Talk:Local Government Commission for England (1992)

message: I have a leaflet which i picked up in Suffolk 10 or more years ago. Entitled "Suffolk Works, why change it?" and printed by Suffolk County Council. Apparently the Commission had presented two options and was sending a leaflet to residents. The options being to divide the county into four, or retain the status quo. The four were Ipswich (same as the borough), East suffolk, West Suffolk and "Yartoft" which was a merger of Waveney and Great Yarmouth in Norfolk. Not sure which districts were in East and west, but there's a map. I don't see it in the article? Lozleader 21:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah - that would be the draft recommendations.  I'll add those to article in a bit - working on the final ones atm.  Morwen - Talk 21:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, there's a particularly confused article in the Guardian on July 15, 1994, that states the commission treated Norfolk and Suffolk as a unit, and recommended
*Ipswich
*Norwich
*West Norfolk (Kings Lynn)
*North East Norfolk (Broads)
*Breckland and South Norfolk
*Waveney and Great Yarmouth
*West Suffolk
*East Suffolk
as draft recommendations.  because of the local reaction the ultimate recommendations in the district were status quo.  Ipswich and Norwich must have been annoyed.  getting the full list of draft recommendations out is a bit trickier because they weren't published in batches.  Morwen - Talk 23:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suffolk

message: !
Morwen - Talk 07:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Phear my references section

message: Any ideas for a name for a split of the English section out into its own article?  Banham Commission won't work because of Cooksey, I don't like the idea of tacking it to Local Government Act 1992, and the Local Government Commission for England did do other stuff as well (electoral reviews, and the review of Sefton spring to mind). Morwen - Talk 11:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: July 8, 1994, The Times Residents to get choice of county says the LGCE proposed a postal referendum for Bournemouth and Christchurch to see if they want to return to Hampshire.  this doesn't appear to have been in the final proposals, which will however explain why.  it notes the change would be ceremonial only, and Dorset police etc would continue to serve the area.  Preferred option was Poole, Bournemouth/Christchurch, rural Dorset.  Morwen - Talk 21:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dorset

message: The paragraph claiming that Cleveland was somehow different to Humberside and Avon seems contentious, pov and not to be properly referenced.  It makes claims that are surely inappropriate to an article of this nature and should be deleted completely.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcb336 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleveland

message: I am a little concerned that this article continues to be listed as an FA, given that it contains many sentences, and indeed at least one whole paragraph, which unfortunately lack any form of referencing. It is perhaps noteworthy that the article was promoted to FA status back in November 2006, given that today our FAC procedure is far more vigorous and exacting; as it stands, I doubt that it would be awarded GA status today, let alone FA status, even though much of it is well written and a lot of effort has clearly gone into authoring it. I would propose that unless this issue can be adequately dealt with soon, then this article should be sent to FAR and face the prospect of being de-listed. FA status is for our very best articles, and in its current status, this article simply isn't one of them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Any opinions ? Morwen perhaps would be interested, given that she brought this page to FA status to start with ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything in here comes from one of the cited sources.  It might be the standard for how close the little numbers should be to the text has been made stricter?  Morwen (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  thanks for your response. The main problem here is that there are sections where the citation is not clear. In most places this is fairly minor; in the "Establishment" section we have a few sentences without citation, such as "The abolition of metropolitan county councils in 1986 left the metropolitan boroughs operating as unitary authorities". Each and every one of those statements needs to have a citation after it. More problematic is the "Other changes" section, where large portions of text have no citations. I'd rather not see this article de-listed, so if you could potentially add the necessary citations in the correct places then that would be fantastic. If not, I feel that this will probably have to go to FAR; bear in mind that under our current policies, an article won't even receive its GA status if it has unreferenced sentences like this in the body of the text. Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the things cited are in storage and/or the British Library, and I have little inclination to drag them out (and rejoin the library) just to tidy up the referencing slightly. Morwen (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand (and don't blame you!) but that does mean that I will have to send this article to FAR. Sorry about that! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced information and a proposed FAR 

message: I don't know the full history, but the legislation seems to suggest that Stoke and Swindon became unitary authorities in 1997, not 1998. Yamor2 (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stoke and Swindon