Talk:Oxfordshire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject UK geography      (Rated Start-Class) This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements. United Kingdom Portal Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments) High This article has been rated as high-importance within the UK geography WikiProject. WikiProject England      (Rated Start-Class) England Portal This article is supported by WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to articles relating to England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article associated with this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Settlements 2 Traditional county infobox 3 Non-notable Village Stubs 4 Renovation to the villages 5 Oxfordshire 6 setiments 7 Fair use rationale for Image:EH icon.png

[edit] Settlements

So Christmas Common and Cowley are major towns in Oxfordshire, but Oxford isn't. How quaint. -- Chris j wood 18:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've rationalised the list; removed all the places which don't have an entry in the List of towns in England; added Oxford. -- Chris j wood 19:08, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Traditional county infobox

The traditional county info belongs in the History of Oxfordshire as it is no longer current. There is a debate about this view. See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places)#Trad counties of England infoboxes. --Concrete Cowboy 09:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

This is not true. The traditional county is perfectly 'current'. When was it abolished? Don't forget on Wikipedia you need to Cite your sources. If you have no evidence of its abolition it needs to be returned to the main Oxfordshire page. Owain 10:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It has no current practical effect. It of historic interest, just as are the Anglo-Saxon Hundreds. Their importance in the right context is not in dispute. In the main article, they are clutter that takes up too much space that could better be used for current or recent photographs. In the unlikely event that anybody but you cares as deeply about the subject, then see the article referred above for the generic discussion, since it is not unique to Oxfordshire. --Concrete Cowboy 11:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Practical evidence includes that government statement ""The new county boundaries are solely for the purpose of defining areas of ... local government. They are administrative areas, and will not alter the traditional boundaries of Counties".

The practical effect of their existence includes the fact that the government issued this statement. I.e. it would not have been issued if they did not exist. Men have been executed on less evidence than that!

The right context is a seperate article. 80.255 12:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I said "practical effect" not "practical evidence". The Government says stuff like this to keep the Daily Moan happy, but it doesn't change the practical effect of their policies. I did not say that they don't exist: if you believe in them, then that's an existence of sorts. If the Government hasn't been foolish enough to formally abolish them, that's equally an existence. It just doesn't have any effect in day-to-day lives. But they are certainly of serious academic interest - indeed vital to anyone doing historical research. If you follow cricket, it's nice to be sure where your loyalties should lie.

As I've said elsewhere, I have no problem with a separate article if you want to write one and there should certainly be a link to it from the main article. For practical purposes, I'd take the convenient route of putting it the History of Oxfordshire since that is a logical home. --Concrete Cowboy 16:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I am more than happy to write an Oxfordshire (traditional), and produce maps and other relevant information on the traditional county. It is the policy that is preventing me. The policy says that all information relating to any given county name should be in the same article, in this case Oxfordshire. This isn't my doing! If you want to suggest that the policy be changed in this respect, you will have my full support. 80.255 17:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Non-notable Village Stubs

These should be merged into this article as there is sufficient space for their inclusion. Netkinetic/T/C/@ 06:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renovation to the villages

I've started to clear up the village pages in Oxfordshire(i'll start on Oxford and the towns eventually).

I've been sorting them all out, finding out information about transport links(buses trains), a bit about the location, anything recent, the amenities(schools, pubs, shops etc). also been visiting these villages to find out a bit of information from the locals.

can i get any advice on whether im going about it the rigth way?? for examples of my work...ummm....look at the new Coscote , Fulscotand West Hagbournepages. Any help with this cleanup project and renovation would be most apprecaited.--Halowithhorns89 16:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oxfordshire

It states that Chipping Norton is nearby along with Bicester and Banbury, but no mention of Kidlington, which is much nearer and much bigger then Chipping Norton, almost a suburb of Oxford.

86.3.133.80 23:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

South East of England, I always thought Oxfordshire was classed as the South Midlands? Am I wrong? 90.192.92.47 03:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] setiments

kk

[edit] 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) 05:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)