Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/UK or home nations in introductions

message: * Re: Noisy (5. Home nation and UK) - you say "even though it will involve massive upheaval". Well, the fact that the Wikipedia community does not use "constituent country, UK" tells us that we do already have a consensus: it is what is going on throughout the entire project at the moment: constituent country only. We should not inflict "massive upheaval" on Wikipedia when we already have consensus occurring on tens of thousands of articles. --Mais oui! 17:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if Cornwall got NUTS1 status (and I hope it does!) it would be "Truro, Cornwall, UK", for the timebeing, however, it would be "Truro, South West England, UK".  The difference between my position (if Cornwall was NUTS1) and 5 with Cornwall exemption is that it would consistently miss out the home nation for English places, rather than making an exception for Cornish places, because "England" is not a NUTS subdivision.  Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I misunderstood the NUTS1 status (not county and NUTS1 status) - thanks for clarifying that. So in fact, to summarise, you are proposing 6. Other Use NUTS1 status, e.g. "Truro, Southwest England, UK", "Selby, Yorkshire and the Humber, UK", "Edinburgh, Scotland, UK". Mdcollins1984 15:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right: I feel anything else would be subjective, inconsistent or agenda driven (such as excluding UK for nationalist reasons).  However: I must stress that I personally prefer "Truro, Cornwall, UK" (and thus hope they achieve NUTS1 status) and "Selby, Yorkshire, UK" (and thus hope the regions are one day redrawn) but these would be deviating from the objective approach we gain from using NUTS1.  Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Using NUTS1 regions is a bad idea IMO, as the English regions are possibly the least well-known and well-understood subdivisions of the UK. If we insist on following such a rigid bureaucratic structure we run the risk of getting imbroiled in the kind of petty wrangling over naming that has afflicted Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California. --Blisco 17:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NUTS1 was purely a means I identified of being objective about this.  If it is true, as written elsewhere, that it is government policy to refer to Cornwall as a duchy rather than a county and not to refer to it as part of England then we have our objective reasons without resorting to NUTS1.  In this case I would be prepared to consider changing my vote to tiered government or one container (as pointed out elsewhere it says British on our passports, the home nations have no status except in sport).  Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 07:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: My interpretation of this comment is that Dippas (or Dippas's puppeteer - see contribs) is presupposing that the "constitutional status of Cornwall" is as a separate entity from England. --Blisco 17:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Postdiscussion from straw poll

message: Can we agree that once a policy is agreed upon that Cornish articles, and any others suffering from this time consuming conflict, be protected from editing by anonymous/new editors (with the appropriate explanation) to stop reverts from those not interested in concensus?LessHeard vanU 10:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would agree with that - in fact I would suggest that UNTIL a policy is agreed upon, anonymous edits should be blocked.DuncanHill 22:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This can be discussed in relevant pages, but not used to alter a seperate article. It is not an act of good faith to change an article where concensus has been reached simply because it does not suit an individuals viewpoint; my own preferred option is not going to be policy - but I am going to go with whatever is decided. I'm a Wikipedian first on these pages.LessHeard vanU 13:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK/England revert wars (Cornwall and others) 

message: Please can we leave this list alone until we close the poll - It makes more sense to tally up at the end when we close up an archive this poll and discussion. Doubling up on information in this way just makes it confusing and by disecting my comments away from my my vote you have subtley changed the meaning of what I have written. The (tentatively) in brackets is directly explained by the subsequent paragraph of reasoning - if you take away the reasoning then it leaves (tentatively) open to the personal interpretation of subsequent readers. I also don't appreciate a straight rv of my changes without discussion or explaination - this is just bad wiki etiquette. I don't think that putting my name under two different choices serves any purpose either. Thanks Mammal4 09:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing the votes of the 14 people who have already voted is vandalism, plain and simple. Stop it. --Mais oui! 10:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Absolutely no way: 14 people had already cast their votes before Mammal4 unilaterally decided to start the whole process afresh. He was not "re-structuring" it: he removed the votes of 14 people! If we keep his new format (and I think it is basically a good idea: much clearer to see the lay of the land), then those 14 votes must be duly recorded, in the date order they were cast. If "vandalism" is the wrong word to describe his removal of those 14 votes, then "dicking about" is perhaps a better way of putting it. --Mais oui! 13:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "I found those really useful" - people still have every opportunity to give their reasoning if they so wish. If they cannot be bothered that is their prerogative. --Mais oui! 13:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not really sure why I would attempt to vandalise a poll that I suggested and started to organise in the first place - All I did was put the page back the way it was before Mais Oui started 'dicking around with it' as it was so eloquently put.  As far as i can see no votes were removed as they are all recorded in the paragraph I reinstated next to their reasons.  As Noisy points out this was a useful setup, and now people aren't bothering to leave reasons anymore under the new structure.  If I have inadvertantly removed any useful text when I tried to put back what Mais Oui had changed (without consultation) then I apologise - As I have said before I'm only intersted in ressolving this ridiculous geography dispute once and for all.  After having finally managing to bring this to a head after six months, and getting some meaningful dialogue going I find it an interesting insight into human nature that we've now found something even more petty to argue about.
Mais Oui -  Giving me a vandalism warning here and on my talk page for what is obviously me reverting your unecessary restructuring of the poll is completely over the top and really isn't helpful.  W Anyone who doubts my intentions need only look at my past record to see what sort of editor I am - its there for all to see. hy not discuss here why you think your restructuring is better?  Take care Mammal4 19:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that Mais Oui's point is that to have so many people, almost all voting in one category, come to the same page and make effectively their only edit to Wikipedia is suspicious at least. It suggests to me (and I guess Mais Oui) either the use of sockpuppets, or the recruitment of editors to deliberatly come and vote in the poll, under the belief that it is a binding one. --Robdurbar 19:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism of poll