Talk:Lawhitton

Cornwall Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cornwall, an attempt to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of Cornwall and all things Cornish. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CornwallWikipedia:WikiProject CornwallTemplate:WikiProject CornwallCornwall-related articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

See drop-down box for suggested article edit guidelines:

Be bold - if you know something about Cornwall then put it in! We value your contributions and don't be afraid if your spelling isn't great as there are plenty of spelling and grammar experts on clean-up duty!
Articles on settlements in Cornwall should be written using the standard set of headings approved by the UK geography WikiProject's guideline How to write about settlements.
At WikiProject Cornwall we subscribe to the policies laid down by Wikipedia - particularly civility and consensus building. We are aware that the wording on Cornish entries can sometimes be a contentious topic, especially those concerning geography. You don't have to agree with everything but there is no excuse for rudeness and these things are best solved through consensus building and compromise. For more information see WP:CornwallGuideline.
These pages are not platforms for political discussion. Issues relating to Cornish politics should be restricted to those pages that directly deal with these issues (such as Constitutional status of Cornwall, Cornish nationalism, etc) and should not overflow into other articles.
Most of all have fun editing - that's the reason we all do this, right?!

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lawhitton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120326200001/http://www.prussiacove.co.uk/houses/haven.htm to http://www.prussiacove.co.uk/houses/haven.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

name of CP

@DuncanHill: Continuing from this discussion I would make reference to this post. It appears that the parish hasn't been renamed, even if the council call it just "Lawhitton". Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK the civil parish is "Lawhitton Rucral" acording to OS. Its called just Lawhitton by its council. Fine, those are both factual. However, it strays into the realms of original research to say (1) "Lawhitton is a former civil parish" and (2) "that former parish is contained within the modern parish". If anything, that 2nd statement is flat incorrect as it appears the ancient parish of Lawhitton was split into Urban and Rural parts.

Crouch, several editors have noticed you are sailing very close to the wind on naming conventions. Your obsession with the "correct" name is definitely on the edges of the restrictions, and I do not consider edits like the ones here conducive to improving Wikipedia. If you continue, I think I will have to go to ARBCOM and ask that those restrictions are extended to cover edits like these, or the full block re-instated.

Your failure to listen is your biggest problem.

@DuncanHill: FYI.--Nilf anion (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nilfanion: Yes there was an urban as well. What I was saying is that (1) there was a CP called "Lawhitton" (hence the word "former") that contained the village and that today the village lies in "Lawhitton Rural" CP. Yes I agree that the wording was poor and possible could mistake someone, the words "village and former civil parish, now in the civil parish of Lawhitton Rural" do imply that the former CP is in Lawhitton Rural.

I have added and clarified info, apart from the potential confusion, do you not think that I have improved it?, "Lawhitton" and "Lawhitton Rural" are 2 different CPs, which is quite separate from naming conventions, though I understand why that has been brought up. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed something else, as I was about to add more about the abolished CPs, the population figure that I have given is after the 1894 split, should I just delete that text or replace it with data before the split? The question is when was Lawhitton abolished? Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re-read my 2nd paragraph, and consider the spirit not the letter of the rules. Quibbling about the correct name to call things is well into the grey area.

As for relevant dates: Find a source. That would give you the answer. Its not a question of debate if its well-sourced. If there is no source, you are straying into OR to say anything at all.--Nilf anion (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I accept and agree with that, I need to be very careful here, even if it doesn't violate the spirit it is still borderline/a grey area.

This source clarify things, it clearly highlights why my text about the former and current CPs was problematic, as Lawhitton Urban was merged into Launceston thus Lawhitton CP was probably larger than Lawhitton Rural is today, so could easily cause confusion, I will change the population figure to before, 1894, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I realized my mistake with the population, the figure and source were correct, I had just given the wrong year. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]