User talk:Skinsmoke/Sandbox/Civil parishes/Kernow
Former Districts
[edit]The table needs a column for the pre-2009 districts/boroughs. DuncanHill (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Duncan, I mentioned this on Skinsmoke's talk page (3rd/4th indent) - using the refs column was suggested. Although from viewing the table in 1024x768 resolution or higher, I think we would be able to insert an extra column for the pre-2009 district. Maybe we can have a look at that after the table as it stands is fully populated. Zangar (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- The pre-2009 are just as relevant as the old UDC/RDCs, etc, and should have at least the same prominence. I'm not familiar with how tables work, so leave the technical stuff to others. As the table stands it gives the false impression that the UDC/RDCs were succeeded by the modern unitary authority. DuncanHill (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- If we can possibly find a way of getting a column into the table, I would agree that it is desirable. The problem does not apply for most of the country, but it does affect not just Cornwall, but also Bedfordshire, Cheshire, Durham, East Riding of Yorkshire, Herefordshire, Isle of Wight, Northumberland, Shropshire, Wiltshire; most of Wales; and parts of East Sussex, Kent, Lincolnshire, North Yorkshire and Worcestershire. I am not sure how we can do it that will show up at a lower 800x600 resolution, which it needs to for those with older monitors or poorer eyesight (at 1024x768 it shouldn't be a problem). It may have to be handled by the References column (which it already is, in effect, through the population references). Comments from editors in other parts of the country have suggested overwhelmingly a preference for showing the pre 1974 districts (as that change affected the whole country, and marked a major shift from more localised administration to larger bodies) rather than the intervening districts, perhaps because it clearly shows which towns effectively lost their independence. If we can't manage to get both columns in, then I think I agree. Let's see what possibilities there are once the table is up and running. However, whatever we come up with should apply across all the subpages of List of civil parishes in England. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's just occurred to me that another possible way of showing this could be by way of a map (if we can find someone capable of producing one). The maps that Jza84 produced, that have been used at the metropolitan counties (see List of civil parishes in Greater Manchester) may be a possible way forward. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- If we can possibly find a way of getting a column into the table, I would agree that it is desirable. The problem does not apply for most of the country, but it does affect not just Cornwall, but also Bedfordshire, Cheshire, Durham, East Riding of Yorkshire, Herefordshire, Isle of Wight, Northumberland, Shropshire, Wiltshire; most of Wales; and parts of East Sussex, Kent, Lincolnshire, North Yorkshire and Worcestershire. I am not sure how we can do it that will show up at a lower 800x600 resolution, which it needs to for those with older monitors or poorer eyesight (at 1024x768 it shouldn't be a problem). It may have to be handled by the References column (which it already is, in effect, through the population references). Comments from editors in other parts of the country have suggested overwhelmingly a preference for showing the pre 1974 districts (as that change affected the whole country, and marked a major shift from more localised administration to larger bodies) rather than the intervening districts, perhaps because it clearly shows which towns effectively lost their independence. If we can't manage to get both columns in, then I think I agree. Let's see what possibilities there are once the table is up and running. However, whatever we come up with should apply across all the subpages of List of civil parishes in England. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- The pre-2009 are just as relevant as the old UDC/RDCs, etc, and should have at least the same prominence. I'm not familiar with how tables work, so leave the technical stuff to others. As the table stands it gives the false impression that the UDC/RDCs were succeeded by the modern unitary authority. DuncanHill (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Whatever we use (maps or table) I repeat that the inclusion of pre-74 districts and the exclusion of post--74/pre-09 districts is misleading and inaccurate. To go with the current layout just to be consistent with counties which haven't had similar changes is not acceptable. If some counties need a modified form of the table then we should modify it to reflect the reality, rther than to suit some master-plan that ignores referenceable, verifiable fact. DuncanHill (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's not a question of ignoring things, more of how do we physically get it to work. There is a limit to the width of a table that works and displays correctly, so another column is impossible. There has been very strong support for including the pre-1974 districts (and until this last week, none for including the 1974–2009 districts even in counties that have undergone the unitary mega-reorganisations). Personally, I don't think it is helpful to have two different formats running, as someone looking for the pre-1974 district in Cumbria would also expect to find that information when they turn to Cornwall. So how do we then manage to get the information in, without losing what is already there. If we can get maps produced on the lines below, then I would hope that would give the 1974–2009 districts enough prominence, without causing too much disruption.
Skinsmoke (talk) 11:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Alphabetical order
[edit]All the "St"s should sort before Saltash, (i comes before l in the alphabet). DuncanHill (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's not how the autosort facility on Wikipedia does it. It treats it that "a" comes before "t". If you want it that way you have to spell out "Saint" in full (my personal preference, but again, not how we do it on Wikipedia). Skinsmoke (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Then you have to pipe them so they appear in the correct order. See Category:Civil parishes in Cornwall for "how we do it on Wikipedia". DuncanHill (talk) 09:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- As I don't know how to fix the table to make it sort correctly, I have asked for hep at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 135#Help with table - alphabetical order of St. DuncanHill (talk) 09:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- this is how it is done. DuncanHill (talk) 09:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- I am perfectly willing to add the sort key myself to save you some effort, will need you to stop adding parishes for a few minutes though. DuncanHill (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Have done all up to St Samson. DuncanHill (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:DuncanHill, but belongs here
[edit]Hi Duncan. Sorry about that. I was that tied up with problems with the Geograph2Commons tool, which appears to be having serious problems with the new look Wikimedia Commons page, that I hadn't noticed your plea for me to stop adding parishes while you sorted it! Do we have consensus for this format of ordering across the United Kingdom, or just in Cornwall (mind you, not many places are as saintly as Cornwall in their naming policies!)? I note that Category:Districts of England and Category:Metropolitan boroughs use the alternative alphabetical order where St comes between Splott and Stalybridge, rather than between Saffron Walden and Sale. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Do we need consensus to use correct alphabetical order? If those categories are incorrectly sorted, it's because no-one has bothered to add defaultsorts to the articles correctly. DuncanHill (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the Manual of Style makes it clear that both formats are acceptable (as is a format that groups Saint, San, Santo Sankt and whatever together), and that there isn't a correct or incorrect alphabetical order. Similarly with McMacs. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if both are acceptable then let's go with what is already established for Cornwall. For place names in Britain we're unlikely to find many in Santo or Sankt. I would note that both the Ordnance Survey and the Reader's Digest sort St at Saint in their atlases, as does the Times Atlas of the World, the Oxford Dictionary of the World, and A. D. Mills' Popular Dictionary of English Place-Names. DuncanHill (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think something with fairly wide reaching consequences like this should be decided by just two editors. I would suggest we ask for opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Question: Should alphabetical order mean alphabetical order, as used in reputable reference works, or should it mean not-in-alphabetical-order, because this is Wikipedia and we don't like do do things properly? Sorry, but I don't see what the problem is. If you're going to have a table that sorts by alphabetical order, then do so. Otherwise, don't bother. I do not see the point of making a table sort in an order that bears no relation to reality. DuncanHill (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Just because you favour a particular version of alphabetical order does not mean that other editors will also favour that version. As already explained, Wikipedia specifically does not favour one version over another. The fact that you only accept there can be your preferred option demonstrates an unwillingness to consider that other people may have equally valid views.
- The reality that you quote is let down by your own examples. You state that the Ordnance Survey sorts by your preferred version, but that is patently not true in all cases : their website places St between Spalding and Stirling. The Office for National Statistics places St between South Hill and Torpoint. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England places St between South Norfolk and Stockton-on-Tees. Cornwall Council places St between South Petherwin and Stithians.
- All these examples are just as valid as the ones you quote, and demonstrate that, rather than the dogmatic approach you appear to be insisting on, there are varied opinions on what constitutes an alphabetical order.
- Rather than try to force one person's preferred version, I happen to think we should try to reach a consensus on a version preferred by the Wikipedia community in the United Kingdom. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Another thing we have to bear in mind here is that we are talking about the civil parishes in this list. Although I agree with Duncan that for villages etc that ordering St Such-'n'-Such under Saint is perfectly acceptable and possibly preferable, Skinsmoke is correct when he says that the name of the civil parish is officially set down in legislation. Therefore what is the name of the civil parish? - is it officially St Such-'n'-Such or is it Saint Such-'n'-Such but abbreviated? Whether the name of the civil parish was derived from a village (which most likely would be from an abbreviation) may not be of relevance.
- My personal preference would be to treat it as St as is in the current version on List of civil parishes in Cornwall. I don't think doing it this way would mean it was a not-in-alphabetical-order as Duncan says, as don't forget it is about letters; and the text displayed on screen (and therefore letters) are St. I just think this would be how people would search for info as rarely do you see anywhere listed as Saint Such-'n'-Such even though it is the non-abbreviated form. But I do agree we should ask further and get a broader consensus, even in respect to my first point. Zangar (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've asked users at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography to express their preferences here. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll just say I really don't have a preference here (come on guys, why does it really matter anyway?) as long as whatever is done is consistent. One thing of relevance (and probably should be incorporated into the table) is the ONS code available here. The ONS codes for parishes are assigned (with a few exceptions) in alphabetic order, so Advent is 00HE001, Altarnun is 00HE002 etc. South Petherwin is 00HE126 and St Agnes 00HE128, so Cornwall sorts St as St not Sa. However, in other counties with St X parishes the generally preferred sort location is Sa not St (the ratio is 4:1), for example Roborough is 18UK049, St Giles in the Wood 18UK050 and Shebbear 18UK052. It must be said that Cornwall has more "St X" parishes than the others combined (I think). Also the names according to the ONS are typically "St. X" with the exception of St Ives, Cambs and St Annes-on-Sea both of which are written as "Saint", this may or may not reflect a legislative distinction.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Are the majority of readers going to be interested in the codes? The problem is that this would require an extra column, which would mean leaving a column out, or the table will not display properly. We already have a problem getting in the districts 1974–2009 for those new unitaries that have been created. Each of the county pages already includes a link to the Office for National Statistics page where the codes for both the English parishes and Welsh communities can be downloaded in Excel format. A note of caution on the codes though: they can be up to 10 years out of date, as they are only updated each new census (the current ones I think in 2003 for the 2001 census), and so parishes created since then have no codes. Similarly, of course, unparished areas don't have codes. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well irrespective of how old they are they are "current" and so relevant (if a tad arcane) when the ONS changes codes, that can be updated of course, along with other data. The codes for Cornwall are recent as they were established with the unitary Cornwall Council after all. Actually that fact is why there is a change in the sorting, the change in ONS practice Richardguk mentions below was "recent". Therefore the most recent changes - the new unitary authorities - list St as St not Sa. I would point out that if table width is a real problem, why include the "District" column at all, as its just slightly redundant for this table? (And its a misnomer as Cornwall isn't a district). Consistency across the country at the price of silliness at the local level isn't really desirable imo.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- The district column becomes relevant once the Isles of Scilly parishes are added. Technically Cornwall is a district (as are all the unitary authorities). So far, these pages have been organisaed on a ceremonial county basis. I've commented elsewhere that it may be the appropriate time to reorganise them on a district basis, which has advantages and disadvantages, but would at least free up a column. That would free up a column which could be used to indicate either the 1974–2009 district or the ONS code (I suspect the district would prove more popular, but I could be wrong). Consistency is relevant as these pages are sub-pages of List of civil parishes in England. The average reader would expect to find the same format for each of those sub-pages they looked at, which is, of course, what would also happen in a paper encyclopedia. I agree that, for the mega-unitaries created in the last couple of years, it's far from an ideal solution (it will be a complete waste of a column for Herefordshire, Isle of Wight, Northumberland and Rutland, for example, where the "districts" are identical to the ceremonial county). On the codes, you are correct about the date. On checking the latest version, they are indeed updated to December 2009 (the last version was only up to 2003). Skinsmoke (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Would it be relevant here to point out that parish names are not necessarily unique within a ceremonial county, nor even within an administrative county? (For the administrative and ceremonial counties of Cambridgeshire, Cumbria, Derbyshire, Devon, Kent, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, North Yorkshire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Suffolk; and the ceremonial counties of Cheshire, Cornwall, West Yorkshire, Wiltshire.) For example, Gamston, Rushcliffe and Gamston, Bassetlaw, both in Nottinghamshire. The 2009 parish names do seem to be unique within a district or unitary area, despite the districts that merged into unitaries last year. — Richardguk (talk) 03:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Actually there are a pair of duplicates in Cheshire, Chorley and Cuddington, and possibly others elsewhere too. The ONS disambiguates these by use of parentheses - so Chorley (Alderley) and Chorley (Cholmondeley), but in both cases the name of the parish is "Chorley". That said, I'm not convinced that is a problem really for these articles.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Also in Herefordshire and, from memory, possibly elsewhere but, as Nilf says, it really isn't a problem for these lists. They link through to the correct articles, and are differentiated by the former rural district anyway. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yikes! If all brackets are assumed to be ONS disambiguators (doubtful, perhaps), then the full list of intra-unitary duplicates is: in Cheshire East: Chorley (Alderley / Cholmondeley); in Cheshire West and Chester: Cuddington (Broxton / Eddisbury); in Herefordshire: Brockhampton (Bringsty / Old Gore), Linton (Bringsty / Penyard), and Newton (Golden Valley South / Hampton Court); and in Wiltshire: Charlton (Brinkworth / Upavon). And similarly, intra-district duplicates are: in the Ryedale district of North Yorkshire: Welburn (Amotherby Ward / Kirkbymoorside Ward); and in the Waveney district of Suffolk: Flixton (Lothingland / The Saints). I should have known better than to expect a sane nomenclature! But don't let me distract you from the lists.
— Richardguk (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Great isn't it! It may be some consolation to know that even the ultra-organised Germans have one or two! There was a time when the district used to force a change of name with clashes like these. I recall Macclesfield Borough Council forcing Bollington, formerly in Bucklow Rural District, to change to Little Bollington to avoid confusion with Bollington, formerly Bollington Urban District. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yikes! If all brackets are assumed to be ONS disambiguators (doubtful, perhaps), then the full list of intra-unitary duplicates is: in Cheshire East: Chorley (Alderley / Cholmondeley); in Cheshire West and Chester: Cuddington (Broxton / Eddisbury); in Herefordshire: Brockhampton (Bringsty / Old Gore), Linton (Bringsty / Penyard), and Newton (Golden Valley South / Hampton Court); and in Wiltshire: Charlton (Brinkworth / Upavon). And similarly, intra-district duplicates are: in the Ryedale district of North Yorkshire: Welburn (Amotherby Ward / Kirkbymoorside Ward); and in the Waveney district of Suffolk: Flixton (Lothingland / The Saints). I should have known better than to expect a sane nomenclature! But don't let me distract you from the lists.
- Also in Herefordshire and, from memory, possibly elsewhere but, as Nilf says, it really isn't a problem for these lists. They link through to the correct articles, and are differentiated by the former rural district anyway. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Actually there are a pair of duplicates in Cheshire, Chorley and Cuddington, and possibly others elsewhere too. The ONS disambiguates these by use of parentheses - so Chorley (Alderley) and Chorley (Cholmondeley), but in both cases the name of the parish is "Chorley". That said, I'm not convinced that is a problem really for these articles.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Would it be relevant here to point out that parish names are not necessarily unique within a ceremonial county, nor even within an administrative county? (For the administrative and ceremonial counties of Cambridgeshire, Cumbria, Derbyshire, Devon, Kent, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, North Yorkshire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Suffolk; and the ceremonial counties of Cheshire, Cornwall, West Yorkshire, Wiltshire.) For example, Gamston, Rushcliffe and Gamston, Bassetlaw, both in Nottinghamshire. The 2009 parish names do seem to be unique within a district or unitary area, despite the districts that merged into unitaries last year. — Richardguk (talk) 03:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- The district column becomes relevant once the Isles of Scilly parishes are added. Technically Cornwall is a district (as are all the unitary authorities). So far, these pages have been organisaed on a ceremonial county basis. I've commented elsewhere that it may be the appropriate time to reorganise them on a district basis, which has advantages and disadvantages, but would at least free up a column. That would free up a column which could be used to indicate either the 1974–2009 district or the ONS code (I suspect the district would prove more popular, but I could be wrong). Consistency is relevant as these pages are sub-pages of List of civil parishes in England. The average reader would expect to find the same format for each of those sub-pages they looked at, which is, of course, what would also happen in a paper encyclopedia. I agree that, for the mega-unitaries created in the last couple of years, it's far from an ideal solution (it will be a complete waste of a column for Herefordshire, Isle of Wight, Northumberland and Rutland, for example, where the "districts" are identical to the ceremonial county). On the codes, you are correct about the date. On checking the latest version, they are indeed updated to December 2009 (the last version was only up to 2003). Skinsmoke (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well irrespective of how old they are they are "current" and so relevant (if a tad arcane) when the ONS changes codes, that can be updated of course, along with other data. The codes for Cornwall are recent as they were established with the unitary Cornwall Council after all. Actually that fact is why there is a change in the sorting, the change in ONS practice Richardguk mentions below was "recent". Therefore the most recent changes - the new unitary authorities - list St as St not Sa. I would point out that if table width is a real problem, why include the "District" column at all, as its just slightly redundant for this table? (And its a misnomer as Cornwall isn't a district). Consistency across the country at the price of silliness at the local level isn't really desirable imo.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Are the majority of readers going to be interested in the codes? The problem is that this would require an extra column, which would mean leaving a column out, or the table will not display properly. We already have a problem getting in the districts 1974–2009 for those new unitaries that have been created. Each of the county pages already includes a link to the Office for National Statistics page where the codes for both the English parishes and Welsh communities can be downloaded in Excel format. A note of caution on the codes though: they can be up to 10 years out of date, as they are only updated each new census (the current ones I think in 2003 for the 2001 census), and so parishes created since then have no codes. Similarly, of course, unparished areas don't have codes. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The Office for National Statistics changed from the traditional "Sai St Saj" to the computer-friendly "Ssz St Sta" a few years ago (compare 2001 guidance with current guidance). I think we should follow them as the traditional order is no longer common (if it ever was), is potentially dependent on full stops which are now rarely used in modern British abbreviations, and has never been supported in sortable wikitables.
- Note though that this means it is important to know whether the official form is "St" or "Saint" since not all official names are abbreviated.
- The official name of a parish can be changed by council resolution (as can ward names since 30 December 2007), so while statutes are a (relatively) reliable source, they are not usually definitive.
- (I also think we should not use full stops with abbreviations, even where they are used in statutory names, except for post towns where they are relevant to optical character recognition.)
- — Richardguk (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Richardguk is correct in stating that a district council can change the name of a parish under the latest legislation. However, that change only takes effect once a notice has been issued under Section 75 of the Local Government Act 1972 (the notice formally advises the Secretary of State, Royal Mail, Ordnance Survey and Office for National Statistics of a change of name). These notices are listed annually in the Bulletin of Changes to Local Authority Electoral Arrangements, Areas and Names in England published by the Department for Communities and Local Government. Skinsmoke (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
