Template talk:Cambridgeshire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject UK geography (Rated Template-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This template falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 High  This template has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

The form and content of the template[edit]

Just a note that this template should use Template:County as its standard. This is like the rest of England, Template:Greater Manchester, Template:Warwickshire, Template:Cheshire, Template:Cumbria, Template:Merseyside, Template:Lancashire, Template:Wiltshire etc etc. Hope that avoids any confusion. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The information in this version is wrong. I have reverted to the version as originally created. Chrisieboy (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you please state what is wrong with it? Perhaps it can be fixed? Is there any reason why this template should not be like the rest of England? -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Many of the settlements included under cities and towns are neither cities or towns. Also the history of Cambridgeshire article does not discuss the Soke of Peterborough (which was considered a part of Northamptonshire at the time of writing) or Huntingdonshire.
Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Chrisieboy (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Likewise. But it was you who reverted it without any explanation or justification (both here on in the edit summary). I have not edit warred. As I made the change I justified it immeadiately. That said, you have not answered my questions, but skirted round the issues in hand....
What inaccuracies are there? The towns were originally taken from Category:Towns in Cambridgeshire. Do you have a source these settlements don't form part of Cambridgeshire? Perhaps most importantly, why does this template not conform with the rest of England? - an outright revert was neither engaging and, again, rather against the principles of WP:OWN. You also demonstrate a fundamental flaw in understanding with what navigation templates are for; they are for navigation, not discussion. Furthermore, this template is for the ceremonial county of Cambridgeshire, we do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries. "Historic Cambridgeshire" should not be mentioned as it's a neologism, anachronism and content forking. I'm happy to get input from the wider community if you still feel aggreived at the standardisation. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree that the template should conform with the style and format used in most of the other county templates. However, I can see that there were some changes that could have been made to the version posted by Jza84 to improve it. Some of them seem clear to me on carrying out checks with material I have to hand, but others cannot be so easily checked without more research of sources than I have not been able to do: this is largely because the articles that are being pointed to by Jza84's proposed template are themselves ambiguous or internally inconsistent: e.g., Cherry Hinton states on one place that it is a village, and in another that it is a town. In another example, Northstone is included, but it is only a proposed town, and doesn't seem to yet exist, so far as I can tell, Given that I consider such templates should reflect current information, I think it best to remove it until it does come into existence. Some redirections were needed in the list of cities and towns as well The fact that History of Cambridgeshire does not include information about Peterborough is surely a case for attending to that article, rather than a reason for rejecting Jza84's template. I would also omit the "District of" prefixes from the districts given in the template (and aren't they just ordinary districts, and not metropolitan districts anyway?) So, with that in mind, I propose the following edited version of Jza84's template:

Ooops - forgot to sign:  DDStretch  (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


I think you misunderstand Jza84. Many of the settlements included under cities and towns are in fact villages, I am not disputing that they are in the county. Also, I was talking about the content of the 1911 EB article which omits any mention of half of the present county, not advocating the use of historic counties. Chrisieboy (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I understood him very well. This is why I have corrected the entries under Cities and Towns in my revised template. Also, the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1911) article may well omit large parts of what is now in Cambridgeshire, but that is no reason to pay attention to it, is it? We just accept that it is now out of date, and so more recent sources for the present situation need to be considered. Which is why I am inviting you to comment on my revised template, which I think you forgot to do just now.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I was addressing my remarks to Jza84. Chrisieboy (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I've lost track of who's commented where now and where exactly the remaining points of contention lie. Was the proposal above made by DDStretch or Christieboy? To clarify here though, my concern was largely with the "non-conformity" of this template against the rest of England. If this had been a simple issue of towns vs. villages it would have surely been more helpful to outline the discrepencies (?); I merely added those that were already in the town category. Even that aside, it is surely more helpful to have a navigation template for major settlements in the county, rather than linking to obscure former divisions of land? It seems odd to me to introduce "Historicial Cambridgeshire" (a neologism) into a ceremonial/contemporary county template too, national-uniformity or no national-uniformity.
Simillarly, if a History of Cambridgeshire omits Peterborough and other aspects, surely this is not an inaccuracy on the part of the template, but of the linked article. I would have expected boundary reforms to be a major part of the county's history! Linking a "History of..." article is fairly common for ancient counties. I'm also unsure how the 1911 encyclopedia encompasses the last century's history on any given topic.
I suppose the question now is, is there an objection to the use of Template:County as a layout (itself drawn upon the standard Navbox template)? -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, it was me who wrote and proposed the revised template. I've signed it now, so people can see who was saying what a bit more. Sorry for any confusion! As people can see, my comments are in agreement with Jza84 here.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem. If Chrisieboy would be so kind as to take a look at my (and DDStretch's please) points and address them in that case...? Again, if there are still grievances, we could get input from WP:UKGEO and/or WP:ENGLAND. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(reset) I am amazed to see the template once again reverted, including all errors I have outlined above. To be clear:—

  • Cambridgeshire is not a metropolitan county, it therefore contains non-metropolitan districts. Borough or district is unsatifactory, as Peterborough should not be seperated from that category.
  • Many villages are incorrectly listed under cities and towns in both versions. The version in place also includes a non-existent town.
  • The history link is irrelevant to the template and discusses only one half of the ceremonial county. Ancient county (pre-1974, to which you have specifically referred) and ceremonial county (defined post-1997) are not the same thing and we need to be clear what we are talking about.
  • The topics appear arbitrary and random. Why is (see also, a list of) civil parishes included under cities and towns, while (a list of) places and parliamentary constituencies are separate topics? Indeed, why is parliamentary constituencies included, while local government or lieutenancy, say, are not?

Can you point me to where it says county templates must be uniform? I see that you have both created several of the templates you cite and have edited many others. As an interested party, I believe the original version was better fit for purpose. Please revert and discuss such drastic changes here. Chrisieboy (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Please make sure any text changes retain the current layout. If there are disputes about the content, that can be resolved and amended, but the style should remain the same as the other footers (this "navbox" style is now used thoughout articles of many subjects and creates a consistent look that has been lacking in the past). MRSCTalk 00:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Chrisieboy, can you please be so kind as to acknowledge the other users here? This isn't a user-to-user battle of ideology, but a fairly minor dispute over layout. It also now appears your views are in the minority, and there is a gathering consensus to use the standard layout. Some of your points seem a little confused to me too; non-metropolitan districts have district, borough or unitary status, this is quite verifiable. The link to civil parishes clearly says "see also" too, so that's not a powerful point for objection either. Might it be more appropriate now to work with the standard template, rather than against it? The lists of towns can be cleaned up quite easily. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I apologise for my apparent incivility. I was addressing both Jhz84 and DDStretch, who was invited to contribute to this discussion by Jhz84. I see that MRSC has reverted the template and that is the editor I ought specifically to ask to self revert. However, anyone is free to take up my general comments, which I do not believe are at all confused. In particular, if anyone can point to the relevant policy it would be helpful. Chrisieboy (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the apology. You are correct that I was asked to comment on this by Jza84, but you should note that he was not certain that I would agree with him, and, in fact, if you look at my proposed template (above), you will see that I did not. Consequently, just to make things clear, Jza84 has not been canvassing for opinions that match his own here. In fact, I raised problems with his suggested template, almost all of which you repeated in your detailed list of objections after my posting of them and my suggested revision. So, to repeat myself, can I gently ask you what it is that is left to which you object and which has brought you to revert again?  DDStretch  (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Pending a response to my comments, I have reverted the template to the version in place before yesterday. Chrisieboy (talk) 13:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Chrisieboy: You have reverted a version which is a standard format for counties. You objected to the version Jza84 put up. I have addressed all those and the version which you reverted answered your concerns. Why have you not commented on the version I put up (above), and which was laregely the form which you have just reverted. I have reverted it back prior to you explaining why you now find this version so objectional. Pkease do make your specific comments about the version that you have just reverted.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

DDStretch, please revert yourself, pending the resolution of this discussion. My objections, in which I have addressed your comments, are as stated above. This behaviour is unnacceptable and, as far as I am aware, there is no policy which mandates it. Chrisieboy (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Taking the discussion forward (a breakpoint)[edit]

There are many objections Chrisieboy lists "above", most of which seem to me to have been addressed or dealt with otherwise(hence my reversion). Could he list the outstanding ones now, please?  DDStretch  (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

To assist Chrisieboy, here is the template that he is now reverting. Can he provide a detailed list of his specific objections to this template (i.e., the outstanding ones)? Doing that (which if required can be done by cut-and-paste of previous text) can help us focus on the correct points of objections left, and make sure we are not confused, or said to be confused.

Thank you.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(cut and paste)

  • Cambridgeshire is not a metropolitan county, it therefore contains non-metropolitan districts. Borough or district is unsatifactory, as Peterborough should not be seperated from that category.
  • Many villages are incorrectly listed under cities and towns in both versions. The version in place also includes a non-existent town.
  • The history link is irrelevant to the template and discusses only one half of the ceremonial county. Ancient county (pre-1974, to which you have specifically referred) and ceremonial county (defined post-1997) are not the same thing and we need to be clear what we are talking about.
  • The topics appear arbitrary and random. Why is (see also, a list of) civil parishes included under cities and towns, while (a list of) places and parliamentary constituencies are separate topics? Indeed, why is parliamentary constituencies included, while local government or lieutenancy, say, are not?
  • Can you point me to where it says county templates must be uniform? Incidently, this template was congruent with the city and district templates that appear alongside it.

(further)

  • The correct title is the County of Cambridgeshire, ceremonial is an adjective. Chrisieboy (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree DDStretch's actions are perfectly permissable. Several points of Chrisieboy's have been taken on board. There is also a majority here to have the standard layout. Perhaps if you (Chrisieboy) could outline your remaining objections per DDStretch's point we can work to a resolution now?... You said History of Cambridgeshire isn't relevant, whereas I (and I think the others) believe it is. Can you explain your standpoint again, as the point you have made implies to me that it is the failing of the article (which doesn't address boundary reforms adequately) not this template which is the issue here. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
In response:
  • "Cambridge is not a metropolitan county."... and? We know this. This isn't stated anywhere. Are you sure you've read the template properly?
  • "Borough or district is unsatifactory, as Peterborough should not be seperated from that category.".... No. Non-metropolitan districts have district, borough or unitary status. This is verifiable as has been said.
  • "The history link is irrelevant to the template and discusses only one half of the ceremonial county.".... This is subjective on your part. We believe it is relevant. If the History of Cambridgeshire article doesn't encompass the dynamics of boundary reforms, then that's an issue for that article, not this template.
  • "Can you point me to where it says county templates must be uniform?".... well yes, here, on this page. It doesn't make sense at all to have totally different localised templates accross the UK. Can you point to us where county templates must not be uniform?
  • "The correct title is the County of Cambridgeshire, ceremonial is an adjective.".... maybe, but ceremonial provides context and a frame of reference very useful to users. There are several types of county system in existence.
I believe that addresses your points. Cutting and pasting old talk is neither helpful or engaging when users have spent time and effort to reply to these issues already. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The second bulleted point by Chrisieboy is not correct, and I think it has possibly been just transferred over without considering the newly revised template which I asked him to specifically consider. The objection clearly applied to the old template proposed by Jza84, but I took care to make sure it no longer applied to the new one I asked him to address, and which is provided in this section.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
DDStretch asked me to cut and paste those of my earlier comments which remain unaddressed. Jhz84 is obfuscating and frankly verging on bullying. To DDStretch, my second bullet point stands. Chrisieboy (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Chrisieboy but in general I find the points offered by the other users more compelling, the whole point of templates is to offer standardisation, the problem with the History of Cambridgeshire article is that it is almost unaltered from the EB1911, not that it isn't reasonable to include it on this sort of template. Ceremonial County is currently the most easily verified set of county boundaries, but it is good to be clear on what basss the template is operating. The division between a village and a town is pretty arbitrary and subjective - at what point does the change occur. Perhaps the approach taken in Cambridgeshire, list those places with a population over 5000 is the most straightforward. David Underdown (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Accusations of bullying are neither helpful or civil, as I'm sure you know. I doubt you have evidence of long term abuse, personal insults, foul language etc, and so I think that's a point of feedback I'll have to overlook I'm afraid. Disputes happen; there's no need to make commentry on specific users here, it is convention to discuss content not contributors. Indeed an accusation of bullying isn't going to override an effort towards a consensus or having your contributions reviewed and ammended by others. Nor will it divert attention from the issue in hand.
You've reverted the template a few times now, but not provided a rationale that has the hearts and minds of others on board. If you cannot discuss your objections there's little scope to facilitate a consensus that has your points included. As I've stated, twice already, your standpoint has been disected and responded to.
Again, feel free to get other's involved if you cannot accept the three other users working for a standard template. We have diametrically opposed views (why on Earth, I'm not sure) but, "standing by old and contested comments" isn't going to make an outright revert feasible. Discussion with suggestions is a much more likely solution is it not? Please stay on point and try to make clearer your remaining objections. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Chrisieboy claims that his second bullet point stands on the grounds that Cherry Hinton is a village, not a town. However, as I stated in my contribution of 00:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC), when I first proposed a revised standard template, the article for Cherry Hinton is inconsistent in this matter: the first line of the lead for it states that it is a town, whereas at other places in the article, it refers to it as a village (see sections 1, 2 and 3, etc). So in the absence of verified information, I felt it best to include it. Seeing as Chrisieboy is in a better position to verify this matter, I would have naturally expected the effort to be directed at correcting the Cherry Hinton article, rather than using its presence in this template to voice an objection to the entire template. Additionally, the fact that one entry is incorrect in that part of the template does not equate in any version of English usage I know to there being "Many villages" incorrectly listed there. I did suggest that cut and paste could be used to assist you in specifying the remianing problems, but I would also have thought that this would not have been done blindly, but with some editing to make sure that the residual problems, present in the recently revised template were highlighted. Sadly, it seems I assumed too much there. My apologies.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)