Talk:Kent/Archive 1

message: There are few cities in the US named after Kent.
Kent, Washington even has a Canterberry fair every year.
:Yes, take a look at Kent (disambiguation) which is mentioned at the top of this article. Stan 05:53, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  older entries 

message: Peter Salway talks of an unnamed tribe in the Weald that built more hillforts, and the Atrebates occupying west Kent. Sheppard Frere just has the Regenses there. Anyone know who's right? adamsan  08:24, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Iron Age tribes

message: I dont know enough about it to edit but I notice the paragraph about Kentish Men/Men of Kent appears twice in this short article. Someone who understands this should combine MRSC 05:34, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The article talks of "residents" as being Men of Kent or Kentish Men. Maybe things have changed, but the tradition WAS always that only NATIVES of East Kent were Men of Kent and NATIVES of West Kent were Kentish Men. (I'm a Man of Kent). Timothy Titus 00:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you weren't born in Kent (pre 1888 county) then you can't be a Man (Maid) of Kent or a Kentish Man (Maid)! Mjroots (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I get your point here. However, if you're suggesting for some reason that there is no longer such a thing as a "Man of Kent" or "Kentish Man", then I beg to differ. I suspect the entire membership of the "Association of Men of Kent & Kentish Men" would also disagree! Timothy Titus Talk To TT 09:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Men of Kent/Kentish Men

message: Somehow this article keeps on getting repeated within itself. I have corrected it each time by going back to the revision before the problem crept in. I apologise if any changes are lost. MRSC 15:54, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Kent Kent Kent Kent

message: I have been trying to get to grips with this list, writing at the least stubs where names had just "appeared". Since I have been doing this over the past few weeks I have also discovered the :Category:Villages in Kent list which will obviously duplicate (where the Category is added on an article of course) the Kent list. The Category article mentions "at least 400" villages. I have checked one list with the other and found some villages on one and not the other and vice versa. 
In the same vein there is also a :Category:Towns in Kent.
Could we not reduce the size of the Kent article by cutting out the list completely? There are only two cities - and one of those isn't in the modern Kent! We then only need to make reference to the two categories, which should then gradually include all of each category.
Any comments, please? Peter Shearan
:I second that.  The categorisation system is always a bit of a disaster when things like this happen!  DJR (Talk) 21:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely sure how this works lol. Anyways, the first paragraph says "Kent's only city is Canterbury" well, i beleive Rochester was up until 1997 a city(due to its cathedral) then Medway became a seperate authority and in its own right it is now ran like a seperate county but is, classed as a city. So surely it has 2 citys? Medway City and Canterbury? 82.45.93.28 01:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Simply - No. See talk elsewhere (ie Rochester) and here. Our illustirous leaders at Rochester Upon Medway BC managed to neglect to set up the correct trust to hold the city status when they were merged with Gillingham BC to form Medway UA. See also the article City status in the United Kingdom. Pickle 16:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kent: List of Cities, towns and villages 

message: The article mentions a nuclear power station at Dungeness. Would it be over fussy to correct this by pointing out that there are TWO nuclear power stations at Dungeness, built side-by-side? Timothy Titus 00:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: be bold and change it then, on the other hand there are many locations of nuclear power plants with more than one reactor.... Pickle 10:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It does seem right to correct it - so I have! - they are very different stations, owned by different power companies, and operated independently. The older one (built 1965) is about to close, though the other still has a few years in it... Timothy Titus 19:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't be suprised if the magnox (the old one - Dungerness A) gets a life entension of at least 10 years! Pickle 16:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dungeness 

message: Adding the flag brings the the article in line with other counties such as Cornwall whom also display their flags 88.110.33.234 20:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  kent flag

message: I removed the photo because:
*It was placed in the inappropriate History section.
*There is not a Sports section in the article where it be better placed.
*The editor was anonymous, who was editing other cricket articles.
Although, maybe there should be a brief mention of the Kent Cricket club, and the photo may be relevant then.  MortimerCat 23:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kent Cricket Club Photo 

message: Is Rochester a City or a Town?  In the Cities, towns and villages it is listed as a city, whereas the Rochester article lists it as a Town. I know there was some form of administrative error somewhere, but we need to be consistent in both articles. 
I think that the Cities, towns and villages section should be removed to be replaced with a statement in the intro. "Kent has 1 (or 2) Cities and 33 (or 32) Towns". The links moved to the "See also" section.
MortimerCat 23:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its very particular to the specific conundrum of what a city is (vs a a town) in the UK (something very special and rare) compared to say the US where it isn't. yes technically there is only 1, but every time one says that there must be a huge "but" explaining why the situation has arisen. Pickle 01:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Statement at the begining of the article is wrong, Kent has TWO cities. Rochester also has a Cathedral, along with Canterbury. Canterbury City is in fact a County in it's own right, within the County of Kent, but that just complicates matters. K997bnd 13:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that it helps much with this discussion, but the wiki article on Rochester states (and from my own local knowledge, believe this to be the case) Rochester had long been a city but was accidentally stripped of its centuries-old city status in 1998 through local government reorganisation. This was not noticed by Medway Council until 2002; it has since written to the Queen asking for city status to be conferred again. so it is both a modern town, and a historic city! regards, Lynbarn 12:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  K997bnd - City status in the UK is not due to the presence of a Cathedral see City status in the United Kingdom. County borough (which Canterbury was pre the 1970s) were abolished with local government reorganisation and Canterbury has been part of Kent (as in the administrative council as well as ceremonial county) proper since the 1970s. Pickle 14:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No matter what the judicial status of the City of Rochester is- on the ground it is spoken of as a city and the grounds for claiming it isn't are paper thin. The point was so subtle that Judith Armitt, CEO of the incoming Medway Council missed it. Today we have had another anon. editor changing the lead- to reflect what most of the world believe.  Castle + Cathedral + continuous occupation for 2000+ years = a city. We need to have an agreed wording that explains,coincides with popular belief or convinces- reverting will not convince.ClemRutter 13:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  In the same sentence we have another problem Maidstone is described as the county town of Kent-- but do ceremonial counties have county towns-- the word ceremonial is ommitted. If Medway was to county town what would it be-- where are the precedents?ClemRutter 13:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rochester 

message: I don't think the Parish councils section belongs in this article, it talks about Parish councils in general, not Kents Parish councils, perhaps we could change it to talk about this third tier of government but point to List of civil parishes in Kent(although that link appears in Kent#Cities, towns and villages) - Olive Oil -ŢάĽɮ - 02:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to explain the structure of government in Kent in this article. Part of that is that a third tier exists below the traditional county and borough councils. In some area its of very little importance but in others, eg Swanley, the town council seams very active and prominent. Pickle 11:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kent#Parish councils]] 

message: Whereas much of the UK adopted a comprehensive education system in the 1970s, Kent County  
 Council (and Medway Unitary Authority) are among around 40 Local Education Authorities (LEAs) 
 still providing selective education through the eleven-plus, High Schools and Grammar 
 Schools.
*This sentence is now inaccurate- the eleven plus only exists in Kent Medway(and maybe Bucks). 
*You need to explain the High School, is not a High School as described in the linked article but a secondary modern school, that is a school that provides for the bottom 80%-70% of the ability range as defined in the 1944 Act ( I need to check that), a school described in Wikipedia as secondary modern school. 
*It is not a POV that 77% of Kent children are directed to a High School, while the other 23% can choose to go to any school, subject to spaces. 
These are important facts that Overseas Teachers applying for jobs in Kent need to know, and indeed any parent who is considering to move into the county.
I am aware that there are strong views eminating from those who seek to maintain the status quo, we just need to be careful that the facts are represented in a way that is intelligible to readers from outside the county.
ClemRutter 12:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kent, Medway and Bexley still have the old fashioned system but its different. The Education Act 1944 set up the tripartite system of Tripartite System; Grammar schools, Technical School and Secondary modern school. Kent has only got Grammars and Secondary moderns left (although the latter mostly call themselves "High Schools" or even Comps. You'ld need to dig up the ratios as the "traditional" view of the 11+ was 25% passed and 75% "failed", and I've a feeling we don't have that current spilt anymore. As above this area is strewn with POV and passionately held views, but we do need explain this unusual system compared to the rest of England, especially as its an en masse area of Grammars. Pickle 19:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * The 2008 Selection Scheme in Medway (in cooperation with Kent) is described in full in the file http://www.medway.gov.uk/och20070220r-4.pdf?file=56645 and the 23/77 selection rate is explained on page 12 para (v).ClemRutter 23:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * True 1944 did set up a tripartite system on paper but this system was rarely implemented and by the 1963/5 when the CSE was set up Technical schools were effectively dead- those that still existed having gone the GCE route or the CSE route. An interesting and contraversial article would be one describing how KCC avoided enacting Circular 11/66 and 10/68 by claiming that it was doing so, by setting up three experiments Homesdale, Hoo and Sheppey to test if this were the correct way forward. I haven't the facts easily to hand and didn't personally experience it being in Manchester at the time. A legacy of all this is the massive confusion that remains as to Kents unique terminology.ClemRutter 23:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cheers, its some time since i knew all the details when i was at the baffeling stage of choosing a secondary school. IIRC in Medway for example Chatham Grammer (or was it Chatham South) and Fort Pitt were both Technical Schools. Pickle 15:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed Sheppey does have Middle schools. That can be proven very easily. Although it has a 3 tier school system its students are still dumb 82.45.93.28 01:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education 

message: This article is getting quite overloaded - I'd like to suggest creating a separate Kent County Council article.  At the moment Kent County Council just redirects to Kent.  Any objections? Pgr94 09:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.Kent as currently defined is one and half times the size of Luxembourg. The question still remains, as to the boundaries- do we now include Bromley, Bexley, Greenwich in the county template, or just Medway ?ClemRutter 09:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well KCC would cover the current administrative county, presumably leaving Kent to cover the ceremonial county (that includes Medway). That doesn't answer the valid question over the parts of Kent now in London, the first wave (Greenwich and Lewisham) and second wave (Bromley and Bexley)... Pickle 12:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I also think it would be a good idea and agree with the notion to make KCC into a separate article.  14:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have removed much of the politics/government detail which can now be found in Kent County Council.  I also introduced a new section "Government" which can summarise the KCC page. Pgr94 18:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kent County Council - separate article 

message: Should the county emblem (thumb on main page) be changed to the county arms instead? Richard Thompson (Talk! | Contribs) 10:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A difficult problem- the county symbol belongs to the us all, KCC seem to claim the county arms. http://www.civicheraldry.co.uk/kent.html  http://www.answers.com/topic/invicta-motto If this is true, then we need the Kent Arms, and the Medway Arms- if not, then the county arms seems appropriate. If it is the case of putting both of them there, (POV) I am opposed- as the Medway Arms were only drawn up for LG Reorg, and lack tradition. If we remove that the KCC arms must go. I do have a jpeg of Medway arms that can be uploaded if necessary. If we do ommit both, then I am sure that intermittantly, they will be helpfully replaced, I think an inline comment should be made to explain the ommission. The arms should definitely be included on the Kent County Council article
ClemRutter 14:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: FWIW, I would say not - the Arms ARE related directly to the KCC, as are Medways equivalent. I have noticed that the page does include two different versions of the Kent Invicta emblem though - wouldn't one be sufficient?  regards, Lynbarn 14:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The arms are acceptable, but they're not required.  This article is about the ceremonial and the administrative county.  Dorset (featured article), for example, includes the county council coat of arms without those of Bournemouth and Poole borough councils.  Sice there is a separate KCC article, though, we're not really missing out by not having them on this page.  Joe D (t) 15:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  County Arms 

message: Should any information about the recent earthquake be added here (quake on 28/4/07). Measured 4.2 on richter scale according to Yahoo!
*The geography section might be the place for it. Epbr123 12:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikinews is the place for it.  I suggest adding it to History of Kent in the context of previous events.  I'm not sure the geography section is the best place for it, but equally, it would not be entirely out of place there.  Joe D (t) 12:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that would be pure recentism.  Similar minor tremors occur not infrequently throughout the UK (and many other parts of the world) and with no significant damage having occurred, it will have no lasting significance beyond the occasional anecdote of a not very impressive event. Kevin McE 14:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it should be mentioned. It is the largest UK earthquake since the 2002 Dudley earthquake, which has its own article. I expect that someone will create an article for this one, if they haven't already. It has already appeared in the Ashford article.  MortimerCat 15:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I pushed it in the geography/geology section -in a low key way referencing to The Guardian . But I can't see it needs more for reasons set out above.ClemRutter 09:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I like the way you did that with a general paragraph on seismic activity. One question that comes to mind, was the epicentre always offshore? I know the current one was, but were all the others? I only asked because I have been reading up on previous quakes, but have seen no mention of epicentres. MortimerCat 09:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Short Answer haven't a clue. Deductive:- memory tells me there are two plates that join under the channel, so this is where the activity will be. Elimination:- As kent sn the 'cradle'of UK geology, and the weald is extensively covered in all basic textbooks, if it were to have had an onshore quake in 1776 -1950 this would also be documented. I don't have the reference books written after plate tectonics had been accepted. I will researcdh furtherClemRutter 10:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Earthquake

message: This section was missing, so I have cobbled together a piece- but it needs copy editing, as it is too historical in its POV. Perhaps an transport guru can take a look and do some surgery. ClemRutter 11:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK i have had a go at rail and aviation, I'll try and have a stab at ferries, road and buses later in the week. I'm probably writing too much, but when I'm done we can cut it down by moving the bulk off to "Transport in Kent" (or something) and just summarising the info on the Kent article. Pickle 18:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than add more, should we not be considering a separate Transport in Kent article and moving the historical text there with a summary and more information on current details added in? Regan123 00:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats what i had mind -cheers ;) I will try and write something about the other stuff when i get some time... Pickle 01:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transport 

message: Thank you for nominating this article as one that may meet the Good Article Criteria.
As you will see I have failed the article at this time.  Failure is in relation particularly to item one of the GAC criteria.
I understand that failure of a GA nomination can be a little frustrating but I urge you to continue with the article to get it to this status.  I also note, politely, that the general problem/s with the article appear to be related to its length and therefore the difficulty for one or two persons to proof read it in its entirety. I suggest that the History section could be trimmed down quite a deal more (and that material directed to the alternate main article) and some other parts (eg: History, Geography, & Transport) could be cut from the article and diverted to their own alternative articles.
Further to assist you in getting the article to a stage where it can be resubmitted I have provided a very close examination of the first two areas of information, Introduction (or Lead) and History.
I hope that this first detailed examination will give you a good indication of the level of editing being looked for throughout the rest of the article.
The second part of my examination then provides a number of examples of other errors etc but I note that there are many more that I have not detailed here else the comments regarding GA assessment on the talk page would become too large.
Finally I suggest that you initially go through the article making adjustments in the first two sections.  Once adjustments are made, placing the template  after each part that is completed will provide all editors with a guide of what is completed in this fashion.
# The lead should be a summary of the major points of the article - capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any.  That does not appear to be the case at the moment.
# In the lead the sentence (Formerly Rochester had city status.) provides no context and should be expanded to clarify.
# In the lead the sentence (Its name comes from the Kingdom of Kent.) is at odds with the second para in the History section.
# In the lead the sentence (The cement, papermaking, farming and aircraft industry are among local industries that have been in decline in recent years, while tourism and service industries have grown to take their place.) uses the word or its derivative industry on three occasions – needs to be rewritten to vary – consider removing the word industry from (aircraft industry) by using a pipelink.
# In the lead the two short sentences (Famous residents of Kent have included Charles Dickens and Charles Darwin. Sir Winston Churchill's home Chartwell is also in Kent.) needs rewriting to expand (two small sentences do not make a paragraph in this case) and so as to remove the tautological use of the word Kent (twice).
# In the History section some years are linked and others are not – you should decide to link them all or none of them – I suggest the former.
# In the History section link (Lower Palaeolithic) to itself and not just to Palaeolithic.
# In the History section consider adjusting the sentence (being applied as a name to the eastern part of the modern county) to - being applied as a name to the eastern part of the current  county area – or similar words.
# In the History section the sentence (the area was later known as Cantia in about 730) probably should be adjusted to - the area was later known as Cantia from about 730.
# In the History section the word Rochester in the sentence (Rochester is another of Kent's religious centres, the see being founded in 604) may have to be linked again depending upon what editors do with the suggestion above concerning this place.  In any event Rochester needs to be given context through the article.
# In the History section the sentence (they had frightened the Normans away, as the Normans merely used Kent to reach London) should be adjusted to remove the repetition of the words the Normans.
# In the History section I wonder if the paragraph starting (Gavelkind was one of the most interesting examples of the customary law of England; it was, previous to the Conquest, ..) should not be moved up one paragraph for better chronology?
# In the History section wikilink or explain the content detailed as (the wasteful strip system).
# In the History Section are you able to provide an inline reference to the facts displayed in these two sentences (In the 14th century, Kent land was valued at 8d to 12d an acre, against 4d to 6d an acre in the midlands. However in 1873, at Worth Primary school, one sixth of an acre was owned by 21 people.)?
# In the History section please remove the space between the word Kent and the reference in this sentence (of the men of Kent. [8]  )  Please also removed the space in the sentence (and the postal address of these districts still includes Kent. [8] )
# In the History section there should be spaces between the reference and the next word in this area (Canterbury became a great pilgrimage site following the martyrdom of Thomas Becket.[11]Thomas Beckett was canonised in 1246. [12]Canterbury's religious).
# In the History section – I believe there should be no apostrophe in the word (it's).
# In the History section remove the extra full stop in this sentence (towns in 1667.[14].)
# In the History section should the word kentish be capitalised?
# In the History section the final paragraph jumps out of the section and seems to lack context – especially the last sentence (William Lambarde was an even earlier writer, in the 16th century.[21]  ) This paragraph should be adjusted.
General examples:
# Spacing errors as described above in sentences and references such as (caused physical damage in Folkestone. [30] )
# Punctuation errors such as shown in the sentence (Kent County Council's headquarters in Maidstone.[34] while Medway's Offices are in Strood and Gillingham.)
# Spelling and word repetition errors such as shown in the sentence (North Kent is heavily indistrialised with industries such as the cement industry at Northfleet and Cuxton, brickmaking at Sittingbourne, shipbuilding on the Medway and Swale, aircraft design and construction and engineering at Rochester, chemicals and papermaking at Dartford, and oil refining at Grain.)
# Misplaced areas – which belong at a separate See also sub-heading such as (For other settlements see:
::List of places in Kent
::List of civil parishes in Kent
::Category:Towns in Kent
::Category:Villages in Kent)
# Spelling errors such as (north-east, south-west) and (were Bypassed and then)
# Referencing format errors such as (see Isle of Sheppey#Early aviation for more information) and (ref Times Atlas of the Second World War, ed john Keegan, 1989) and ([United States Air Forces in Europe]].
# Grammar – typographical errors such as shown in the sentence (The other World War Two ear airfields) and (at the three tarmaced airfield)
# Misplaced areas such as Military Kent and Man of Kent or Kentish Man? Both of which probably belong in the History section or at least earlier in the article.
I am sorry for being the bearer of bad news – but once again I hope my comments will assist editors in reaching GA status and I urge you to continue as further work on the article will get it to GA and there is no reason it could not also reach FA in time.
Cheers --VS talk 23:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA assessment as at May 12, 2007

message: Bravo , on the 24 hr intensive copy editing done yesterday. I think in pictures, which I believe should add to the article not just illustrate it. 
*So what does the NASA map add, I have added Commons Category:North Downs that may be more suitable to illustrate landscape. 
*Why so many trains- particularly the Golden Arrow that is pictured outside Kent according to the caption.
*No industry image
ClemRutter 23:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trains photos were added by me. Fr the transport section, i like the M2 pic (we lack a better "roads" in Kent pic), as for aeroplanes - well there aren't any good *current* ones out there I'm afraid. As for trains, IMHO the CTRL one is too big, but I'm not photoshoper so not sure how to crop it, etc (without copyvio, et al), but for this section it is very pertinent. I initially wanted to have one of a commuter EMU but i dropped that before i uploaded the rail section (just don't seam to look right). Now the Golden Arrow was the historic boat train service to the Kent ports from London, which IMHO a) best described (given the dearth of "old" SECR, SER, LCDR, Southern pics, etc) the main point of Kent's railways b) its a loco from this end of the world, the South London Line it is on, is part of the Catford Loop Line of the Chatham Main Line. Anyway given the less historical version of "Transport in Kent" as summarised on this article this image could go. Similarly the RHDR train could go from here to a tourist section. Pickle 01:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Congratulations to all editors who assisted in improving this article since it was last reviewed (see above).  The 70 or so new edits that have adjusted the article since then have addressed nicely all previous concerns and added a few other GA components.  It is well presented and easily passes the WP:GAC.  I note for the record all of the registered editors that provided 5 or more edits to this article as follows (with the numbers after user names indicating their total edits at time of final GA assessment):Epbr123(167); Peter Shearan (59); O1ive (38); MRSC (27); Faedra (23); Lynbarn (20); Morwen (20); ClemRutter (); Regan123 (13); Keith Edkins (13); MortimerCat (12); Adamsan (12); Pickle UK (11); Old Moonraker (11); Renata (11); K8Fisher (10); Nlu
(9); Pgr94 (8); Dpaajones (7); Kevin McE (6); Richtom80 (6); Djr xi (6); Steinsky (5); Yadevol (5);
YurikBot (5); Cunningham (5); VTEX (5).
Editors may wish to cut the following template  and paste to their user page or other suitable location - which will provide the following template: Well done!--VS talk 10:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Passed

message: I moved much of the information about MPs, districts etc into the Kent County Council article where I would suggest it is more appropriate, but it seems to have crept back into this article again.  Unless there are any objections I will delete again. Pgr94 14:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now removed the unnecessary info. Epbr123 16:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done.  Actually, I also had in mind removing the list of MPs in the box on the right because it also exists in Kent County Council.  It would unclutter the article a bit.  Any thoughts? Pgr94 17:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure the MPs belong in Kent County Council, as the two aren't related enough and some of the MPs will be from Medway. Epbr123 18:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I am sure. No.  Medway Council is a unitary authority in Ceremonial Kent. KCC is merely a county council- not having the all the functions of a unitary but having a larger budget and partial power over a larger physical area. Neither of these local government organisations have the power or duty of an MP, they don't set income tax or have the power to declare war on Essex! Ceremonial Kent is represented in parliament by its MPs. Bob and Paul are elected solely by residents in Medway Council area, while Jonathan's patch includes areas in both authorities. I suspect that suggesting MPs (belong to) are subject to the whims of Medway Council or KCC is treason- and in former times was punishable by death. (Arson on HM Dockyark did remain the last capital offence! and we in Chatham remember). On second thoughts- removing MPs from Westminster was the crime that Guido Fawkes committed- isn't this the wikiequivalent? ClemRutter 19:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Is there a wikipolicy on humour? ClemRutter 19:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Members of Parliament have nothing officially to do with KCC, so I don't believe they belong in that article. Perhaps Kent should have a brief section on Modfern politics, with a larger sub-page going into more detail.  It mighht be worth looking at how this is covered in other county pages? regards, Lynbarn 19:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes a sub-page is definitely the way to go to allow the subject to grow without overrunning the Kent article. So what should it be called?  Pgr94 21:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably, either Government in Kent or Politics in Kent. However, I don't think the Government section in the Kent article needs shortening at the moment. The Dorset article, the only county Featured Article, has a politics section of about the same length. Epbr123 22:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its the standard for counties to include a list of MPs in their infobox; Kent is just unfortunate in being one of the counties with the most MPs. Epbr123 22:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Or perhaps adding an in-line link to List of Parliamentary constituencies in Kent would be suitable? Lynbarn 22:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics and Kent -> KCC 

message: To me, the picture is slightly misleading, as it seems East Sussex is more properly the "southerneastmost" county in England. What does that word mean, and does the picture properly enforce its definition? ALTON .ıl 21:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure "southerneastmost" isn't a word, but Kent is the county in the bottom right hand corner of england (and the UK) by any way you work it - Dungerness out on the Romney Marsh probably qualifies it as so (even if Lowerstoft or Great Yarmouth in East Anglia is the easternmost and the Lizzard in Cornwall is the southernmost). Pickle 13:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: :Responding to a request from Ebp123, I've worked on it through the Government section. I asked him/her to look over my changes before I proceeded. I see I should have left that message here. Here is that message:
Please take a look through my edits before I continue later this evening. Please note, though it's not MoS or policy, serial commas are preferred by readers; in fact, the only reason I can find that the serial comma is not used is to save on ink and paper. Though bandwidth is a key cost of the Wikimedia foundation, omitting serial commas simply won't save enough to be noticed. Also note: My editor had a problem with some unicode characters, and I had to, for instance, replace your long dashes with HTML equivalents ("–"). --Otheus 08:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyediting for FAC

message: Is anyone aware, there are 25 red wikilinks for the non existent page 
Kent (UK Parliament constituency) !
See: Special:Whatlinkshere/Kent_%28UK_Parliament_constituency%29 for full list.
It may be easier for someone to created the page and immediately redirect it to: 
List of Parliamentary constituencies in Kent
But I'll leave that up to the local experts.--Aspro 17:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  At a guess (this is not my specialist area of history) as a county we would have had two (?) MPs form ? right up until ? (? great reform act). IIRC there is a wiki project for UK election results/constituencies and they would have links to election data to populate such articles. Pickle 18:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red wiki links 

message: :Image:Kent coa.jpg 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think i've resolved this issues as :Image:Arms-kent.jpg is the same file (as far as i can tell) and it has the proper copyright info on it. Thus (if i'm right) :Image:Kent coa.jpg is duplciation and can be deleted. Pickle 07:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Kent coa.jpg

message: Substituted at 15:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment