This template 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 template 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
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?!
Template:Cornwall is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the ancient Celts and the modern day Celtic nations.
If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess.CeltsWikipedia:WikiProject CeltsTemplate:WikiProject CeltsCelts
This template is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
That may be sensible. (Maybe this template would survive deletion from pages better if it were a footer; I notice somebody's going around and removing it from everywhere it was included. And marking their edits as minor.)
Jazz it up by all means (although in keeping with other infobox styles). I'd like to see a standard that can be used for all such county nav boxes rather than the variety of styles on offer at present. MRSC06:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - Whilst I agree that nav bars often help to navigate around wikipedia, what I've removed from the Cornwall pages I felt were cluttering the articles, many of which already have far too many nav bars as it is. All of the links contained within it and more are already linked to at List of topics related to Cornwall. Whilst I am not familiar with History of the Jews in Scotland(?) ,I have put in a lot of work in across Cornwall pages and am dedicated to improving this particular niche of pages so what I have done was not an arbitary decision as you have implied. When this template was placed indiscriminately across all the Cornwall pages before, I removed it and explained my reasoning here at User talk:Lofty#Cornwall_Template. However, the user could not be bothered to response to this so I don't really think I'm acting out of place in removing what I think is unsuitable this time. Something like this should be discussed with the wider community - there is a Cornwall portal and a wikiproject which are suitable forums for this. I'm quite happy to discuss how the bar can be modified to make it more relevent and look less cluttered. take care Mammal413:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Duchy of Lancashire and other most other UK areas have their own nav box ! A nav box would be helpful for some Cornish articles.
Not disputing that nav boxes are useful - just that the current one being applied could be better designed and less cluttered and also more descriminately applied to articles, especially if there are already many existing boxes on that page (a can't see the wood for the trees effect) take care Mammal408:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - maybe some discussion would help the redesign? Mammal412:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC) ps sorry for confusing you with the anon author - from the pattern of page edits I thought it was you not being logged in Mammal4[reply]
I have been working on something similar to the England and Scotland navigation boxes. I thought something more complicated might be useful for Cornwall, due to its complex history, political situation and language etc. --MacRusgail15:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely think that a show hide feature would be an asset - that way the topics can be covered in the depth they deserve whilst the template remains innocuous. I also think it should stretch across the whole page not just two thirds length. It would be nice to theme the colour scheme too - maybe something in Cornish colours (Black, yellow white)? Maybe also a small Cornwall map as I have done with this template I made for Cornish parishesMammal416:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC) ps I'm moving this discussion to the template discussion page Mammal4[reply]
I have redesigned the portal with Cornish gold, smaller images, show/hide ability, easy edit markers and added Main Cornish Settlements from the existing template. As such I will add this one to the relevant pages. Lots more could be put here, let's see what. --A Cornish Pasty20:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be any better to change this template to use the County template as the baseline? At the moment, the county template doesn't have the option for a flag but it could always be added if required. WOSlinker20:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'm against it; I don't see why all templates need to look the same and I don't think that one in particular looks any better than the current one, however I can see why people would want consistency across the board. --A Cornish Pasty01:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for it myself (but I am a sucker for consistency). I think it looks great! I'm looking into putting something together to incorporate a crest or flag for this template which I think will help. Is it feasible to convert over to the standard style? --Jza84 | Talk 12:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While the template looks fine the title may be a cause for concern as many view Cornwall as a Celtic nation - how about "Ceremonial county of Cornwall/Celtic nation of Cornwall" or just plain "Cornwall" ? Can anyone point me in the direction of the discussion regarding the agreement for the change on the Cornwall pages ? Tamke (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The use of Template:County has been editted out of this template, knocking it out of line with the rest of England (see here). The revision doesn't add anything to the template other than "localise" the look according to singular preference rather than the widely used, standard version. --Jza84 | Talk 11:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jza84 is editing the Template:Cornwall to be "consistent" with other English templates, but in doing so he is removing topics from the box and making it generally less useful. He also claims to be doing this as per the "talk", which as you can see above consists of him saying he likes a proposed change, then editing it one hour later stating "convert template over per talk" without waiting for any consensus or discussion. Now if there was a consensus for it to be changed, I would be all for it, but I don't see the point of implementing consistency for consistency's sake especially when the change actually detracts from the usefulness of the template. --Joowwww (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep discussion on the content, not contributor please. One contributor suggested it, I agreed, there were no objections - a consensus and discussion was formed. Can you explain what these topics are that I'm removing? Can you assure me that you're not wanting to "localise" this template because of your desire to promote yourself as a Cornishman not Englishman?? --Jza84 | Talk 11:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you wanted to keep discussion on the content, not the contributor? Me being Cornish or English is irrelevant, and I could easily come to the conclusion of your strong desire for consistency across all UK county articles due to the unionist userboxes you splash on your userpage. Back to the content, and if you look at the template as it is now you will see there are many wikilinks to Cornwall-related articles, many of which were not present on your proposed change. If the change was able to be made without losing those links I would be fine with it. I don't care what it looks like, my point was (as I have already stated) that your change detracts from the usefullness, which in the grand scheme of things is what it all comes down to, not what it looks like. --Joowwww (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why? Anybody can say any change is "not useful", what we need is some logic. Again, what is this material that I've been removing? - that's a rhetorical question on my part; Template:County actually adds more content and value. --Jza84 | Talk 11:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "current template" displayed in the (year-old) thread above is not the actual current template, which includes more links to Cornwall-related topics, and groups them acccording to themes. I prefer the version restored by Joowwww (the "actual current template" shewn below), as it makes navigation easier. DuncanHill (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the thematic arrangement of links, redlinks serve as an encouragement to editors to write articles, and if an article needs better sourcing then that is a reason for improving the sourcing, not for not linking to it! DuncanHill (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the "Easter-egg" links to categories? The content in some sections appears completely arbitary, with no criteria for inclusion. Also, should this style be adopted for the test of England then? --Jza84 | Talk 12:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Some subjects are currently better represented by a link to a category (I think it is only 2 at the moment - rivers and cuisine), I see no problem with that. When articles are written then the links can be amended. Content of sections seems reasonably rational to me, but of course you could propose changes here if you wish. I have no comment about other county boxes, this box was developed by the relevant wikiproject, and until now there have been no objections. DuncanHill (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the Template:County was able to have extra groups added to it, it would be easy to incorporate those topics into it, and also for other counties, but the way it is now is a real step back. There are only a couple of notable rivers and with the change to unitary status coming next year, the template would be nothing but a list of towns and a few topics. I intended to turn all those red links blue and turn category-links into articles, but as time went on my interest waned and I moved on to other projects, and instead of getting rid of them I kept them there in case any other contributor wanted to start them. They may soon be filled anyway as my interest in Cornwall related pages is increasing again. --Joowwww (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The South West Coast Path has been added to the Devon template, which now appears at the foot of the SWCP article. Should it also get a mention in the Cornwall template (perhaps under "Geography-topics" or "Other")? PamD (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi All. I seek guidance or consensus to ensure consistency when editing Cornwall-related pages.
Some pages have the raw template { { Cornwall } } which displays in full whereas other pages have the collapsed version { { Cornwall|state=collapsed } }
Do we have a policy or any strong preferences? My own feeling is that if displayed in full by default, the template can overwhelm other content especially in the case of short articles. So my preference would be to always use the 'collapsed' option. What do you reckon (replies here please)? Andy F (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, if {{Cornwall}} is used, it will show expanded unless there is more than one navbox template on the page, in which it would collapse. I think it just comes down to style, and which looks better, possibly have it collapsed on stubs and have it expanded on larger articles. I don't know how others feel but I'm not too bothered about consistency, IMO. --Joowwww (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfair to only list ONE political party involved in Cornwall politics
I have a big problem with the fact this template is only listing one political party that operates in Cornwall. Its not neutral to link and mention one political party but not others especially when that one party only gets less than 2% of the vote in Cornwall.
If we look at Scotlands template, it does not list the Scottish National Party.. just links to a list of ALL parties involved in Scotland. Template:Scotland_topics.
There are 3 solutions to this problem.
Add the other main parties in cornwall politics to the template (British Labour, British Conservatives etc)
Remove MK from the template
Remove MK and replace it with "list of political parties in cornwall" that could be placed on the Politics of Cornwall article.
Anyway as my edit to the template was undone i would like further feedback here please. I find the current setup grossly biased and unfair. If there is no response here i will raise this on the Wikiproject Cornwall page to get more feedback. A template just cant promote a single party.. its unacceptable sorry BritishWatcher (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it looks like partisan promotion of a party for it to be there on its own. If we're going to list only one party then it should be the Tories who got the most votes by far in the recent election in Cornwall for the European Parliament. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cornwall is not and never has been a single constituency for the European Parliament. The election was for the South West Region. DuncanHill (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that it is partisan promotion of a political party, and am disappointed that two editors with such similar edit histories in promoting a particular point of view on this and related issues should decide to change the template without discussing it first. DuncanHill (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The last conversation on this page was over 6 months ago so i wasnt sure if i would get a response. Ive no problem with people undoing my edits and then discussing them on the talk page, this is encouraged by wikipedia. Anyway lets move onto the issue...
To include a single political party on the template of Cornwall when there are many political parties in Cornwall just does not seem fair or neutral and i have given examples of the other templates from the UK, which do not list parties or links to a list of all parties which seems fair.
I don't see how it can't be partisan promotion of a political party when included in the infobox is just one electorally insignificant political party, who the people there have decided in the majority not to vote for or elect as MPs. The Lib Dems are much more signifcant to such a section since they actually govern there. A lot of the articles on Cornwall, including the project page itself (the "motivation" section reads like a MK manifesto) needs a good reviewing and pruning of partisan promotion of a minority worldview; promotion of obscure nationalist myth making and bias has been allowed to go unchecked on these articles for the last couple of years to the point where now they're a complete mess and need sorting out. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yorkshirian, if you were serious about improving articles you would engage in discussion instead of coming here to castigate an entire project which you haven't yet bothered to talk to or join. Your edits shew you to be pursuing a particular POV relating to Cornwall, promoting a nationalism of your own. To describe the motivation section on the project as like an MK manifesto is just plain ignorant (and before you ask, no I have never voted for or campaigned for MK). For you to decide unilaterally that "a lot of the articles on Cornwall" are "a complete mess" is arrogant, wrong-headed, and anti-collaborative of you. Join a discussion, don't just wade in and impose your own nationalistic agenda on a project which has taken great pains to accommodate legitimate differences of opinion. DuncanHill (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm commenting on the section on the WikiProject page under the heading "scope and motivation", not the efforts of contributors in general. The scope and motivation wrote down there is very similar to what fringe organisations such as MK and the Celtic League push rather than a NPOV. How would it be possible to vote for MK when you're from Brighton? Not one geographic or history article on Cornwall has GA status, most of them are blighted by fringe myth making attempts to create Cornwall into a country on Wikipedia, rather than what it is; a county. Personally, I don't have any "nationalistic" agenda (rejecting the French Revolutionary concept of nationalism entirely), rather the opposite; previously I too pushed regionalist agendas in Wikipedia and can spot the propaganda a mile off. Such fringery does not belong on a respectable encyclopedia, it damages its reliability.
Lets not get off topic here though; explain why an electorally insiginificant political party should be given space for promotion in a template, while successful parties that people in Cornwall actually elect do not? - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I used to live in Cornwall, as you will have read from my userpage, so have had ample opportunity to vote for MK had I so wished. GA status is all very well, but I do not see you as having made any attempt to make any Cornish article reach it. I have not said that other parties should not be included, please don't lie by saying that I have. What I have objected to is the decision by two editors acting in collusion to impose a change without attempting any discussion first. We have space at the Wikiproject where if you were serous about discussion and consensus you could engage with other editors with knowledge of the area and issues. Instead, the 2(?) of you have decided to tag-team your own preferred version. I strongly suggest dropping this for the time being, and revisiting the issue, via the wikiproject, in a week or so, to allow time for reflection and research. DuncanHill (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont mind if we take this to the wikiproject right now if that is what you want Duncan, i think the current status of the template is totally unacceptable and needs some change. If you are not against other parties being added then if we add them it would be a good compromise to deleting MK from the template. I need no time at all for reflection of research on this matter, the template is promoting one party (a minor party) over all others.. that just not right. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you familiar with what the template is actually for? It is to aid navigation to subjects relevant to Cornwall - si if we had an article about the Liberal Party in Cornwall (a very interesting article it would be too), or the Conservative party in Cornwall then they would be good additions to the template. Links to the articles on the national parties would be significantly less informative for the reader seeking to navigate around Cornwall-related subjects. I suggested time for reflection and research, as this would be fairer on other editors. What off-wiki communication have you and Yorkshirian had about Cornish articles? As if you are not socks then you are editing suspiciously close to each other in intent and effect. DuncanHill (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have had no communication with Yorkshirian off wikipedia. If you look at my contributions last night, you will see one single editor went along and undid many of my changes and tags that i had added, so if that can happen without me telling him where im going on wikipedia, did i have to have off wikipedia communications to tell him where i had been?
I pointed out already examples of other templates which do not see the need to promote one party over the rest in such a way. And that is exactly what its doing, even though i fully accept that probably wasnt the original intention. It must either list all parties dominant in Cornwall or none at all.. I would prefer none in line with the other templates and it prevents taking up alot of space.
Yorkshirian has a history of abusive sockpuppeteering, and you have a declared nationalist agenda. It is not unnatural for suspicions to be aroused when you both appear on pages which have not previously had the benefit of your input to support each other. When I see an editor making controversial changes to a large number of articles on my watchlist without making any attempt at discussion first, I get suspicious about his motivation. My suggestion of revisiting this issue, via the wikiproject, would have the benefit of encouraging more editors to contribute to discussion, thus depersonalizing it to some extent, and a small delay, of a week or two, would have the added benefit of allowing reflection. Remember, there is no deadline, and a template which has been comparitively stable for some time will not suffer from staying stable for a week or so longer. DuncanHill (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually looked into our contributions, you'd see that BW and myself do not agree on everything, far from it; we strongly disagree on issues related to Ireland and its article naming. But feel free to request a check user, you'll be left disapointed. Lets not derail from the topic at hand however; you have yet to provide rationale for promoting one party in this temp, two other users have provided rationale pointing out how it is not neutral in the slighest. What is to reflect on? - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry about these two Duncan, they're nothing but hypocritical neo-unionist vandals who start frothing at the mouth at the first hint of Wikipedia representing anything they don't agree with. They've both been trawling through any page related to Cornwall and changing anything they don't agree with. Their arguments are usually so weak and reactionary that most editors give them a wide berth. --Joowwww (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey now, look at those personal attacks from Duncan and Joowwww. What a wonderful world! Since when is activism permitted on Wikipedia? What rule are you lot authorised to violate WP:AGF, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV and WP:TEND? Look Joowwww, even your userboxes identify you as activist for your tendentious edits to be explained for themselves! Back in the day, we would have never allowed political userboxes and look what's happened. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I have on my userpage is utterly irrelevant to how I edit Wikipedia. Considering the way you conduct yourself in just the first few messages of yours I browsed to, "rabid hypocrite" suddenly springs to mind. --Joowwww (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're a political activist with an obsession over Cornwall, where you live, which is hardly what Yorkshirian is guilty of in respect of this article and let's face it, that's the only thing relevant here. But go ahead and attack him or me for calling you out on it. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't care if you are a Cornish supremacist and separatist, I really don't. I only have a passing interest in Cornwall at this time and won't be engaging in responding to any more self-opinionated diatribes about Cornwall for the Cornish, anti-English brigades. However, if you are really interested in the facts of differences between Cornwall and anybody, it began with a spat between Corineus and Brutus of Troy, not with events which happened much, much later under different conditions. Go ahead and shite on English people if it make you feel good. How many people shite on Cornwall? Oh, only those who affirm the fact that Cornwall is presently related to England? How do you subsist on Anglophobia? It's a lot of hot air and the only acceptable "racism". A Merry Old Soul (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where have I ever said I was a separatist? Or a supremacist? Or ever expressed any desire to see the English driven out of Cornwall? Not sure where you're getting that misinformed, paranoid, schizophrenic rant from. But it doesn't matter now anyway, you're banned. --Joowwww (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal
I want to propose a bold, but I think good change to the way this template looks and functions, based on previous discussions and some experience looking at transclusions and (over-) use of the present version.
My idea is as follows:
Convert this template to a geography-class navigation template, comparable to say Template:Merseyside, that helps readers navigate around Cornish geography (settlements, rivers, the portal etc). Rationale being twofold: that this is an approach that readers will be familliar with, and as MOS says, "consistency promotes professionalism"; that this template is added to everything and everything under the Cornwall category, with little explanation why and with a kind of desktop publishing, GCSE-ish feel to it. There is presently no navigation template linking the major settlements together in a logical format without undue and irrelevant links to political groups.
Develop a seperate navigation about (and probably titled) Cornish history and/or culture. This would probably be something like the very respectable Template:Cornish language, and include links to most of the content that is present in the current Template:Cornwall, like the rebellions, the flag, the civil war.
For me the present gawdy yellow, WP:MOSFLAG breaching, catch-all template is not doing WP:Cornwall any favours. A new solution would eliminate the calls of nationalist-bias and concern over styling. Nothing would really be lost, but on the contrary, I think there is much to be gained here. --Jza84 | Talk 23:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...We possibly just need a "Template:Cornish culture" and then for someone to go around and remove all the transclusions to the old-style template, and add the new one when relevant (i.e. where an article mentioned in the template exists only). On a simillar note, I'm a little alarmed that people like Henry Jenner and Dolly Pentreath have been categorised as "Cornish nationalists". Both were figures central to the Cornish language, but that does not equate Cornish nationalism! I'm probably preaching to the converted here though, (I hope) so apologies. --Jza84 | Talk 12:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think certainly it needs to be standardised and the gaudy yellow got rid of. But with the "self-government" template, there is currently a problem with many of these "history" articles having myth making propaganda in them, most not directly linked in reality to nationalism. For instance the Prayer Book Rebellion has nothing to do with "self-government", its rather a religious matter similar to many in England at the time for instance Pilgrimage of Grace, Exeter Conspiracy, Jack of the North which were more about rejecting Protestantism (they were replacing Latin liturgy with English liturgy, contrary to Catholicism). I think the "history" sections of these are best in located here, in the main template on Cornwall, rather than a "self-government" template IMO. Nationalism itself wasn't invented until the late 18th century and Cornwall nationalism much, much later (1950s?). - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please can we have an explanation of this edit [1].
Charitably putting aside that there is no consensus (which equates to no change), per WP:NAVI, navigation templates are for the navigation of articles. A list should/could be developed if one wanted to have a link to a list of visitor attractions, which I imagine would be no big deal. --Jza84 | Talk 21:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that WP:NAVI is only an essay, and also that the navbox at the bottom of WP:NAVI includes links to categories, and that NAVI does not actually say anywhere that categories should not be included. DuncanHill (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per NAVI and Wikipedia:Linking, wikilinks should be to articles - inline links to images, templates, users and, surprise surprise, categories are all unmentioned. If one reads WP:CAT, one sees that the categorisation system is for just that - to categorise. One can navigate categories by clicking on categories. This is why we do not duplicate categories by having templates full of links to categories, or start lists of categories.... of course. Naturally there can be occational exceptions, but given that there is already a list in article space that duplicates that category, and that's been added..... what's the beef? Aren't there articles that need writing (oh, and referencing)? --Jza84 | Talk 21:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it'll take two or three more links at least to replace the one you removed. Be great to see you doing some referencing on Cornwall WP articles for a change. DuncanHill (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, to return to your comments here - NAVI is just an essay. WIkipedia:Linking does not exclude links to categories, indeed it shews editors how to do just such a thing, and WP:CAT says that categories are to help readers navigate to related articles. So, as there is no list in article space that duplicates the category (as you'd know from checking the category and the link), and as there is no objection in the 2 guidelines you have quoted, I ask you to restore the category. Oh, and please tell User:Jllm06 that you have mass-reverted his edits. DuncanHill (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ceremonial county of Cornwall or Geography of Cornwall?
I have recently made edits to the name of the current county template for Cornwall, only to find that someone has re-edited it back to it's old title. The edits I made were renaming the county template from 'Geography of Cornwall' to 'Ceremonial county of Cornwall', like the other county template for England are called. Apparantly this dispute needs to be discussed because there are so many mixed views on this topic - what should the appropriate name for the county template be? JAU123. JAU123 (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Duchy of Cornwall" would be more appropriate. From the Royal Commission on the Constitution Wiki page:
However they recognised that "the people of Cornwall regard their part of the United Kingdom as not just another English county" and accordingly they recommended that the designation "Duchy of Cornwall" be used on all appropriate occasions to emphasise the "special relationship and the territorial integrity of Cornwall".
