Template talk:Cornwall

message: For the record, I'm all in favour of a show/hide feature. It's beyond my own wiki-knowledge, but go for it please! QuartierLatin1968  20:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Features and changes

message: Hi all,
I have redesigned the portal with Cornish gold, smaller images, show/hide ability, easy edit markers and added Main Cornish Settlements from the existing template. As such I will add this one to the relevant pages. Lots more could be put here, let's see what. --A Cornish Pasty 20:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beautiful! You know, I was playing around with shades of gold myself, but couldn't find a solution I liked. Excellent new features all around. QuartierLatin1968  22:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 'Ansom! Mammal4 08:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redesign 

message: Would it be any better to change this template to use the County template as the baseline?  At the moment, the county template doesn't have the option for a flag but it could always be added if required. WOSlinker 20:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I'm against it; I don't see why all templates need to look the same and I don't think that one in particular looks any better than the current one, however I can see why people would want consistency across the board. --A Cornish Pasty 01:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for it myself (but I am a sucker for consistency). I think it looks great! I'm looking into putting something together to incorporate a crest or flag for this template which I think will help. Is it feasible to convert over to the standard style? --Jza84 |  Talk   12:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While the template looks fine the title may be a cause for concern as many view Cornwall as a Celtic nation - how about "Ceremonial county of Cornwall/Celtic nation of Cornwall" or just plain "Cornwall" ? Can anyone point me in the direction of the discussion regarding the agreement for the change on the Cornwall pages ? Tamke (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using the County Template? 

message: I have added Hugh Town to the list of settlements, as it is the administrative centre of the Isles of Scilly. --MacRusgail 16:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hugh Town

message: Hello,
The use of Template:County has been editted out of this template, knocking it out of line with the rest of England (see here). The revision doesn't add anything to the template other than "localise" the look according to singular preference rather than the widely used, standard version. --Jza84 |  Talk   11:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Jza84 is editing the Template:Cornwall to be "consistent" with other English templates, but in doing so he is removing topics from the box and making it generally less useful. He also claims to be doing this as per the "talk", which as you can see above consists of him saying he likes a proposed change, then editing it one hour later stating "convert template over per talk" without waiting for any consensus or discussion. Now if there was a consensus for it to be changed, I would be all for it, but I don't see the point of implementing consistency for consistency's sake especially when the change actually detracts from the usefulness of the template. --Joowwww (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's keep discussion on the content, not contributor please. One contributor suggested it, I agreed, there were no objections - a consensus and discussion was formed. Can you explain what these topics are that I'm removing? Can you assure me that you're not wanting to "localise" this template because of your desire to promote yourself as a Cornishman not Englishman?? --Jza84 |  Talk   11:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought you wanted to keep discussion on the content, not the contributor? Me being Cornish or English is irrelevant, and I could easily come to the conclusion of your strong desire for consistency across all UK county articles due to the unionist userboxes you splash on your userpage. Back to the content, and if you look at the template as it is now you will see there are many wikilinks to Cornwall-related articles, many of which were not present on your proposed change. If the change was able to be made without losing those links I would be fine with it. I don't care what it looks like, my point was (as I have already stated) that your change detracts from the usefullness, which in the grand scheme of things is what it all comes down to, not what it looks like. --Joowwww (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you explain why? Anybody can say any change is "not useful", what we need is some logic. Again, what is this material that I've been removing? - that's a rhetorical question on my part; Template:County actually adds more content and value. --Jza84 |  Talk   11:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The "current template" displayed in the (year-old) thread above is not the actual current template, which includes more links to Cornwall-related topics, and groups them acccording to themes. I prefer the version restored by Joowwww (the "actual current template" shewn below), as it makes navigation easier. DuncanHill (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you explain why? That version has links to non-existent pages, categories-not-articles, several forks for Cornish Nationalism (like a Cornish Assembly article), and multiple poorly-sourced pages like Rugby in Cornwall. I oppose the version restored by Joowww as it makes navigation more difficult and more confusing. --Jza84 |  Talk   12:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the thematic arrangement of links, redlinks serve as an encouragement to editors to write articles, and if an article needs better sourcing then that is a reason for improving the sourcing, not for not linking to it! DuncanHill (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And the "Easter-egg" links to categories? The content in some sections appears completely arbitary, with no criteria for inclusion. Also, should this style be adopted for the test of England then? --Jza84 |  Talk   12:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)Some subjects are currently better represented by a link to a category (I think it is only 2 at the moment - rivers and cuisine), I see no problem with that. When articles are written then the links can be amended. Content of sections seems reasonably rational to me, but of course you could propose changes here if you wish. I have no comment about other county boxes, this box was developed by the relevant wikiproject, and until now there have been no objections. DuncanHill (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

text: If the Template:County was able to have extra groups added to it, it would be easy to incorporate those topics into it, and also for other counties, but the way it is now is a real step back. There are only a couple of notable rivers and with the change to unitary status coming next year, the template would be nothing but a list of towns and a few topics. I intended to turn all those red links blue and turn category-links into articles, but as time went on my interest waned and I moved on to other projects, and instead of getting rid of them I kept them there in case any other contributor wanted to start them. They may soon be filled anyway as my interest in Cornwall related pages is increasing again. --Joowwww (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Additional: There appears to be some (albeit old) discussion on Template talk:County to change Template:County to look more like Template:Cornwall. (edit: the version of it as of Feb 07) --Joowwww (talk) 12:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency 

message: The South West Coast Path has been added to the Devon template, which now appears at the foot of the SWCP article.  Should it also get a mention in the Cornwall template (perhaps under "Geography-topics" or "Other")? PamD (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea to me, the coast path plays a significant part in Cornwall's major industry (tourism). DuncanHill (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Coast Path to template? 

message: Hi All. I seek guidance or consensus to ensure consistency when editing Cornwall-related pages.
Some pages have the raw template { { Cornwall } } which displays in full whereas other pages have the collapsed version { { Cornwall|state=collapsed } }
Do we have a policy or any strong preferences? My own feeling is that if displayed in full by default, the template can overwhelm other content especially in the case of short articles. So my preference would be to always use the 'collapsed' option. What do you reckon (replies here please)? Andy F (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, if  is used, it will show expanded unless there is more than one navbox template on the page, in which it would collapse. I think it just comes down to style, and which looks better, possibly have it collapsed on stubs and have it expanded on larger articles. I don't know how others feel but I'm not too bothered about consistency, IMO. --Joowwww (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Similar feelings to Joowwww - I think probably expanded on those articles which are actually on the template, collapsed on others. DuncanHill (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Display or collapsed? 

message: Please can we have an explanation of this edit .
:Charitably putting aside that there is no consensus (which equates to no change), per WP:NAVI, navigation templates are for the navigation of articles. A list should/could be developed if one wanted to have a link to a list of visitor attractions, which I imagine would be no big deal. --Jza84 |  Talk   21:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So there can never be any changes to the template unless agreed by you first? DuncanHill (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll let you think that over and see if you think that's an appropriate or helpful question. --Jza84 |  Talk   21:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it over before posting it, and after having reviewed the previous debates on this page. DuncanHill (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Per NAVI and Wikipedia:Linking, wikilinks should be to articles - inline links to images, templates, users and, surprise surprise, categories are all unmentioned. If one reads WP:CAT, one sees that the categorisation system is for just that - to categorise. One can navigate categories by clicking on categories. This is why we do not duplicate categories by having templates full of links to categories, or start lists of categories.... of course. Naturally there can be occational exceptions, but given that there is already a list in article space that duplicates that category, and that's been added..... what's the beef? Aren't there articles that need writing (oh, and referencing)? --Jza84 |  Talk   21:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it'll take two or three more links at least to replace the one you removed. Be great to see you doing some referencing on Cornwall WP articles for a change. DuncanHill (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeh, you're right - I must get round to referencing Cornish people some time.... --Jza84 |  Talk   21:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation requested