Talk:Dorset

message: Brianboulton comments
;General
*The link in ref 20 appears to be broken. I cannot access the page.
*The most immediate area for attention is references. Throughout the article there are paragraphs that end without a citation, which gives the impression that many statements are unsourced. The "Education" section carries an "unreferenced" banner because it has no refs at all.
*There are several citations in the lead. It would be better if these facts were cited when they occur in the main text; the lead should be a broad summary of the article, and should contain nothing that is not contained within the main text.
*In the list of citations, formats should be consistent. For example, the retrieval dates in 1 and 2 are differently formatted.
*Arkell, listed in the "references", is not a cited source and should be listed as "Further reading". Likewise Davies, Dwyer, Perkins, Pitt-Rivers and Taylor.  Encyclopædia Britannica and West are websites and should be formatted in the same style as the other  online sources, though I don't see any citations to these, either. The impression is given that the article has been amended, but that the sources have not been updated.
;Prose issues
I have not carried out a detailed prose check, but from  a quick reading it doesn't look too bad. Here are a few points:-
*There is a tendency towards too many very short paragraphs; see in particular "Economy and industry". The "Culture" section has a single line paragraph.
*Awkward phrasing: just a few examples from early on:-
**"The county town has been Dorchester since at least 1305, situated in the south of the county."
**"Dorset's high chalk hills have provided a location for defensive settlements for millennia, there are Neolithic and Bronze Age burial mounds on almost every chalk hill in the county, and a number of Iron Age hill forts, the most famous being Maiden Castle, constructed around 600BC." Everlasting sentence needs splitting and repunctuating. There is a general tendency towards overlong sentences.
**"Dorset was fortified with the construction of..." Should be "by" not "with"
**"The climate of Dorset has warm summers..." Climates don't "have"
*Although tourism is mentioned in the Economy section, one would have expected to see something about the development of tourism as an industry in the History section.
;Images
These look generally Ok, but :File:Abbotsbury, Dorset - Tithe Barn.jpg lacks source information and name of author. Not clear that the author was the uploader, and why is the "last version" date earlier than the "first version" date?
These are all areas to work on. I would also recommend a full copyedit and prose check. There is no reason why this should not become featured again, though GA might be a useful interim stp. As you have a limited and very recent edit history with this article it may be appropriate for you to work with other active recent editors, although the principal contributor seems long gone, at least as far as this article is concerned. Brianboulton (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking the time to review this article. I will copy your comments to the article's talk page in case other editors feel inclined to contribute.--Ykraps (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: There's a sentence in the 'History' section of this article which is unsatisfactorily vague ("The chalk downs would have been deforested in the Iron Age"). Would have been? Would have been but for what? I intended to change it to something more assertive such as "The chalk downs were deforested..." or "The chalk downs were largely deforested....", and so looked at the Dorset For You page which is provided as a reference to back up this asssertion, to see what it said, but unfortunately this reference refers only to the heathlands, and their clearance in the Bronze Age. Either I missed something when reading it, or this reference is unsuitable as a back-up for this claim. Can someone provide a more apposite reference? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello PaleCloudWhite, that sentence initially carried a reference from 'History of Dorset' but I was unable to find any mention of deforestation of the chalklands in the book. I therefore intended to rewrite the sentence to say, "Parts of Dorset......". I added a reference but forgot to alter the sentence.--Ykraps (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Forest clearance - unsuitable reference

message: I intended to fix the education up myself now that I've found some sources (by which I mean, I emailed county of Dorset and begged for help finding sources...), but it's becoming increasingly clear to me as I stare at them that I'm not up to parsing and describing the British education system, as an American. Hopefully someone else can make use of these (mostly primary, but they're for hard facts anyway) sources to support the section and get the article back to FA. I'd be happy to help with locating more distinct bits of info from the morasses that are the local websites if someone else can help me mold them into supportable article content:
*
*
*
*Top level of Dorset County schools information. Tons available in subpages of this site section
*Overview of Dorset school system
*Top level for Bournemouth schools, which operate independently. Sourcing for particular details probably available with digging down
*Top level for Poole schools, which operate independently. Sourcing for particular details probably available with digging down
A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Fluffernutter, thanks for the sources. We are moving through the article slowly and will no doubt get to the education section in due course. Thanks once again--Ykraps (talk) 07:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for Education section 

message: There's a statement in the article's introduction ("Initially agricultural, tourism is now the primary industry") which is slightly at odds with a statement at the end of the 'History' section ("tourism now rivals agriculture as the main economy of the county"). The former suggests supremacy, the latter parity. Although on the face of it the difference may appear subtle, I think nevertheless it warrants a change in wording in one of the statements, to ensure they both say exactly the same thing (i.e. the truth, which might need investigating/clarifying). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I see that as a contradiction. Just because two industries compete it doesn't make them equal. There was virtually no tourism in the county until circa 1800 and the main industry was overwhelmingly agriculture. Since the arrival of the railways, tourism has increased and now brings in more wealth (but not overwhelmingly more) than farming but agriculture is still a major industry. However, I am not against rewording the statements if you feel it would clarify the situation.--Ykraps (talk) 09:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Tourism v. agriculture - question about text

message: Is the following sentence correct (from the 'Culture' entry?
The 19th century poet William Barnes was born in Bagber and wrote many poems in his native Dorset dialect.[196] Originating from the ancient Norse and Saxon languages, the dialect was prevalent [ONLY?] across the Blackmore Vale but has fallen into disuse.
Rwood128 (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence was altered after a copy edit. Prevalent, in this case, I take to mean widespread which is an acceptable interpretation of the source. Thanks for your edits but this article is currently a featured article candidate and I feel that that is really too much information particularly with regard to JCP as he wasn't actually in the county as much. You could add to the Culture of Dorset article though. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The particular highlighting of the dialect in the Blackmore Vale seems to make sense in the context of talking about Barnes. As an interesting aside, Ralph Wightman (a native of nearby Piddletrenthide) claimed that the 'epicentre' of the Dorset dialect was just on the edge of the Blackmore Vale, in fact he very precisely locates it around the straggling village of Ansty, which he referred to as Hartfoot Lane or "Arfurd Lane". In 1965 he wrote of it: "In my youth I remember it as full of incredibly old people. The dialect was the richest in the county and the least contaminated by Devon or the New Forest. Every "yokel" story is fathered on Arfurd Lane. It was here that a cottager rushed to get the pig out of the sty to stand with front hooves on the wall, and share the march past of the band on the Friendly Society Feast Day." PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

text: I think prevalent is fine. It doesn't say the dialect was exclusive to the area. The sources for this sentence only mention the Blackmore Vale -- do you have other sources that suggest the dialect was more widespread? A possible solution to the other part you mentioned could be to insert "largely" before "fallen into disuse". Barret (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Well I don't think it was spoken in the East of the county, which was historically in Hampshire and I think I'm right in saying it wasn't widely spoken in the South either so I think Wightman has it about right (thanks PCW). There are still some native speakers around [] but I don't see how any of this contradicts what's currently in the article.--Ykraps (talk) 07:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Dorset dialect  

message: Have a look again. The infobox is a bit clearer now with a separate section for the ceremonial county and another for the county council area. Thanks MRSC (talk) 06:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , apologies for my slightly ambiguous edit summary. It was not the infobox I was objecting to but the information within which seemed to be solely about the non-metropolitan county rather than the county as a whole which includes the unitary authorities of Bournemouth and Poole. For example the admin HQ of Dorchester is not the admin HQ for either Bournemouth or Poole. The coat of arms is also only used by Dorset County Council as is the website dorsetforyou.com. Bournemouth and Poole councils each have their own websites which were included in the original infobox along with the nuts code UK21. UK22 is the nuts code for non-metropolitan county only. If we can add this information, thus giving the county's two UAs an equal footing, I am happy to accept the new infobox. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I see! I considered adding these in when I devised the template, but it was quite a struggle to present things clearly. I'll add the two unitaries under the county council section. MRSC (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: I have reverted some rather large edits because much of it appears to be uncited original research. Examples of this include:
====In the lead====
*Unitary Authorities was changed to boroughs but boroughs are not the same. The fact that Poole and Bournemouth are self-governing, not part of Dorset County Council, is what’s important here. The fact they are boroughs is irrelevant otherwise why not mention the Borough of Christchurch?--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "Landscape" is a complex subject governed by both natural and human processes. Geology is important in influencing landscape, but it is not the only factor. For example, three factors that have influenced the relatively undeveloped nature of Dorset's coast (built-up areas are a part of landscape) are the existence of Poole Harbour (which has deflected westbound routes from travelling close to the coast), the distance of Dorset from London, and the particular attitudes and financial circumstances of the landed gentry who historically owned large sections of the coast (and still do). Obviously the influence of geology on the last two factors is not so immediately apparent. So, whether it is more accurate to state geology is partly responsible or chiefly responsible for Dorset's landscapes is difficult to say; if this statement is in dispute, I suggest referring to what the relevant sources state.Incidentally, erosional processes interact with geology to produce landscape features; I wouldn't consider them as separate.Also, I do not understand the comment about geographic egalitarians attacking landscape designations.Lastly, it would be helpful if people could sign all their individual points; the way this thread has developed has resulted in it being difficult to see who has said what. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ykraps. Also I do not believe using the words "less straightforward" is overly editorialising, nor is it condescending. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: *Unitary Authorities was changed to boroughs but boroughs are not the same. The fact that Poole and Bournemouth are self-governing, not part of Dorset County Council, is what’s important here. The fact they are boroughs is irrelevant otherwise why not mention the Borough of Christchurch?--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: In the lead

message: *Why is it necessary to point out that Bridport is coastal? To my mind a coastal town is one where the town is on the coast whereas Bridport is at least a mile inland. Perhaps I’m splitting hairs but more importantly, the source doesn’t say this.--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Settlements

message: *‘’... its underlying geology, which is partly responsible for the diversity of landscape’’ was changed to ‘’ contains considerable variety in its geology, chiefly responsible for the diversity of landscape.’’ 
*:This came up at FAC, and it was decided that as erosion also has a major affect on landscape, to change it to “partly responsible”.--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "Landscape" is a complex subject governed by both natural and human processes. Geology is important in influencing landscape, but it is not the only factor. For example, three factors that have influenced the relatively undeveloped nature of Dorset's coast (built-up areas are a part of landscape) are the existence of Poole Harbour (which has deflected westbound routes from travelling close to the coast), the distance of Dorset from London, and the particular attitudes and financial circumstances of the landed gentry who historically owned large sections of the coast (and still do). Obviously the influence of geology on the last two factors is not so immediately apparent. So, whether it is more accurate to state geology is partly responsible or chiefly responsible for Dorset's landscapes is difficult to say; if this statement is in dispute, I suggest referring to what the relevant sources state.Incidentally, erosional processes interact with geology to produce landscape features; I wouldn't consider them as separate.Also, I do not understand the comment about geographic egalitarians attacking landscape designations.Lastly, it would be helpful if people could sign all their individual points; the way this thread has developed has resulted in it being difficult to see who has said what. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ykraps. Also I do not believe using the words "less straightforward" is overly editorialising, nor is it condescending. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Physical geography

message: *The table only includes information for the area of Dorset controlled by Dorset County Council and not the entire county. This is not made clear and also therefore means the rankings are incorrect.--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Demography

message: Would you like to win up to £250 in Amazon vouchers for participating in The West Country Challenge?
The The West Country Challenge will take place from 8 to 28 August 2016. The idea is to create and improve articles about Bristol, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Dorset, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire, like this one.
The format will be based on Wales's successful Awaken the Dragon which saw over 1000 article improvements and creations and 65 GAs/FAs. As with the Dragon contest, the focus is more on improving core articles and breathing new life into those older stale articles and stubs which might otherwise not get edited in years. All contributions, including new articles, are welcome though.
Work on any of the items at:
*Core articles
*Missing article hotlist
*Missing photograph hotlist
or other articles relating to the area.
There will be sub contests focusing on particular areas:
*Bristol (Day 1-3)
*Cornwall and Scilly (Day 4-6)
*Devon (Day 7-9)
*Dorset (Day 10-12)
*Gloucestershire (Day 13-15)
*Somerset (Day 16-18)
*Wiltshire (Day 19-21)
To sign up or get more information visit the contest pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge.— Rod talk 16:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The West Country Challenge 

message: Should the top of the infobox contain the Dorset County Council coat of arms and motto? This article covers the entire ceremonial county including the unitary authorities of Poole and Bournemouth and each of these towns have their own coat of arms and motto. I think the infobox is misleading as it suggests they are used by the entire county. Barret (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I vaguely remember this coming up before and I believe consensus then was against its inclusion for the reasons you state. I feel it ought to be all or nothing and, as including the unitary authorities is going to bloat the info box, my preference is for nothing.--Ykraps (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

text: Whilst I'm not standing on ceremony on the subject: I'm in favour of keeping the Coat of Arms for the short time the County Council will exist.  Bournemouth and Poole unitary authorities are relatively new and formally used on County Council services, with the rest of the county - this Coat of Arms. David J Johnson (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox - coat of arms 

message: What happened in the My 2019 elections? Jackiespeel (talk) 09:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Local elections 

message: A discussion is taking place as to whether :Portal:Dorset is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Dorset until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 21:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination of [[:Portal:Dorset]] for deletion 

message: The paragraph regarding Defence sites in Dorset ends with prediction of possible local economy losses following the then (2009) mooted move of the School of Signals to South Wales (MOD St Athan). In fact this did not materialise so I propose 'retiring' this sentence as obviated by events (or the lack of them).
Plans to relocate the Royal School of Signals from Blandford to South Wales could result in a loss of up to £74 million GVA for the area.
Cloptonson (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Your actions are entirely correct. Wire723 (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

text: While your actions were not incorrect, if you have a reference that the signals school is still based at Blandford, we can modify the sentence and retain the figure that shows its value to the local economy. Or at least what it was worth in 2009.--Ykraps (talk) 08:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Royal Signals School of Signals Blandford (section Economy and industry) - 'retirement' of sentence

message: I have removed a recently-added section on Television, after my attempts to place it in suitable context and suitable prominence were reverted by . Since my reasons are a bit long for an edit summary, I'm putting them here:
# Contrary to David's edit summary, the previous content is not "correct". There is nothing special about "the size of the county" that causes it to fall into multiple regions; it mixed the undefined (but likely to be interpreted as journalistic coverage) "covers" with the quite different "receives"; and it gave readers no context as to what television regions are.
# Television should not be an entire section on a county article -- it's too specific, there's not enough to say, and what there is to say is too trivial. If there's anything really notable to say, we typically include it alongside other local media (radio stations, newspapers, etc) in the Culture section or Culture sub-article. (It's not even considered worth mentioning on Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties!)
# It is borderline notable enough to mention at all on this page IMO. Indeed, this page made it all the way to Featured Article status without anybody ever noticing that it was missing an all important mention of television regions. So the simplest solution to any dispute for now is to remove it, unless and until people agree that it's worthy of inclusion.
If people do think there's something notable of encyclopedic value to say on the topic - and that this article is the correct place to say it - perhaps we could first work on a media section for Culture of Dorset, and then produce a concise summary for the main article when we're happy with what are the important things to say on the topic?
Joe D (t) 01:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there needs to be a mention of television at all. It wasn't included for FAR because Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties doesn't mention it and finding good quality reliable sources on the subject is very difficult (which is presumably why the entire section wasn't cited). --Ykraps (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ykraps, there is no need for a "television" mention at all.  My original objection was that Steinsky had deleted mention of the coverage for central Dorset, whilst retaining East and West Dorset. Regards to all. David J Johnson (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

text: Why is it important? Those who live in the county already know which stations they receive and those that don't live in the county cannot possibly be interested. You can also get Sky and Netflix and dozens of other cable and streaming services but you don't feel the need to mention those. It is far too trivial and unencyclopaedic to be included in an article on a UK county, which is why it's excluded from the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties guidelines. As a featured article, this article must conform to the guidelines and telling people which television channels they can watch, simply isn't the style. Thanks for coming to the talk page to discuss it though. By the way, you would be far more anonymous if you created an account; I already know your location. --Ykraps (talk) 05:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Television 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion