Talk:Rutland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
OpenStreetMap held a mapping party in this area on 14-15 October, 2006 to make a creative commons licensed map that may be used in Wikipedia articles.

Thanks to all those wikipedians that took part.

See http://www.openstreetmap.org for details of other planned mapping parties.


Photo[edit]

I have added a self-taken photo of Oakham Castle in response to the image request. I'll leave it to others more expert to add it to the page if/as they see fit. It is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oakham_Castle.jpg Njjh201 21:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too small[edit]

I have removed the assertion that Rutland is "too small to have its own M.P." on the basis that although true, the comment is not very meaningful, because UK electoral boundaries do not tie in with county boundaries in any case. (I think I'm right to say that they are calculated in terms of population and that each parliamentary constituency area is an accumulation of parishes). So although Rutland by itself is too small to form a parliamentary constituency itself, the county is by no means exclusive in its position of not having a 'county MP'. Njjh201 23:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under the old system (in force when both that text and your comment were made) the English Boundary Commission used the administrative counties as their initial review areas but would pair counties together in order to iron out imbalances in the numbers. Formally each relevant report covering Rutland and other small areas would include a statement to the effect that it was too small to have one constituency of its own and would thus have to be paired with a neighbouring county. (Most of the other cases are unitary authorities, paired either with their neighbours or with the two-tier county they were carved out of.)
The precise building blocks are local government wards, though the BC did take into account other factors including both physical geography and a desire to limit the number of local authorities within a single constituency.
New legislation puts a greater emphasis on equality of numbers over over factors so county boundaries will be less followed in future. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nottinghamshire[edit]

The source for the assertion that Rutland was originally part of Nottinghamshire is 'Muirs Historical Atlas'. Rutland Weekend Television is personal recollection - though the only detail I can offer is that the station logo was a cow (rather than a conventional globe) whose markings formed a map of the world.Alan Peakall 15:22 Oct 18, 2002 (UTC)

Um, actually I've since learnt that Rutland was chosen as the name of Rutland Weekend Television because the idea of the smallest county having a whole TV station especially for the weekend was rather funny - so the name Rutland was deliberately chosen due to a specific characteristic of the county - I think there is probably enough of a relationship to be worth a mention. 80N 22:40, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
As far as I know, Rutland Weekend Television has absolutely no connection with the county of Rutland. I suggest this reference be removed. 80N 15:06, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I was about to suggest the same. It doesn't even qualify as misc trivia.--JBellis 16:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Naming[edit]

What does possibly derived from being a retreat of the Leicestershire RatCE mean? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was a direct quote from "Notes & Queries" of 1909 as referenced, but I think it was probably an error introduced by the journal in scanning & OCR of the original paper journal into electronic format. I can't explain it so I have removed that part of the sentance. I hope it stil makes sense & throws some light on the origin of the county name.— Rod talk 23:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:EH icon.png[edit]

Image:EH icon.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rutland inaccuracies[edit]

I am a little confused as to why you undid some perfectly valid changes I made to the Rutland entry (March 19th) and replaced them with the original, less accurate version. Surely wikipedia is about providing users with correct information, rather than locally biased partial truths? As someone who works with spatial data on a daily basis, I would be very interested to hear your justification!

Just to be clear, Rutland is NOT a county anymore and hasn't been since 1974. I refer you to the 'beginners guide to UK geography' produced by the ONS: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/counties_nonmet_ua.asp

and to the related map:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/downloads/UK_LADUACty.pdf

and to the latest list of UK counties:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/downloads/31_10_01_County_names_and_codes_12_00.xls

I hope this helps with clarification - I would be nice if you could impliment these changes, otherwise I will do it.

Best wishes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.76.215 (talk) 09:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is a county can be somewhat vague as the term has several meanings; see Counties of England for some discussion. Rutland is a county (traditional, ceremonial and postal) but currently it is not formally an administrative county but a unitary authority (as stated in infobox). I think most people would say Rutland has a stronger claim to be considered a county than Tyne and Wear which appears in that ONS list of counties. Ned de Rotelande 12:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I left the following at User talk:MRSC in reply to the above this morning... probably should have put it here. anyway I'm copying and pasting now...
Sorry for butting in, but i noticed this discusssion going on. I checked the legislation that created Rutland a unitary authority: The Leicestershire (City of Leicester and District of Rutland) (Structural Change) Order 1996, and there I found the following:

Constitution of new counties 8.—

(1) Leicester and Rutland shall cease to form part of Leicestershire.

(2) A new county shall be constituted comprising the area of Leicester and shall be named the county of Leicester.

(3) A new county shall be constituted comprising the area of Rutland and shall be named the county of Rutland.

(4) Section 2(1) of the 1972 Act (which provides that every county shall have a council) shall not apply in relation to the counties of Leicester and Rutland.

My understanding is that it is both a non-metropolitan district and a county. This is also the case with Herefordshire (and the order establishing the current district contains similar wording).

Lozleader (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's useful to have a discussion about these things. I do, however, contend that my original revision was more or less accurate and did allow for Rutland's historical county status.

Thanks to Lozleader for the link to the 1996 statutory instrument. This is in itself a little ambiguous, as despite it mentioning a 'Rutland County' in the text, in the heading for the entire document it refers to the 'District of Rutland.' If you refer back to my original revision of the Wiki entry (around 19th March I think) you will see that I stated that 'Rutland can accurately be described as a District'.

It is useful to be clear in the wiki text about these ambiguities. ONS, aware of these issues with geography have produced a useful Gazetteer which should clear things up definitively: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/ons_geography/Gazetteer_v3.pdf

On p41, they state that by legal definition all UAs are also Counties, but 'for many purposes UAs are treated as districts'. From this, I see the appropriate hierarchy as being Unitary Authority (first and foremost), then County (as all UAs are officially counties - not the other way around, all Counties are NOT UAs) with 'district' being a term used to refer to all UAs, Met and Non-met Counties, London Boroughs and other Local Authority Districts.

Finally the ONS produce a regularly updated database of standard name codes (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/snac.asp) - Rutland is consistently identified as a UA first and foremost and so I think its Wiki entry should reflect that.

Cheers, Adam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.77.248 (talk) 08:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted because, regardless of whether you think Rutland should be described as a county or a unitary authority, it is not appropriate to get into a lengthy discussion near the start of the article. PatGallacher (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rutland was a county prior to 1974 and has been so ever since, despite the various changes in local government. The Local Government Act 1972 only redefined ADMINISTRATIVE boundaries for the purposes of local government; it did not in any way make an official decree that any existing counties were to be abolished, or that the existing county boundaries were to change. Government statements at the time and on several occasions since have confirmed this. It's strange that "Wikipedia policy" places so much emphasis of purely administrative boundaries, which have been subject to frequent changes in recent years, and almost completely ignores the real county boundaries. Of course, given that the various local authorities have also done exactly the same thing by erecting welcome signs in the wrong locations (i.e. at their administrative boundaries rather than at the actual county boundaries), and that even the Ordnance Survey prints such administrative boundaries on maps it's not surprising that there is a lot of confusion. The Association of British Counties website has a much more detailed explanation about the difference between administrative counties as defined for local government purposes, offial ceremonial counties, and the real, traditional counties. 87.115.207.212 (talk) 08:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leicestershire and Rutland Project[edit]

I am seeking opinions on the setting up of a Leicestershire and Rutland project.

At its minimum, it is a good way of grouping articles, making it easier to maintain and improve them. With a few active members, it can become a useful area for localised discussion.

I am not specifically recruiting members at this stage. I am just seeing how much interest there is, and if editors think a project would be a worthwhile resource.

Please comment at Talk:Leicestershire#Leicestershire_and_Rutland_project ++ MortimerCat (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am making WikiProject East Anglia. Rutland is included in this project.Wilbysuffolk talk 20:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Rutland. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 16:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rutland. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

District type[edit]

To clarify: Rutland has been a unitary authority and a non-metropolitan county since 1997. It is no longer a non-metropolitan district, but used to be one from 1974 to 1997.

  • A unitary authority has the powers of both a county council and a district council.
  • A non-metropolitan district exists in places that have a county council and a district council. In those cases, it is the lower of the two tiers and has the powers of a district council. From 1974 to 1997, Rutland was a non-metropolitan district in the non-metropolitan county of Leicester.
  • A non-metropolitan county has a local government with the powers of a county council (with the exception of Berkshire). These may be unitary authorities that have the powers of a district council as well, or they may be subdivided into districts which have their own district councils. Many "non-metropolitan counties" are not really what people would consider to be a county (e.g. single-city unitary authorities like Southampton) but that is the official usage.

I know, it's confusing. In 1974, local government was reorganised into a fairly consistent system but subsequent governments have tinkered a lot with it. Hope this helps. Anywikiuser (talk) 12:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That does not clarify, nor does it cite any sources. In particular, it fails to explain why some unitaries have wards and some divisions. Some unitaries were districts which were given the additional powers of a county; some were counties which acquired the responsibilities of a district/borough. Nedrutland (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but those differences are minor. One of those minor differences is that counties that became unitary have "electoral divisions", while districts that became unitary (like Rutland) have "wards". I got the information from the specific articles (hyperlinked in my above post) where it is sourced. Anywikiuser (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused however about the "Rutland County Council District Council" issue. The statement isn't sourced. It appears that the council renamed itself that way because it wanted to be called a "County Council" but couldn't legally remove the "District Council" part. But was that before or after Rutland became a unitary authority? Anywikiuser (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I remember it, the decision was made, ca 1996, in the interim period when preparing to become a unitary. The everyday form is Rutland County Council (as seen on the website), the longer form (or "Rutland County Council D. C.") is reserved for formal legal purposes inc. on the Council Tax bill.
The Council could not, as you put "legally remove the "District Council" part", because the council was not a new legal entity (as a unitary) but a pre-existing non-metropolitan district council which was granted additional powers. (thus, the unitary has wards, not divisions, and has a different electoral cycle from the counties). Nedrutland (talk) 08:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A look at the Rutland.gov.uk website finds that the "Rutland County Council District Council" form is used 292 times; for example, on the Council's constitution https://www.rutland.gov.uk/EasySiteWeb/GatewayLink.aspx?alId=32828 and here; "A vacancy has occurred in the office of Councillor for the Cottesmore Ward of Rutland County Council District Council". Nedrutland (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the District Council claim again. It should be verified with a citation from a reliable secondary source before it is restored to the article, per WP:PROVEIT DrFrench (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Straying off topic[edit]

The article starts by reference to the county and then moves more specifically into local government. An example phrase in 'history' is Rutland became a non-metropolitan district of Leicestershire. This is a very common mistake on wp with county articles. Rutland did not become anything. All that happened was it's local govt responsibilities came under the remit of another entity. Rutland in 1974 was the same Rutland as in 1874 and 1774. Many things about it changed such as population, industry, local govt, and so on, but that is all. The cause of this and numerous other mistakes is the repeated and very confusing usage of terms such as district, Rutland, Leicestershire, county, etc. Unravelling the confusion will take some time if anyone is interested. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bisbrooke[edit]

I am a little surprised to see no mention of Bisbrooke Farm on this page. As a major Rutland family attraction, surely it's worth a mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.181.163 (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia not a business directory. Sumorsǣte (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst the ostrich farm is certainly a talking point amongst the locals and gets the occasional confused non-Rutlander stopping to look at the birds, I'd hardly call it a family attraction; I don't think they even do tours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.30.9 (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to the IP. I thought this was a hoax and part of long term vandalism until I looked up the farm. See no reason to include it as does not seem notable.Charles (talk) 06:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2019[edit]

Could you please allow me to edit the main article? I have a few improvements to make, of an ornithological nature.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.181.163 (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Edit requests are requests to make specific, precise edits. Requests for lowering in page protection level can be made at WP:RFPP. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'd basically like to replace the flag of Rutland with a big picture of an ostrich. Would that be allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.181.163 (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. What do you think? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In Popular Culture[edit]

Suggest expanding 2nd para to include Louise Doughty's 1998 novel Honey-Dew. Set in a Rutland village, it also mentions the recently successful 1997 campaign to de-amalgamate Rutland from Leicestershire. I note that Doughty is a female writer and understand you may not want to add her to your exclusively male list.

Edit request[edit]

Please can I make a request to link the postcode link beginning with LE to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LE_postcode_area as the page does exist, it is just not linked correctly.

Done: Thank you for contributing.
I believe your edit request was improperly formatted, by the way-- so ensure it's more organized next time. I added a header to separate it from other conversation. You also neglected to sign the request. I do not know if the latter is required, albeit courteous. Urropean (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missing ref[edit]

@DragonofBatley: you've added a ref tag with the name ":0", but provided no definition for it. Could you please fill that in with your source? -- Fyrael (talk) 04:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is that sorry Rutlandshire or something else? Thanks DragonofBatley (talk) 11:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2024[edit]

the area is wrong it is the same as the population 77.99.65.173 (talk) 10:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done: now 147.4 sq mi (381.8 km2). Nedrutland (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rutland&oldid=1207027964"