Talk:Penwith

Untitled

Could someone with more knowledge in tables on Wikipedia make the list of parishes into two columns? David 14:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I second that - I would have done it myself when I put them in, but I don't have the skills! :) Mammal4 15:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

RE message you left of Cornwall version history about England/UK

David, yes you are right that Cornwall is administered as part of England - I don't have a problem with that being stated, but UK is also correct. Surely you must recognise that Cornwall isn't the same as other counties because of its independent history, culture etc, and has a unique status that should be recognised? The fact that there is so much rv pingpong (which iavoid like the plague!) across the Cornwall articles on these terms is evidence of that? I read somewhere on the Wikipedia Uk geography page that naming conventions should be established by custom and not by force - it seems to me that there is a lot of forcing going on with this issue! Would be great to hear your thoughts ;) Mammal4 15:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

But this is an encyclopedia and it states facts. The fact is that Cornwall is part of South West England. It is administered as a non-metropolitan county of England. Many may want that to be different or they may want Cornwall to have some special recognition within the UK or the EU, but Wikipedia must only report the facts to the world! I only change articles when I see an un-truth, not because I disagree with what's being said. This shouldn't be about opinions, only knowledge. And in the case of Cornwall this encyclopedia, like all other decent impartial ones, must state that it is a non-metropolitan and ceremonial county in the South West region of England in the UK. That's all I can say. David 15:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't say anything that I disagree with! These are arguments that I have heard before and in fact I have used them myself during editing conflicts Cornwall hardliners!. There is no place for those sort of slanted opinions on wikipedia, however, I have never heard a Cornish person describe themselves as English, only British. This is a fact. The point that I make is that saying UK is not wrong, neither is it an un-truth as you put it. Some might argue that it is more correct, as it is the UK that has the political power, and signs treaties and has member ship with the EU, not England, which is not an independent country (yet!). Sorry to go on about this, but I get very frustrated by the amount of energy wasted on both sides with this point, nobody will back down or give any ground on the issue and it just goes on and on! Anyway, I won't say any more about this, and I'm not going to touch your edit (I'm sure it will swing back and forth a half dozen times in the next week anyway!) I just wanted to make sure that you had thought about it, and were aware of some of the facts 9which you obviously are)Have fun editting! :) Mammal4 15:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggest merging Penwith Peninsula into Penwith main article

I thought it might make sense merging Penwith Peninsula into the Penwith article - there isn't really much that can be said on the peninsula article that won't be a duplication of information already in the Penwith article - most of what isn't duplicated there could easily be incorporated. I realise that one is a political division and the other a geographical feature, but I think that this could be better explained all in the one place "The district of Penwith covers the majority of the Penwith peninsula, which forms the westerly tip of Cornwall" or something like that Any thoughts? Mammal4 13:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - There is quite alot of potential fo duplication here Reedgunner 15:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

They are two different things though, aren't they? As you say, one is a geographical feature, the other a local government area named after it. Merging would lead to some odd things in the category scheme - either a peninsula being listed as a local government district, which it isn't, or a local government district being listed as a peninsula, which it isn't. How would you overcome those problems? Are there similar cases elsewhere on WP and how are they treated? SP-KP 17:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The two areas are virtually coincident (Penwith district is marginally smaller than the peninsula I think). I don't think it would be a problem with it sitting in two categories - a simmilar situation I can think of off of the top of my head would be Iceland, Bermuda, Faroe Islands and The Bahamas, which are both under categories for Atlantic Islands (physical geography), and a category for the individual country/dependency (political) There is actually more physical geography information in the Penwith article already (which is also more linked to) that at Penwith Peninsula Mammal4 18:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, seems like it could be possible. The leads of those articles do a good job of explaining the dichotomous nature of the subject; can we do the same for Penwith? If so, I'd be OK with a merge. SP-KP 18:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave this here for a couple of weeks for further comments and then give it a go. Mammal4 19:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Since it is the geographical nature of Penwith (the District) that is the focus of the Project - to date - incorporating the geographical term Peninsula, including towns(?), villages etc, shouldn't be too difficult. All it may require is a slight amendment to the terms of the Project. The various tables etc. used in the current Project can still be used. The only difficulty may be finding a map with the appropriate borders. Can anyone say where these borders may be? I live west of Helston and have created/contributed to articles for local villages, which may fall into the remit of an extended Penwith project. I was not previously aware of the Peninsula category, so their non-inclusion may have been an oversight. LessHeard vanU 20:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC) ps. This means I would agree to a merger!

Hmmm... looking at Penwith Peninsula indicates that by the definition given that the physical Peninsular does not include all of the District - the parishes of Gwinear/Gwithian, St. Erth and St. Hilary falling outside. What is the source for the definition of the peninsula? I feel (as a layman!) that it should include the land mass east of The Lizard in the south and some other point in the north. Is there an authority that can be cited? LessHeard vanU 20:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't seem to find any sort of official definition of what the Penwith peninsula is - it just seems to be a fuzzy area that people refer to. The definition on the Penwith peninsula page isn't referenced and I have found no mention of this imaginary line connecting Marazion and Hayle, so I suspect that it was just added from what the author thought it should be. The definintion of peninsula is "a geographical formation consisting of an extension of land from a larger body, surrounded by water on three sides" thus you could arguably draw the inland edge of the Penwith peninsula in any number of places east or west of the Marazion-Hayle line. I think that the most sensible wording would be not too specific - something about the Penwith peninsula being the name given to the toe/promentary of land at the very westermost tip of Cornwall, and that the present day district of Penwith stretches inland to include Gwithian etc. Mammal4 11:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, if the physical boundaries of the Peninsula is disregarded, the article can otherwise be merged into the Project article. As long as everybody else is happy, then those areas west of the District will have to wait for its own project, and things continue as before.LessHeard vanU 12:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, by the definitition then (much of) Cornwall could be considered a peninsula - can there be a peninsula within a peninsula?LessHeard vanU 12:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Joe D (t) 12:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If it helps, compare to Purbeck and Isle of Purbeck in Dorset. They've had separate articles for a long time because they do not cover exactly the same area. Joe D (t) 12:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info :) Mammal4 12:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge completed

I've completed the merging of Penwith peninsula into the main article as that seems to be the consensus opinion (including the original articles creator). I have asked SP-KP to write a short summary paragraph about the ecology of the district. I think it would be a welcome addition/gateway to other Penwith ecology stuff. He is an expert and I think that the creation of the peninsula article came about originally as a result of this angle. Please feel free to critisise my merging - I'm not quite happy yet with the scanning of the opening few lines, but it will do for now :) Mammal4 12:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What's to critisise? Plus, the ecology input would be great.LessHeard vanU 19:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Twinning

Just added the bit about cuxhaven twinning please feel free to move it anywher on this page. Reedgunner 17:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

How brave are we feeling?

The poll regarding UK/England has closed, and it seems the "legit" results indicate a huge preference for the inclusion of England - with almost half of those also wishing to incorporate UK. Should we trial the use of "England, UK (or United Kingdom)" in all our articles as a matter of (temporary) policy - and see what transpires? We could mention our intention over at the Straw Poll. Any edit of England/UK would indicate likely nationalist preferences (unless otherwise mentioned in the summary). This would mean that if we do this we are likely to be tarred by either and both factions... Anyone up for it?LessHeard vanU 21:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe wait until a summary page is produced - I can have a go at that over the weekend if I have time. That way we have something to refer to when the obligatory rv appears. Mammal4 22:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. However, I don't think (seeing what happened toward the end of the straw poll) that it is going to make a difference. I feel we should adopt the policy as decided by said poll, but it is unlikely that the various factions will pay much heed.LessHeard vanU 23:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a lot of UK geo articles on my watchlist, so if you impliment the above I will try and patrol it for vandalism, and semi-protect if neccesary. Joe D (t) 11:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan - I have most Cornwall pages watched and some outside the county also. Mammal4 13:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I am currently going through adding any pages that are missing to my watchlist and adding context to any article that mentions neither England or UK, but I'll leave those that mention one but not the other to somebody else. Joe D (t) 13:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me, count me in Reedgunner 16:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Good article

Sounds like a good idea - I think that there is already quite a bit on transport on the Penzance page that I helped to write. Maybe this could be expanded and used here. As far as references go - I've been having trouble tracking down books that deal with Penwith/West Cornwall specifically as they aren't easy to come by. I have a few on order, but it may take several weeks until they turn up. Anyone with access to Penlee library might be able to help us out here? How do we go about nominating it for Good article status? Joe - could you look over St Buryan and tell me what you think? I've done quite a bit of work on it, and is probably in a better state than this one. It still has a way to go yet I think, but then I still have a lot to add into it. Still waiting on references though. Mammal4 08:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mammal, The reference section of Penzance public library has a local history section, There are number of books that may be of use. I will speak to my friend who is one of archivists at Morrab Library to see if she can point us in the right directionReedgunner 08:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:EH icon.png

Image:EH icon.png 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Penwith Crest.JPG

Image:Penwith Crest.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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Penwith

This comment should have been discussed here prior to mass deletion: "History: 1811 source obsolete, Cunliffe doesn't argue for Penwith, Romans didn't invade Britain because of tin)". If you are a new user or disagree, please let me know and I will give you a link.

When exactly do references expire on WP?

What does "Cunliffe doesn't argue for Penwith" mean? I can't respond with this little.

The source claims that the Romans invaded Britain because of tin. (I don't know why they did.) Why did the Romans invade Britain? If you have a source, please revert the text and then edit the article and add the new sourced material. There is no rule that I know of that requires this but it would be nice. :) Raggz (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Badly sourced or incorrect content can be deleted, and often should be deleted, without discussion - but edit summaries should give reasons, at least in my opinion. It seems obvious that a source over two centuries old for history or archaeology should never be used unless there are no modern sources that can be used. However, you can always go to WP:RSN and argue that it meets WP:RS and should be used. I don't think you'll get very far as modern sources don't share the same view. I'm not sure which Roman invasion you are thinking of, but for both the main reasons were political. The Romans didn't need British tin as they had ample sources in Britanny and in Spain. If you knew your Roman history you'd know that the Romans never had a major presence in Cornwall, and evidently they only serious exploited Cornish tin after the 3rd century. They clearly didn't invade mainly because the tin mines there, it doesn't appear to have been a significant factor, let alone the major factor. As for Cunliffe, are you saying that he argues that Penwith was Ictis? If you can show that he does, we can add that. All I can find is Cunliffe saying its location is uncertain and "The location of the British trading port, Ictis, has been hotly debated, the most favoured contender being St Michael’s Mount, Cornwall, for which no shred of archaeological evidence has been presented. A better claim can be made for Mount Batten, a promontory jutting into Plymouth Sound (Cunliffe 1983). Before the construction of the Plymouth breakwater it frequently became an island at high tide." And I see no serious sources suggesting that Ictis, described originally as an island, was Penwith. So I see no justification for connecting the Phoenicians with Penwith. If you can find any archaeological evidence for Romans in Penwith, then that would be a useful addition Doug Weller (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

A bit of a mess now

This article is a bit of a mess now. It seems to be a mish-mash of the now defunct district council and the geographic area of West Penwith, it ignores East Penwith and the Hundred of Penwith after which it is named, and is now way out of date in many sections. Bodrugan (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)