|
VfD vote - removed April 16, 2004 - no concensus to delete
Lincolnshire (unneeded) and Lincolnshire (rump) - the former has been replaced by Lincolnshire, which covers both the old and new boundaries of the county; the latter is just a redirect for Lincolnshire which isn't used anywhere. Sjorford 12:15, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I think the clue is in the name. Unneeded. Delete. Warofdreams 12:27, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- KEEP. All traditional and adminitrative counties should have seperate pages, being as they are, seperate entities. The Lincolnshire page should ideally be a disambiguation page for the various different entities which share the name. Both these pages should be kept. 80.255 15:44, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- No they shouldn't. Delete. Morwen 18:08, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete both -- Graham :) | Talk 23:10, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Move to Lincolnshire (traditional) Bensaccount 23:33, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- All other traditional English counties have pages; there's always going to be a problem when the traditional county is named the same as a current county. Move to Lincolnshire (traditional) and make sure it has a link to the three parts Holland, Kesteven and Lindsey. Dbiv 11:48, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Seconded. It is an excellent proposal - all traditional counties should have distinct articles, since they are can only be dealt with poorly in a single article. 80.255 12:32, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I just want to avoid any confusion here - every other English county has a single page, which serves to describe both the traditional and administrative sides of the county. Having two articles for each county would lead to two things: (1) pairs of almost identical pages, and (2) confusion for readers. Imagine typing "Lincolnshire" into the search box and getting back a page saying "there are two Lincolnshires in England, which one are you interested in?" - the average user would go "Wuh??", and rightly so. Sjorford 11:54, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Unfortunately a single page has proved itself insufficient, since the descriptions of the traditional counties are generally very second rate, and it is very difficult to cover both entities in one article without making that article rather confusing. Since there are considerable differences between many traditional and adminitrative counties that share a name, it would not lead to near identical pages. It would also get rid of inaccuracies that result from the current structure (e.g. Oliver Cromwell being born in Cambridgeshire - he most certainly wasn't! Nor was he born in the "district of Huntingdonshire" - yet a seperate page on the traditional county would easily solve this problem, and a viewer clicking on it would instantly see the correct entity, rather than have to wade through an article primarily on something completely different.)
- Secondly, the fact that there are "two Lincolnshires in England" is already apparent by the fact that you yourself admitted that a single article currently covers both of them! Far more confusing, for the average reader, to view the article of Lincolnshire and find two completely different maps, both of which "are Lincolnshire"! Seperate articles on the two entities would allow these different matters to be explained properly with confusingly juxtaposing them. 80.255 12:32, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Here is my attempt at rejigging the existing Lincolnshire page - the first sentence sets out the various statuses of the county, then continues by referring mostly to the traditional/ceremonial county (because it has the largest and most recognisable boundaries). Then there's a new Administration section, which starts at 1888 and works forwards. Apart from the fact that at least three (if not four) maps are needed, I think this simply covers all twelve Lincolnshires on one page. Sjorford 13:30, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- The page you posted isn't bad - certainly much improved from the current pne-page version of Lincolnshire. However, it does pose problems regarding exactly which entity is being refered to - for example, the list of towns and villages "In lincolnshire" - administrative? Traditional? 'Ceremonial'? And then, of course, if we list all the places in one of these three, we should logically do the same for the other two, which would clutter up a single page and lead to confusion.
- There is also the matter of consistency. All the counties should really have articles of the same structure. To apply your new layout to a 'frankenstein's monster'-type adminitrative county like cumbria would obviously cause problems, because the traditional and adminitrative boundaries are very different - if you anchor the article around the traditional boundaries, then it will have very inappropriately titled, and if you do not, then the traditional counties will be squeezed out. Another example: the traditional county of Hampshire includes the Isle of WIght - however, the island is also an administrative county in its own right: it would be rather confusing to both include the island on a map in the Hampshire article, and as being both a county-unto-itself and "Part of Hampshire" on a separate page - you may as well simply erect a Hampshire (traditional) page, and then devote the Isle of Wight page solely to the administrative unit.
- I feel that seperate pages for traditional and adminitrative entities would be much more flexible in the long run, and, when anyone is directed to either from another article, the context would be instantly clear. However, as it stands, your improved version is certainly better than the current status quo! 80.255 14:19, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
|
