allow him to tax traffic. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Towns, Cities

[edit]

If you look at the page of any country the largest cities (largest 10) are usually listed in order. Could we list the largest towns and cities in Kent? 94.1.6.78 (talk) 09:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding the location of Medway

[edit]

Please see the discussion of recent changes to articles related to Medway here,

WikiProject UK geography: Medway or Kent


ChiZeroOne (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agriculture

[edit]

Could anyone add a section on the farming and agriculture over the history of Kent? I'm not sure about what has been practiced and could use the help of anyone who does know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monnor9 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the old hop growing farms are now vineyards. Kent now has about 1000ac devoted to aromatic traditional hops for boutique breweries and home brewers. Total hops acreage in the UK is 2500ac, divided among 50 farms. Big breweries import from the continent and the US, and they now have little interest in traditional aromatic varieties. Traditional varieties are highly susceptible to localized traditional diseases.220.244.72.239 (talk) 05:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demonym/s

[edit]

No demonym is shown. I know the adjective is Kentish, but what is the word for a native of Kent? A Kentonian or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.125.134 (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK there is none - it is usually either "A man of Kent" or "A Kentish man", depending on whether he was born east or west of the River Medway.
Kind of alienates half the counties population doesn't it! Justgravy (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The corresponding female terms are "A maid of Kent", or "A Kentish maid". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Starting at 1830

[edit]

Under the Railways sub-section, I see we start at 1830. I suggest that most people who come to an article entitled "Kent" and who then go to a subsection "Railways" would want to know about the railway system today, not in 1830. Sure, some people will be interested in the Canterbury & Whitstable line (wouldn't they have gone to some other article than "Kent"?) but shouldn't the first couple of paragraphs be about "Now" rather than 183 years ago? Afterbrunel (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what on earth is " White British"?

[edit]

89% of the population is "White British"... I was unaware that British Aboriginals were other than Caucasian, terms such as Black Irish & Black Welsh refer to Caucasians, so where does the writer get "White" from, the chalk? AptitudeDesign (talk) 09:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a category used by the official census and we have to go with what the sources say whether we like it or not.--Charles (talk) 09:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because 'Caucasians' is an American term not used here, as very few white Britons originated in the Caucasus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture in Kent/Architecture of Kent

[edit]

@Adam37:

User:Adam37 noted in his edit summary:

(Location is a poor word. Nothing of architecture mentioned in the lead, surprising given its two cathedrals and 26 castles without broaching the possibility of being a mere travel guide.)

Technically he is wrong- as there is nothing in the article about Architecture either. I thought of adding a paragraph with a hatnote- see Architecture in Kent/Architecture of Kent- but can you hatnote with a redlink. Its not as if we haven't had anything to do with innovations in article - I clock 729 EH listed building entries in Medway- and over a thousand each in Thanet and Canterbury, Bromley has 659. I think the question is- do we want to start?-- Clem Rutter (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clem I can always rely on you for your kindly spotted out actual non-adherence to the manual and Lead sections guidance, to which I try and here admittedly have failed to adhere strictly! I am primarily relying on History of Kent. I think some passing mention should be made there and indeed repeated under Kent (as per all other places) of some of the peculiar gems of the county, whilst of course erring on the side of international notability. I should quite like to see something of the modern innovations of Kent but not being a Kentish man do not have a clue where to start on that score, apart from whole segments of industry, if indeed any are internationally notable and engage or attract a good deal of people.- Adam37 Talk 14:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Kent/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Unfortunately, this article clearly does not meet the Good Article criteria. The primary reason for this is the large quantity of un-referenced information that can be found throughout the article, but furthermore several of the references used are poorly cited (books being cited without pages etc). In addition, the structure and quality of the prose leaves much to be desired (for instance, its many single-sentence paragraphs and even single-sentence sections). In all, this page needs a lot of work before it could be accorded GA status, and thus it should have its current rating removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no responses here for a week now so I shall delist this article. Hopefully some entrepreneurial editor out there can get the necessary sources together at some point in the near future and bring this article back up to GA again. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Kent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North Woolwich (end of section ‘History’)

[edit]

It is true North Woolwich became part of the London Borough of Newham in 1965. However, I understood it ceased to be considered part of Kent in 1889 when it was transferred to the County of London as part of Woolwich Local Board of Health, and as part of that same was included in Metropolitan Borough of Woolwich in 1900. Could anyone check whether these are the correct facts? Mithrennaith (talk) 03:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the world of county confusion Mithrennaith. North Woolwich has never left the traditional county of Kent. The various areas you mention only deal with local administration and ceremonies that have changed in recent decades. Local public perception today of North Woolwich is that it is in London, or Newham, not Kent, which adds another layer to any debate. Wikipedia defaults to ceremonial counties, not traditional/historic counties, so here North Woolwich would be described as being in Greater London, which is correct. What is possibly incorrect is to say that when it became part of Greater London (or the earlier County of London), North Woolwich left the traditional county of Kent. There are countless other examples throughout Wikipedia of county confusion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Kent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Land Tenure

[edit]
Isn't it true that Kent had gavelkind land tenure, which is said to have had an effect on its landscape?Esedowns (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

[edit]

Bef147, your edits today should first get consensus. Some of the sport additions are okay but not the rest. We don't put every piece of trivia into an article and you are misusing sources in the Independent Kent part. Eg, the Spectator article is an opinion piece, making it a primary source. What you have written is also a mixture of what the sources say and your interpretation of them. See synth and FRINGE. In general, look at CITE . Just because something on the internet mentions something, doesn't make it necessarily notable or a RSS. (overlooked, this is a late signature)... Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Κάντιον" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Κάντιον has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 7 § Κάντιον until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kent&oldid=1204056934"