This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Cornwall was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
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
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?!
This article 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 articles
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject King Arthur, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of King Arthur, the Arthurian era and related topics 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.King ArthurWikipedia:WikiProject King ArthurTemplate:WikiProject King ArthurKing Arthur articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles
I'm not sure why the phrase 'historic region' is used in the first sentence of the lead. When @Uamaol recently restored the phrase they gave the following reason: 'Cornwall is historically a seperate entity so comparisons to most other counties does not hold value.' I'm not sure this holds true, as counties such as Kent, Sussex, Essex, and Northumberland were historically independent regions but are not described as 'historic regions' in their leads. The likes of Gwynedd and Ceredigion were also independent, although I accept that there's a discontinuity there between the historic kingdoms and contemporary counties.
To be honest, given the lead, body, and the History of Cornwall article explain the region's history with increasing levels of complexity, I'm not sure if the phrase isn't simply redundant. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Plus applying full consistency for Cornwall as if it just was a part of England is going to be quite controversial (as I found out), so prefer the term to remain. There is no need for full consistency everywhere, not all counties are the same in their individual context. Cornwall does have quite a unique separate ethnic identity to all those other counties to a degree. DankJae 01:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All of the county articles should cover the history of that county, but the lead should really begin with what the county currently is — a ceremonial county and Celtic nation. Adding 'historic region' into the mix isn't necessary, particularly as the fourth lead para covers that history. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe Celtic nation was mentioned in the talk page history, but not sure of "historic region" tbh. If you're willing to do a bit of digging and find if there is consensus for Celtic nation but not necessarily Historic region then that should be fine. (See who added "historic region" long ago) I understand "historic region" is not quite clear, so if you're willing to change it for Celtic nation if there was consensus in the past instead of historic region then that should be a bit fine. Ofc, the lead should not just be ceremonial county though. I do suggest looking through the archive and seeing if there was consensus for "historic region" or any other descriptor, or wait for more editors to establish a longer consensus on this controversial issue before editing it. DankJae 12:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean Celtic nation in the first sentence, not sure when it was moved to the second one, or if it always was in the second. It was mentioned here for example, have not been following the article for a long time, but you did just propose removing historic region, therefore leaving just ceremonial county, which I oppose. DankJae 12:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The lead of Cornwall is contentious, to put it mildly, but the lead sentences appear to have been broadly stable since a 20 December 2020 by @Roger 8 Roger, which resulted in:
Roger's edits tidied up a couple of previous ones which moved the 'Celtic nation' passage into the lead. It was previously in the second paragraph, and I can see from this discussion in 2012 that it was previously in the fourth. Its current position in the second sentence seems to be the result of a gradual creep up the lead which has gained consensus by not being reverted. Personally I'm happy with this arrangement, as the first sentence explains Cornwall's constitutional status within the UK and the second explains its other major identity.
The phrase 'historic county' was added to the first sentence on 21 September 2021 and seems to have stuck around from then until my major edit on 27 June. Since then the phrase 'historic region' has been added. The reason I've been removing 'historic county' from the lead sentence as I've been editing the county articles is that the Wikipedia:UKCOUNTIES guidance takes that the view that the historic counties don't exist. Any differences between the current and historic boundaries should be discussed in the article (e.g. in the second para of Lancashire), but Cornwall's historic and current boundaries are nearly identical and so the differences don't warrant a mention in the lead. On that basis, if 'historic region' is just a proxy for 'historic county' then I do think it should be removed. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess it is fine with me, but maybe ping the editors involved, to back up such consensus, especially those more connected to this article. Atlhough per WP:CornwallGuideline (which I was educated on :D) which advocates for "England, United Kingdom", should "United Kingdom" be added somewhat after England here? DankJae 21:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the second part of your comment is really a separate issue, but why not dive in?
I've had a quick look at the articles on Cornwall's largest settlements and the Isles of Scilly, Eden Project, Minak Theatre, Lanhydrock House, Land's End, and Tintagel Castle. thirteen of the twenty-one parishes, Lanhydrock, and Tintagel Castle use 'Cornwall, England, United Kingdom' or similar (e.g. Cornwall, UK). The rest use 'Cornwall, England' or similar (e.g. Cornwall, South West England), so regardless of the guideline I'd say there's no consensus one way or the other. Other county articles just use their region if it includes the word 'England' or 'region, England' if it doesn't, so my preference would be to do the same here.
I'm not really sure who's involved here — I'd expect anyone with Cornwall on their watchlist to have commented by now if they were interested — but there's no harm in pinging the article's active top editors @Ghmyrtle @DuncanHill @Johnsoniensis @Talskiddy@Murgatroyd49 and re-pinging @Uamaol
I recently changed some articles from "Cornwall, United Kingdom" to "Cornwall, England" boldly applying UKGEO but seems there is an exception is for Cornwall so it should be C.. England, United Kingdom all round. Note many IPs may have removed either England or UK over the years, which is why the guideline holds more weight than usage. Can't exactly compare to other county articles as an exception seems to have been made for only Cornwall, due to the sensitive nature. But I'm only talking about should "United Kingdom" be added to this article's lead if all other sub-topics should be "C...England, United Kingdom", but may be a WikiProject Cornwalll contributor should probably settle that. DankJae 22:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reason a number of editors prefer UK to England is the pretence that Cornwall is actually another country like Scotland and Wales. This comment won't be popular which is why I have stayed out of the discussion till now. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. There has been active promotion of all things Cornish for many years. That is not necessarily wrong but one result is that Cornwall is described as being different from the rest of England, an area in its own right. That results in what I think is an unusual distortion of reality in many articles. Someone without any knowledge of the UK reading this article is likely to think there is a distinct active group of people in the far SW corner of Great Britain with there own unique culture and language. This type of promotion of a language and race isn't confined to Cornwall: it happens with lots of minority groups, especially those on the edge of dying out. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, there is a distinct active group of people in the far SW corner of Great Britain with their own unique culture and language. It's also true that that group is a minority within Cornwall and that Cornwall is administered as part of England, so it's about balancing things.
In terms of the issue at hand, I'm not sure what 'Cornwall, England, United Kingdom' really achieves. It's more cumbersome than just using the county and country, which is the convention elsewhere, and doesn't 'remove' England. I'd argue a more effective way of incorporating Cornwall's distinct identity into articles is to simply use Cornish names and terms where appropriate, which is the standard in Welsh, Scottish, and Northern Irish articles and is already done in many Cornish ones. Look at the lead sentence of Falmouth:
Which aspect best expresses Cornwall's culture, the use of the Cornish name or 'United Kingdom'? A.D.Hope (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Use of the Cornish name is far preferable. As you say, it is consistent with useage eleswhere on Wikipedia. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is indeed about balance. We don't enter Cornwall and be confronted with people walking around speaking Cornish or dressed in different attire. As a percentage of the population those who actively present themselves as celtic Cornish will be minimal to the point of not being relevant. However, we have to use the percentage from RSSs, which isn't the same. The promotion of Cornish things in sources will be greater than the population at large, which justifies a mention in the article. But again, balance is needed and I think it sometimes goes too far. Comparison with Wales and Welsh is nonsense - Welsh is an actively spoken primary language over vast areas of the country. Use of Cornish in the lead should be removed. The guidelines are quite clear that a second language should only be added if that language/name is used by a considerable percentage of sources, which isn't the case with Cornish. It should not be used for a language that has a link of some sort with the article's subject. That is what is happening here. There is absolutely no ambiguity about the name of any place in Cornwall. If the Cornish name is used, such as on a road sign, it is with the English word next to it, removing any confusion. Yes, mention the Cornish name, but not in the lead. The county should be treated no different from other county - Cornwall, England. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this position goes too far the other way and is very unlikely to reach consensus, Roger. Including Cornish names in the lead does no harm and quite a bit of good in acknowledging the Cornish language in a natural way, so there's little reason to remove it. It also follows the consensus on UK place articles, which is to include the Welsh, Irish, Scots, or Scottish Gaelic name for a Welsh, Northern Irish, or Scottish place where it exists. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree, unlikely to reach consensus, but especially not here as it relates to multiple articles, I may have directed the conversation too much in the direction of what Cornwall is or should be. Was just asking if UK should be added in line with the guideline while discussing the lead. Any changes for places in Cornwall to be described as just "Cornwall, England" would need a discussion at WP:CORNWALL, but the current guideline is against that. DankJae 20:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I agree it won't go anywhere but I thought I'd make my point nevertheless. :) Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why do so many who identify as English have such a strong opinion on what is written in an article about Cornwall, do you all go onto articles about Sapmi and the Saami and gyp them too? 85.10.117.114 (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well IP, if one were to cross over from the Devon side into Cornwall they wouldn't see many differences, cultural or economy wise. Yet we have editors here trying to assert that Cornwall is the antithesis of the region it is geogaphically located within, i.e the Southwest (refuse to call it England, fine). And the issues facing Cornwall are not even remotely similar or relevent to those being faced by the Saami.--SinoDevonian (talk) 10:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem with Cornish nationalism is it mainly bogus. The majority of the present day population is descended from 18th century immigrant miners from the Midlands and their families. There is a reason the Cornish language died out in that period. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The language did not die out. DNA proves that Cornish ethnicity was not bred out. OK noted Engish nationalist racism 85.10.117.114 (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You certainly need a citation for the bizarre claim that most people in Cornwall are descended from Midlanders. The Cornish language did not die out in the 18th century, although it was in serious decline, the reasons for which had mostly been explained by William Scawen some years before. The existence of the language in the 19th century has been extensively researched by Rod Lyon in his book, 'Cornish - the struggle for survival', published in 2001 by Taves an Werin, and is the current focus of research by the University of Exeter. I suggest you read those before making further unsubstantiated claims. Brwynog (talk) 01:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then lead claims the Cornish language "went into steep decline" during the industrial revolution but is now being revived. Implying it is similar to the Welsh language which underwent that cycle. In fact the Cornish language became extinct as a living language in the mid-late 18th century and the lead statement is very misleading. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Concur: The last monoglot speaker died just as the industrial revolution was getting started.--SinoDevonian (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Last monoglot does not mean the last native speaker, 1900s there were still native speakers. 85.10.117.114 (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'Cornish - the struggle for survival', Rod Lyon, 2001, Taves an Werin, and recent research by Kensa Broadhurst, University of Exeter Brwynog (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SnowieLuna1212, please remove the flag from the infobox. Although popular it isn't official, and the WP:UKCOUNTIES guidelines state 'Do not include flags in the infobox, as they cannot be placed in context there.' A.D.Hope (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's probably time for an RfC on this. Tewdar 10:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
