Talk:West Country

Herefordshire and Worcestershire

Herefordshire and Worcestershire are West Country. There is a West Country culture there, and this is the area that the West Country accent really begins. --Mozart834428196 (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Where are your reliable sources? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Where are yours? All these sources claiming that the West Country is exclusively southern is just someone's opinion. My intent is to have both opinions, also including the opinion that it includes part of the West Midlands. --Mozart834428196 (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

On top of this, the news website This is the West Country includes Herefordshire. --Mozart834428196 (talk) 14:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The news website 'This is the West Country' also includes stories in Staffordshire [3] - so are you going to include Staffordshire in the West Country too? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Look, all I'm trying to say in the article is that one opinion is that Herefordshire and Worcestershire are in the West Country. We can have both views: the view that the West Country is exclusively southern, and the view that the West Country includes Herefordshire and Worcestershire. There are no official boundaries, and so it is down to views. As an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia's article on the West Country should cover all views. --Mozart834428196 (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not based on opinions - they are based on what published, independent, reliable sources say. Thisisthewestcountry.co.uk, by the way, covers Cornwall, Devon , Somerset... and national stories, which could be anywhere. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that as an encyclopedia, we should cover all views on the boundaries. It should mention that some say it is exclusively southwest, others say that it includes part of the West Midlands. Both views should be mentioned on the page. --Mozart834428196 (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The current wording is as follows:

The West Country is a loosely defined area of south-western England. The term usually encompasses the historic counties of Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Somerset, and often the counties of Bristol, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire, in the South West region. The region is host to distinctive regional dialects and accents.... Apart from the Bristol Channel and English Channel, the West Country's boundaries are not precisely defined and as a consequence there are a number of different definitions used. Some definitions are roughly synonymous with the administrative South West Region, while others use it more specifically to refer to just the southwestern part.

I think that's fine, but if it is to be amended slightly it could say:

The West Country is a loosely defined area of south-western Britain. The term usually encompasses the historic counties of Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Somerset, and often the counties of Bristol, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire, in the South West region of England; other areas are sometimes included. The region is host to distinctive regional dialects and accents.... Apart from the Bristol Channel and English Channel, the West Country's boundaries are not precisely defined and as a consequence there are a number of different definitions used. Some definitions are roughly synonymous with the administrative South West Region, while others use it in a wider sense, or more specifically to refer to just the southwestern part.

The change from "south-western England" to "south-western Britain" is in line with the cited source, and can be taken to refer to a wider area (as Britain is larger than England). Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it should clearly state though that some include Herefordshire and Worcestershire. --Mozart834428196 (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

You have not yet provided any source for your claim that it is sometimes used to include Worcestershire. Herefordshire is mentioned in the article text, but it would be giving it undue weight to mention it specifically in the lede. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Ancestry.co.uk has "Ancient West Country Families" in its Herefordshire stories :[4] --Mozart834428196 (talk) 12:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, West Country breweries have (or have had in the past) several breweries in Herefordshire . --Mozart834428196 (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

No-one disputes that there are some organisations that refer to Herefordshire as being in the West Country. But, probably not very many, and there's no need for that to be mentioned in the lede which exists to summarise the most important parts of the article, and not to mislead readers. I have seen nothing, anywhere, to suggest that Worcestershire should be mentioned. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, I see. I've written "Some include Herefordshire in the West Midlands." I haven't put right in the middle, but it mentions it. Also, I have found that there are some West Country ales locations in Worcestershire . --Mozart834428196 (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

That's a bit like saying Merseyside and North Wales are "sometimes considered" part of Scotland because Scottish Power operate there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, I suppose. Companies aside, I've added that some consider Herefordshire part of the West Country, because it should be added. --Mozart834428196 (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

"Because it should be added" is rarely a good enough reason for adding anything here. So far, no-one has agreed with you that it should be added to the lede, and you should wait until there is a clear consensus on this page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Everyone I speak to in real life regarding this issue agrees with me. It just seems to be those behind a screen who disagree. --Mozart834428196 (talk) 12:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

We do not accept hearsay. Find reliable sources.Charles (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hold on a minute here. These sources are just someone's opinion. There is no set definition of the West Country in the bible or anything. It's just an idea, and, as an encyclopaedia, it is Wikipedia's duty to say that some believe that Herefordshire is part of the West Country. The way I advise it is not to say that is part of the West Country, in a factual manner, but rather say that some definitions include Herefordshire. That is the way that many encyclopaedias would handle this. I was reading the talk, there were some people who thought that Gloucestershire and Somerset weren't in the West Country. Some people's definitions were that extreme that they thought the West Country was pretty much the very tip of Cornwall. Yet Gloucestershire and Somerset are still included. I believe that Gloucestershire and Somerset are in the West Country. I believe that pretty much all the South-west is in the West Country. However, I also believe that Herefordshire, in the West Midlands, is also in the West Country. --Mozart834428196 (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

This is where you are wrong. You say that " as an encyclopaedia, it is Wikipedia's duty to say that some believe that Herefordshire is part of the West Country." No, that's wrong. Please read WP:FRINGE: "Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." Although there may occasionally be references to Herefordshire (but not Worcestershire) as being part of the West Country, those references are few and insignificant, and it would give them undue weight to mention them in the opening paragraph. The wording that states that the area is "loosely defined" and "usually" encompasses counties in the South West is accurate and sufficient. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

PS re Worcestershire: The claim that the West Country is sometimes defined to include Worcestershire was added at West Country English in this anonymous and unexplained edit in 2011. I've seen no evidence to support it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Offline print encyclopaedias would include several views. --Mozart834428196 (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

... if supported by reliable evidence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Duplication

I reverted this change as it is an entirely unnecessary duplication of elements of the section that immediately follows it. Of course there are different definitions of the "West Country", and the text explains some of them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

West Country trading ketch

Sources seem to use the term "West Country trading ketch" to refer to a particular type of boat - but, I have not yet managed to find a specific definition anywhere. If one can be found, it should be added to the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

"West England" and "Western England" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirects West England and Western England has thus listed them for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 2#West England until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jay (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Relevance of historic counties to the definition

An anonymous editor has taken the time to actively edit this article to change "counties" to "historic counties" multiple times, and I've only now seen that this is perhaps related to the discussion "Edit warring over opening paragraph", where this came up but seems to have been lost amongst other discussion about the wording of the introduction. From their edit summary, this user's argument appears to be that "there's nothing to say that you can't define it as being specifically the historic counties". But this is not an argument for going out of our way to include it in the introduction to the article. There is equally nothing to say that it can't be defined as ceremonial counties, or non-metropolitan counties -- that's the nature of it being a "loosely defined region". People have different definitions of it. And that is adequately covered by the word "counties" -- the ambiguity of the term being perfectly fitting for an ambiguous region. Inserting the word "historic" is inappropriately specific, implying that other meanings of "county" don't apply, when they might.

The anonymous user has now hit the 3 revert rule, so I am going to hold off implementing this for the moment, but I am inviting them, and anybody else, to make the case here for why they think it is appropriate to limit the definition of the West Country to one specific definition of counties -- and more importantly, to provide a credible source (not one that simply copypasted the text from this article) that the West Country is typically defined by historic counties vs any other definition of counties. Joe D (t) 19:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for opening a discussion regarding this.

Secondly, the discussion you are referring to didn't get lost amongst others. We did come to a conclusion and it was to maintain the inclusion of the word "historic".

As for the topic itself. The non-historic portions of Dorset were once part of Hampshire. There are no sources indicating that Hampshire, nor any region within it, has ever been a part of the West Country. As such, prior to the adjustment of the county boundaries, there had been no argument for the non-historic portion of Dorset being a West Country region, it simply was not. To suggest that this area is now a part of the West Country (which your proposed removal of the word "historic" indicates) would therefore mean that the status of this area has now changed. However, all we know is that the boundaries have changed, which is a political alteration based primarily on which councils run which regions. The West Country is not a political entity, however, and it is not governed by a council. This, therefore, is no proof at all that the non-historic regions of Dorset have changed their status from being distinctly not of the West Country, and we need to look elsewhere for evidence of this.

I appreciate that your source seems to be that evidence, however, it gives no insight into whether or not the individuals contributing to the poll made any distinction between the historic and ceremonial regions of Dorset, and so it cannot be considered by itself evidence of even a change in public perception of these areas. What evidence is there that anything has changed for this area? What is there to suggest that people didn't vote for Dorset being part of the West Country based on the reasoning that they believe ~90% of Dorset to be, or that they wouldn't have made the distinction had they in fact been asked the questions being posed here?

The question posed in the YouGov poll is loaded in a sense, at least in terms of what we are discussing. They merely asked what users thought of Dorset, not what they thought of the parts of Dorset that were once Hampshire (which the poll makes clear is not considered the West Country) and did not ask if people had changed their minds regarding the region in question. We cannot assume that they believe this area to have changed when the source does not indicate it.

Also, I understand the request for a source, but the burden of proof is on those attempting to prove a positive as opposed to those supporting a negative. If there has been a change in status for the non-historic portion of Dorset from being considered not of the West Country, then we are required to provide this. I do not believe we have found that yet, and so I believe that the inclusion of the word "historic" should remain.82.4.221.138 (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

It is in the nature of the term "West Country" that it is impossible to try to impose a rigid definition on it. Simply using the somewhat vague term "counties" is, in this case, just fine. We should not give undue weight, or try to over-interpret, a single poll. It is simply one source among many others. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC) PS: It seems to me that the argument here is all about whether or not Bournemouth should be considered part of the West Country. The answer is that some people might say it is, and some people might say it isn't. This article should not indicate either way. It depends on your definition, and the basic point is that the "West Country" cannot be definitively defined. Questioning which definition of "counties" is used in the opening sentence is irrelevant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

(Edit conflict - sorry, I think Ghmyrtle has probably now already said what I was going to say, but much more concisely.)

Sorry, I've read through the discussion above and I do not see any conclusion or consensus in favour of including "historic". I can see one editor in favour of removing it, one editor who appears to be indifferent and did not challenge its removal from the final text, and an anonymous editor in favour of including it. Would it be correct for me to assume that you are the same person as the anonymous contributors in that discussion? It rather looks like we have just one person pushing this issue.

You are quite correct that "the burden of proof is on those attempting to prove a positive as opposed to those supporting a negative" -- which is exactly why you need to prove the positive that "historic" should be included. There is nothing partisan about simply stating "counties", which on its own can be interpreted broadly to include any and all definitions of county. By inserting the word "historic" you are implying that the West Country can only be defined by historic counties, and that respondents to the cited survey meant only historic counties -- the burden is definitely on you to prove that. Removing the word "historic" does not imply the opposite -- that the West County can't be defined by historic counties, or that respondents to the cited survey didn't mean historic counties, only that any one of the definitions may have applied. Given that the source doesn't specify, neither can we.

If we instead follow your reasoning regarding proving a negative, then the same argument can be applied to changing the wording to "ceremonial counties", or "non-metropolitan counties". Given the sources available, we can not prove that people do not think of those counties when they think of "West Country". We could add all three terms to the text, to cover all cases and emphasise the fact that "West Country" is an ambiguous term for a loosely defined area. Or we could simply say "counties", which does the same job excellently. Joe D (t) 20:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle - I agree that it is impossible to impose a rigid definition of it, but that does not mean that we should not be mindful of areas that we have clear reason to believe are not of that region with no real reason to believe that this has changed, as we have here. I do not believe that the use of a vague term is the appropriate decision when we have strong reason to believe that it is incorrect, and no reason yet put forward to dispute this. I also agree that we should not give undue weight to a single poll, and this is exactly why we should not base our decision upon it, especially when we can see that it does not dispute the above reasoning.

Steinsky - I'm sorry, but that simply means you have not read the discussion as a conclusion was very clearly reached, which was to maintain consensus. The attempt to overturn the established consensus failed as no new consensus had been achieved, and we maintained what had already been established. It would be correct to assume that one of the anonymous user in the previous discussions was me, but no, not the other, nor the other user accepting this to be a fair decision This was established in the discussion itself as you can also see. There have been many people defending this position over the years as is again clear from the discussions, including Ghmyrtle, as is again abundantly clear.

I'm glad that you agree that "the burden of proof is on those attempting to prove a positive as opposed to those supporting a negative", as this is exactly why you must prove the positive that non-historic regions have changed their status. The problem with simply saying "counties" is that they do not account for the demonstrated nuance, i.e. that the non-historic region of Dorset were once part of Hampshire, which is itself not part of the West Country by your own source. Politically joining a county is not evidence of joining a non-political, cultural region. It would be wrong to interpret such a thing so broadly, as you have yet to prove the change of status of the purely ceremonial areas. Including the word historic does not imply that the West Country can only be defined by historic counties, it merely takes into account that there is no proof supporting the belief that the full ceremonial county has suddenly changed its status from demonstrably not being of the West Country. It also acknowledges that the respondents to the survey were only asked about ceremonial counties, and were not questioned on whether they think the non-historic portion of Dorset is has changed its status when they have themselves demonstrated they do not believe it this area would be West Country had the county lines not changed. The burden of proof is definitely on you to prove that. By removing the word historic you are indeed implying the opposite - not that a region can't be defined by historic counties, but instead implying that a region confirmed to not have been part of a non-political and cultural region has joined because it became part of a political region. It also implies correctly that we do not know if the respondents meant historic counties or ceremonial counties as they were not asked to do so, with no proof of the reasoning of said respondents. Given that the source doesn't specify, neither can we specify based on that source. As we have no source that supports the individual with the burden of proof, the positive has not been proven and we are obliged to include the word historic in order to be appropriately correct.

If you follow my reasoning regarding proving a negative, then the same argument would be correctly be made for distinctions between other historic, ceremonial and non-metropolitan regions, as we cannot consider changes of status regarding political regions to correspond to changes in changes of status regarding non-political regions. Political and non-political regions are, I'm sure you'll agree, different things, and the burden of proof is on you to provide a reliable source that states that the status of the region in question has changed. Given the sources available, we cannot prove that people think of these non-historic county regions as West Country. We of course have no need to use three terms, and we have already emphasised the fact that the West Country is a loosely-defined area. We simply need to say "historic counties", which not only does the job excellently but is the only choice that accurately describes the region based on what we know be true, and the only choice that does not make assumptions based on faulty reasoning.21:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.221.138 (talk)

The argument is regarding the non-historic region as a whole, as opposed to simply one part of it. I agree that some say this region is and some say that it isn't, but we have no proof that most believe this region to be so. We have a section of the lede that says "and is often extended to" in order to make the distinction between the areas that most believe to be West Country, and the areas that few do - if we are to include that section, we must include the word "historic" in the lede as well, in recognition of the fact that while some may believe the non-historic regions of Dorset to be West Country, we have yet to have anyone show this. The inclusion of "historic" therefore remains necessary, as the alternative currently proposed implies the region to be generally considered as West Country, and this has not been proven by any measure.82.4.221.138 (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I've read the 2015 discussion yet again and still see no consensus there for including the word "historic". From what I can see, an agreement was reached on the wording of an introductory sentence with the exception of inclusion of the word "historic", over which there was very much not a consensus. I can see you insisted on including it, Zacwill insisted on removing it, Ghmyrtle didn't express a strong opinion either way in the discussion (but acceded to Zacwill's edit and has since made their opinion clear in this discussion), and PaleCloudedWhite who, although the proposer of the wording, appeared to be trying to act a neutral arbitrator in the edit war rather than argue one way or the other over that word.

Interestingly, the word first appeared in the edit history of the article here, when Ghmyrtle added it in response to somebody else removing mention of "Avon" from the article. I'll leave it for Ghmyrtle to explain the reasoning behind that edit -- if they even remember all this time later, and if there even was one, or if it was casually thrown in -- but given that they have made their views clear in this discussion now, I don't think it can be cited as a precedent for including it. So it's still the case that I can see absolutely no existing settled consensus, or even anybody arguing in support for including it except you. It is just wrong to claim that there is an established consensus on this specific issue.

The rest of your argument rests on assumption that there is simply no evidence for: that people have an internally fixed idea of the West Country as "a cultural region". But our own article does not describe the West Country as "a cultural region". It describes it as a term that people use for any number of different areas and purposes. There is no need for anybody to prove or disprove that the "cultural region" of the West Country has changed, or that it was or was not affected by administrative boundary changes, we only have to describe what the term is and has been used for. Different people use the term to mean a wide variety of different things, and most of them probably put no thought into what definition (if any) of counties they're applying -- many of them probably haven't even heard of this frankly fairly niche issue.

There is, though, one instance where "historic" is clearly explicitly wrong. Our own article states that "West Country" is often used as a synonym for South West England, with various citations, which is a clearly defined area that is based on ceremonial counties. So yes, we do already have the proof that, in some cases, people do not mean historic counties when they use the term "West Country".

This discussion has made me think about a different potential change to the introduction which I think could enhance the clarity and accuracy of it, though, and which might at the same time render this argument redundant. To avoid mixing too many different strands of discussion together, I'll start a separate sub-section for that, below. Joe D (t) 22:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

My apologies, I should have mentioned that the consensus was established in a prior talk section entitled "Bournemouth and Poole are not West Country towns". I forget the ins and outs of it exactly but I recall the consensus was established by myself and others on several occasions, and the conclusion of the other section was to revert to the established consensus at the tail-end of this discussion. Again I apologise, I should have been clear of this.

Perhaps "cultural" is an assumption, but it is certainly not a political region. A change of county lines only proves a change in the political region but does not prove anything further in and of itself. I would say that we would need proof that the West Country region, however best defined, has changed along the county borders in order to be truly reliable, and I would hold that this is required for us to be truly accurate here. That being said however, yes I grant you that it's unreasonable to expect it when I can't imagine more than a small handful of people besides myself care enough to seek out the answer. I also concede that your argument regarding the use of "historic" being wrong is indeed correct - the source does indeed prove that some people include this region that I'm talking about in their definition. Although I still believe we don't have proof that most do, and I certainly vouch for your proposal as the alternative (the one I had in mind had been a bit clumsier), but I accept defeat here if your proposal isn't taken.82.4.221.138 (talk) 23:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, but I had also read that discussion, and there is no consensus in that section regarding "historic". There is a consensus to remove a list of settlements from the article. This is all rather moot now, but could you clarify, are you the same person as was posting in that discussion as "VoiceOfReason922"? Joe D (t) 17:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

There certainly was consensus regarding the user of the word "historic", although numerous, similar consensuses were reached. They all pointed to a similarly vague term that served the same purposes, but one we've currently landed on I believe to be ideal.82.4.221.138 (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

As you have now chosen to perpetuate edit warring this evening, I'm going to press the point: are you User:VoiceOfReason922, or is that a different person? You've repeatedly claimed in discussions and edit summaries that "established consensus" makes it OK to keep reverting edits, so it has now become somewhat relevant that we establish whether the "consensus" really is what you claim it is. Joe D (t) 17:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Although it isn't clear why you're pushing such a point as the information needed is within those discussions, I'm happy to make things clear, although it is again clear from the discussions above.

First of all, as has already been shown, I have not been edit warring. ghmyrtle first chose to initiate an edit war while us two were still in the process of discussing, followed by NebY choosing to perpetuate this edit war by contradicting both the new and established consensus, requiring me to add the newly-accepted wording to fix this breach as well. User hey man im josh chose to continue an edit war himself, again making the mistake of ignoring the consensus both past and present, resulting in me fixing this mistake as well. Preventing users from breaching both of these established consensuses is not edit warring, merely reminding people to resolve this via discussion instead of perpetuating an edit war, as they were so doing. Even if it were edit warring, which is not so, clearly these three users are far more egregiously in breach of this. Therefore even if my edits hadn't been as appropriate as they are, it makes no sense to single me out instead of reaching out to the true perpetrators of this. This is made all the more true by the fact that my second-to-last edit is not even a revert, but instead an addition to the article whereby I added the agreed-upon solution made in attempt to quell the renewed edit-warring of NebY, which is exactly what you are supposed to do when dealing with something like this. This therefore cannot be included in this aspect of the discussion by any stretch of the imagination.

Secondly, I had not initially pressed this point as we had agreed upon a solution at this point, but it is now relevant to point out that PaleCloudedWhite very clearly did not remain neutral in the previous discussion, and did in fact agree to include the term "historic", as you can clearly see from the chat. Both of us agreed to maintain the article as-is, with not enough other users disagreeing to overturn the inclusion of this word. The conclusion therefore was to retain the word "historic" - which is how these discussions work even had this not simply been based roughly on previous discussions. We would have needed consensus to overturn this - this was not achieved back then, so "historic" was rightly included. It has been achieved now, and so no longer is, instead we have gone with your proposal. So I agree that this is a moot point, but I'm happy to continue.

Regarding the discussions prior to this, as you can see, the consensus was established by user 95.180.16.79, Ghmyrtle and myself as VoiceOfReason922/82.26.33.158 (the identity of both accounts being myself were made known and recognised openly by the others). This made three of us with only one voice of dissent, Simple Bob/Bob Re-born (who also made it clear that both accounts were him), so as with the several previous consensuses that were clearly established, a consensus was established once again. The inclusion of the word "historic" was inserted (by someone other than myself, for the record) as yet another way of preserving the nature of the established consensus, merely with different phrasing. As said before, this would require a new consensus being established to overturn, the conclusion being that this was not achieved, therefore leading us to continue with the inclusion of the word "historic" which maintained the integrity of the consensus established prior to this.

So, to summarise. The consensus in the first talk section was established by three different individuals, one of which myself, with only one voice of dissent. The newly-worded lede which maintained the essence of this consensus was challenged, but with two users (one of which myself) against one or two users, the conclusion was to maintain the prior consensus in spirit. This was then challenged by yourself, with Ghmyrtle in favour and myself against, before all three of us agreed on your resolution. My use of previous usernames do not change this as it had been made clear in each discussion who was who, and with myself casting one vote in each discussion over consensus. The result was that, with other users alongside myself, consensus was consistently maintained to - in one form or another - emphasise the ambiguity of the region's borders sufficiently. This leads us to now, where we have now achieved a new consensus that has been accepted and implemented.82.4.221.138 (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: "parts of"

What if we said something like:

"...usually taken to include all, some, or parts of the counties of..."

I think including "parts of" could enhance the accuracy and clarity of the paragraph. Without "parts of", the wording perhaps implies that definitions always include a discrete set of counties. But I know in my head when I think of "West Country" it only really includes a bit of Wiltshire, fading out somewhere around the the western slope of Salisbury Plain. Other people in the discussions have claimed that Poole is not West Country but other bits of Dorset are. And in the "specific uses" section of the article, many of the definitions include "parts of" counties. This wording would surely also render any discussion over historical counties redundant? Joe D (t) 22:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I fully agree with that, I think you've covered it perfectly. Thank you for the proposal.82.4.221.138 (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

If the wording helps to stop the pathetic edit-warring over this, good. But, of course, "...I know in my head when I think of "West Country"..." is almost the very definition of "original research". Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree with the proposal, but please watch your tone ghmyrtle, there is no need for childish insults. Regardless of what stance you have chosen on this occasion, the fact is, if you believe that striving for accuracy in a wiki article is "pathetic" then you are on the wrong site.

I hope we can resolve this peacefully now. 15:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not the discussion over content that's pathetic (though it's very trivial) - but the edit-warring (which you will find impossible to deny) certainly is. Please remember to sign your posts using four of these: ~ Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

There has been no edit-warring for about seven years, other than your edit that I reverted, so it's incredibly easy to deny when it has clearly not occurred. I have not breached the 3RR as my revert of your edit correctly reminded you to maintain consensus until the discussion surrounding the issue had concluded. You made the mistake of breaching consensus within a handful of minutes of your post, giving myself no time to respond and neither me nor Steinsky the time to come to any alternative proposals as we have successfully done so here. Reverting your mistake is not edit-warring, and it is not reasonable for you to act as if it were simply because you're not fond of being reminded not to jump the gun.

If you are referring to the previous edit-warring of years gone by, I agree that the edit-warring of such users is pathetic, but it is wholly unreasonable to tar me with the same brush seen as I was, again, very certainly not edit-warring myself. Preventing users (particularly rude and nasty ones) from POV-pushing and vandalism whilst maintaining an established consensus is not edit-warring, and it is impossible for you to pretend that it is. I deserve your respect for that, not your ridiculous and unfounded chastisement, so can you not become petty and unreasonable just because you were called out for your own mistake which, accidental though it may be, renders you the only one here guilty of edit-warring. It's not a big ask.

Additionally, why are you reminding us of the triviality of this issue when both users have admitted to it themselves? And why did you accuse Steinsky of original research for what was clearly a friendly gesture in the hope of making any further conversation a civil and pleasant one? It's not appropriate to become this passive aggressive when an issue has been resolved as fairly as it could be, so again, please watch your tone as you are veering towards becoming disruptive.

Case in point, I did sign that comment using the ~. Please can you actually bother to read my posts fully before replying to them (And the sinebot made a mistake, I had included the ~ in that post but it wasn't recognised by wiki). Thanks.82.4.221.138 (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

This is mildly amusing nonsense. If you signed correctly, your signature would have appeared. And, I suggest you should carefully read WP:3RR. Other than that, WP:TLDR. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Please do not lie, you are not even remotely amused, otherwise your otherwise-neutral tone that you maintained in these conversations over the last decade would not have suddenly shifted to one that is so passive aggressive and childish. I signed correctly, and the signature did not appear. I don't need to remind you of the existence of glitches, do I? Even if it had not been - and it was indeed - I have to question the integrity of an individual who points out what is, at best, a tiny and understandable mistake that the user consistently is not making. There is no need for such petulance just because the grandmaster of wiki isn't happy about being correctly chastised by an anonymous user for breaching consensus and his brief spell of edit-warring.

I suggest you yourself carefully read WP:3RR, my projecting friend. Rolling back edits that breach consensus while a discussion is still not only ongoing, but in fact presently active, is not in breach of the 3RR. Your edits were, however, in breach of established consensus, and rightfully removed, as the article I referred you to states. And by all means head off, your ridiculous comments are counter-productive and you don't seem inclined to be a helpful editor at the moment. However, please remember not to breach consensus on issues that have an active discussion, let alone try to claw back points by making nonsensical attempts to accuse others (both us faultlessly civil and respectful towards you) of misuse of this site. Doing so renders you a disruptive presence on the articles you are attempting to maintain, not to mention, in this case, playing fast and loose with the concept of logic. If you value your awards displayed on your page, I'm sure you value my advice.82.4.221.138 (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPA as well, please. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Considering you began this with calling people pathetic, I would advise you read your own material and stick to it for once. Also I can indeed point out disruptive behaviour in order to address it, of which you are the only guilty party.82.4.221.138 (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I did not call anyone "pathetic"; I said that edit-warring was "pathetic". Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

You just received a valid warning for edit warring but you're stating there hasn't been edit warring. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

If you call the behaviour of individuals "pathetic", yes, you are indeed calling those conducting that behaviour is pathetic. You are guilty of what you are accusing others of.

I did not receive a valid warning, and I am correctly asserting that there hadn't been any edit-warring except on ghmyrtle's part. You have started edit-warring yourself, however.82.4.221.138 (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)