Talk:Dorset

Peer Review
Brianboulton comments I have not carried out a detailed prose check, but from a quick reading it doesn't look too bad. Here are a few points:- These look generally Ok, but File:Abbotsbury, Dorset - Tithe Barn.jpg lacks source information and name of author. Not clear that the author was the uploader, and why is the "last version" date earlier than the "first version" date?
 * General
 * The link in ref 20 appears to be broken. I cannot access the page.
 * The most immediate area for attention is references. Throughout the article there are paragraphs that end without a citation, which gives the impression that many statements are unsourced. The "Education" section carries an "unreferenced" banner because it has no refs at all.
 * There are several citations in the lead. It would be better if these facts were cited when they occur in the main text; the lead should be a broad summary of the article, and should contain nothing that is not contained within the main text.
 * In the list of citations, formats should be consistent. For example, the retrieval dates in 1 and 2 are differently formatted.
 * Arkell, listed in the "references", is not a cited source and should be listed as "Further reading". Likewise Davies, Dwyer, Perkins, Pitt-Rivers and Taylor. Encyclopædia Britannica and West are websites and should be formatted in the same style as the other  online sources, though I don't see any citations to these, either. The impression is given that the article has been amended, but that the sources have not been updated.
 * Prose issues
 * There is a tendency towards too many very short paragraphs; see in particular "Economy and industry". The "Culture" section has a single line paragraph.
 * Awkward phrasing: just a few examples from early on:-
 * "The county town has been Dorchester since at least 1305, situated in the south of the county."
 * "Dorset's high chalk hills have provided a location for defensive settlements for millennia, there are Neolithic and Bronze Age burial mounds on almost every chalk hill in the county, and a number of Iron Age hill forts, the most famous being Maiden Castle, constructed around 600BC." Everlasting sentence needs splitting and repunctuating. There is a general tendency towards overlong sentences.
 * "Dorset was fortified with the construction of..." Should be "by" not "with"
 * "The climate of Dorset has warm summers..." Climates don't "have"
 * Although tourism is mentioned in the Economy section, one would have expected to see something about the development of tourism as an industry in the History section.
 * Images

These are all areas to work on. I would also recommend a full copyedit and prose check. There is no reason why this should not become featured again, though GA might be a useful interim stp. As you have a limited and very recent edit history with this article it may be appropriate for you to work with other active recent editors, although the principal contributor seems long gone, at least as far as this article is concerned. Brianboulton (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to review this article. I will copy your comments to the article's talk page in case other editors feel inclined to contribute.--Ykraps (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Forest clearance - unsuitable reference
There's a sentence in the 'History' section of this article which is unsatisfactorily vague ("The chalk downs would have been deforested in the Iron Age"). Would have been? Would have been but for what? I intended to change it to something more assertive such as "The chalk downs were deforested..." or "The chalk downs were largely deforested....", and so looked at the Dorset For You page which is provided as a reference to back up this asssertion, to see what it said, but unfortunately this reference refers only to the heathlands, and their clearance in the Bronze Age. Either I missed something when reading it, or this reference is unsuitable as a back-up for this claim. Can someone provide a more apposite reference? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello PaleCloudWhite, that sentence initially carried a reference from 'History of Dorset' but I was unable to find any mention of deforestation of the chalklands in the book. I therefore intended to rewrite the sentence to say, "Parts of Dorset......". I added a reference but forgot to alter the sentence.--Ykraps (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources for Education section
I intended to fix the education up myself now that I've found some sources (by which I mean, I emailed county of Dorset and begged for help finding sources...), but it's becoming increasingly clear to me as I stare at them that I'm not up to parsing and describing the British education system, as an American. Hopefully someone else can make use of these (mostly primary, but they're for hard facts anyway) sources to support the section and get the article back to FA. I'd be happy to help with locating more distinct bits of info from the morasses that are the local websites if someone else can help me mold them into supportable article content:

A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Top level of Dorset County schools information. Tons available in subpages of this site section
 * Overview of Dorset school system
 * Top level for Bournemouth schools, which operate independently. Sourcing for particular details probably available with digging down
 * Top level for Poole schools, which operate independently. Sourcing for particular details probably available with digging down


 * Hello Fluffernutter, thanks for the sources. We are moving through the article slowly and will no doubt get to the education section in due course. Thanks once again--Ykraps (talk) 07:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the list of sources, Fluffernutter. I've rewritten this section and hopefully it doesn't contain any inaccuracies. I found that Somerset (which I think is the only featured English county article) provided some inspiration. Barret (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Tourism v. agriculture - question about text
There's a statement in the article's introduction ("Initially agricultural, tourism is now the primary industry") which is slightly at odds with a statement at the end of the 'History' section ("tourism now rivals agriculture as the main economy of the county"). The former suggests supremacy, the latter parity. Although on the face of it the difference may appear subtle, I think nevertheless it warrants a change in wording in one of the statements, to ensure they both say exactly the same thing (i.e. the truth, which might need investigating/clarifying). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I see that as a contradiction. Just because two industries compete it doesn't make them equal. There was virtually no tourism in the county until circa 1800 and the main industry was overwhelmingly agriculture. Since the arrival of the railways, tourism has increased and now brings in more wealth (but not overwhelmingly more) than farming but agriculture is still a major industry. However, I am not against rewording the statements if you feel it would clarify the situation.--Ykraps (talk) 09:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The Dorset dialect
Is the following sentence correct (from the 'Culture' entry?

The 19th century poet William Barnes was born in Bagber and wrote many poems in his native Dorset dialect.[196] Originating from the ancient Norse and Saxon languages, the dialect was prevalent [ONLY?] across the Blackmore Vale but has fallen into disuse.

Rwood128 (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The source is probably the following, from the 'Culture of Dorset, England' page:

The Dorset dialect stems from the ancient Norse and Saxon languages and was preserved in the isolated Blackmore Vale until the arrival of the railways when the customs and languages of London arrived.[36] The rural dialect is still spoken in some villages and is kept alive in the poems of William Barnes and Robert Young.[36][37][38] I can correct -- but perhaps there is a better authority out there? Rwood128 (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The sentence was altered after a copy edit. Prevalent, in this case, I take to mean widespread which is an acceptable interpretation of the source. Thanks for your edits but this article is currently a featured article candidate and I feel that that is really too much information particularly with regard to JCP as he wasn't actually in the county as much. You could add to the Culture of Dorset article though. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The particular highlighting of the dialect in the Blackmore Vale seems to make sense in the context of talking about Barnes. As an interesting aside, Ralph Wightman (a native of nearby Piddletrenthide) claimed that the 'epicentre' of the Dorset dialect was just on the edge of the Blackmore Vale, in fact he very precisely locates it around the straggling village of Ansty, which he referred to as Hartfoot Lane or "Arfurd Lane". In 1965 he wrote of it: "In my youth I remember it as full of incredibly old people. The dialect was the richest in the county and the least contaminated by Devon or the New Forest. Every "yokel" story is fathered on Arfurd Lane. It was here that a cottager rushed to get the pig out of the sty to stand with front hooves on the wall, and share the march past of the band on the Friendly Society Feast Day." PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I feel that prevalent is ambiguous in this context. Perhaps 'survived longest' would be better, but this still leaves unresolved the statement that it "is still spoken in some villages". Rwood128 (talk) 10:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think prevalent is fine. It doesn't say the dialect was exclusive to the area. The sources for this sentence only mention the Blackmore Vale -- do you have other sources that suggest the dialect was more widespread? A possible solution to the other part you mentioned could be to insert "largely" before "fallen into disuse". Barret (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Presumably the Dorset dialect was prevalent throughout Dorset at one time, hence my quibble. The contradiction between these related entries needs to be resolved -- but not by me. We need an expert in dialects. Rwood128 (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well I don't think it was spoken in the East of the county, which was historically in Hampshire and I think I'm right in saying it wasn't widely spoken in the South either so I think Wightman has it about right (thanks PCW). There are still some native speakers around [] but I don't see how any of this contradicts what's currently in the article.--Ykraps (talk) 07:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox
Have a look again. The infobox is a bit clearer now with a separate section for the ceremonial county and another for the county council area. Thanks MRSC (talk) 06:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, apologies for my slightly ambiguous edit summary. It was not the infobox I was objecting to but the information within which seemed to be solely about the non-metropolitan county rather than the county as a whole which includes the unitary authorities of Bournemouth and Poole. For example the admin HQ of Dorchester is not the admin HQ for either Bournemouth or Poole. The coat of arms is also only used by Dorset County Council as is the website dorsetforyou.com. Bournemouth and Poole councils each have their own websites which were included in the original infobox along with the nuts code UK21. UK22 is the nuts code for non-metropolitan county only. If we can add this information, thus giving the county's two UAs an equal footing, I am happy to accept the new infobox. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I see! I considered adding these in when I devised the template, but it was quite a struggle to present things clearly. I'll add the two unitaries under the county council section. MRSC (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes
I have reverted some rather large edits because much of it appears to be uncited original research. Examples of this include:

In the lead

 * Unitary Authorities was changed to boroughs but boroughs are not the same. The fact that Poole and Bournemouth are self-governing, not part of Dorset County Council, is what’s important here. The fact they are boroughs is irrelevant otherwise why not mention the Borough of Christchurch?--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes but it used 3 words when 2 would suffice.
 * But they are two different things! Unitary Authorities are not necessarily boroughs and vice-versa. The purpose was to explain that the county of Dorset comprises the non-metropolitan county plus the two UAs of Bournemouth and Poole; to say that the county comprises the non-metropolitan county and two boroughs is incorrect!--Ykraps (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ‘’...as at the 2011 Census approximately half of the county's population lived in these coastal towns or in the adjoining suburbs.’’
 * What coastal towns are being referred to here? Poole and Bournemouth have just been described as boroughs and the South Dorset Conurbation includes Christchurch which is not previously mentioned. Also see Bournemouth's talk page if you want to know more of my thoughts on this subject.--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Granted but perhaps some other link to the unitary boroughs could be made as they are clearly not elsewhere in the county.
 * My main gripe here is that you have assumed that the SED Conurbation is joined up and that other areas of it are mere suburbs of Poole and Bournemouth. This is incorrect!--Ykraps (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ‘’Dorset was heavily involved in the preparations for the invasion of Normandy and the large harbours of Portland and Poole were two of the main embarkation points on D-Day’’ was changed to, ‘’ was key to the invasion of Normandy as the largest harbours, Portland and Poole, were main embarkation points’’
 * This makes it sound like the large harbours were its sole contribution and this is simply not true. For a start, Studland Beach, because of its similarities to the Normandy beaches, was used extensively for training purposes.--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Today such a focus in number of words on this episode of history in the lead sounds positively nostalgic.
 * But your removal of words which you (erroneously) consider superfluous, is altering the meaning of the sentence.--Ykraps (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ‘’ ... as the largest harbours, Portland and Poole, were main embarkation points. The former was the sailing venue in the 2012 Summer Olympic Games and both are major national centres for rowing, windsurfing and sailing’’.
 * I don’t think this is correct. The former, referred to in the following sentence, is the large harbour of Portland, and indeed this is where the link goes, but the Olympic sailing events took place in Weymouth Bay.--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could just correct rather than deleting. They are adjacent.
 * If you wish to say that, "The former is adjacent to Weymouth Bay which was the sailing venue in the 2012 Summer Olympic Games and both are major national centres for rowing, windsurfing and sailing", I will not argue with you but this will have to be added to the main article and properly referenced. Do bear in mind though that this will mean using more words!--Ykraps (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ‘’...its coastline is a World Heritage Site that features notable landforms such as Lulworth Cove, the Isle of Portland, Chesil Beach and Durdle Door’’ was changed to ‘’...the county's coastline is a World Heritage Site with landforms such as the Purbeck Hills, 'Isle' of Portland, Chesil Beach, Lulworth Cove and near-adjoining Durdle Door’’.
 * This makes it sound like the landforms are what makes it a World Heritage Site, and again, this isn’t entirely true. And what does near-adjoining mean? As far as I know it is completely joined and that is why it’s an arch and not a stack.--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Again why not just correct, the list was actually expanded with the Purbeck region which is not even mentioned in the lead and made more appealing as two can be seen at the same location whereas intuition would suggest they are miles apart.
 * But you have added Purbeck Hills and given no indication as to their close proximity to Lulworth Cove. And why would someone think they are miles apart anyway? They are all on the coast of the same small county. Nor does your comment address my concern that the your edits have made it sound like these landforms are the sole reason the area was granted World Heritage status.--Ykraps (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Settlements

 * Why is it necessary to point out that Bridport is coastal? To my mind a coastal town is one where the town is on the coast whereas Bridport is at least a mile inland. Perhaps I’m splitting hairs but more importantly, the source doesn’t say this.--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at all, well corrected.
 * Neither does the source say that Wimborne was founded in Saxon times (even if it was).--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It talks about it being a Saxon market town which I have not seen in hundreds of other articles and is akin to saying a charter or abbey record of 1050 AD for it has been found: if so completely common and irrelevant today for a lead section on the whole county in which that town lies. Clearly it was founded then, as the phrase connotes, and is mentioned in even the website on Wimborne Minster; one would make special mention if it was founded in Roman or early Dark Ages.
 * Just because it is referred to as a Saxon town, it doesn't follow that it was founded in Saxon times! Blandford Forum is often referred to as a Georgian town because of its Georgian architecture but it is actually pre-Roman. Calling it a Saxon town is usually a reference to the old Saxon street plan.--Ykraps (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * With regards to the changes made to the Poundbury sentence, what are village amenities? I live in a village and I consider these to be a pub and a post office. I don’t consider them to include offices and industrial units! And what was wrong with the previous statement?--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Written in a WP:REALTIME infringement way and like a horrible WP:EDITORIAL. I would like you to please read how to write about UK settlements before reverting all of my changes and then trying to make every single change sound petty or ungrounded, this was a bold edit which is for data purposes to be encouraged.
 * "The suburb, which is expected to be fully completed by 2025, was designed to integrate residential and retail buildings and counter the growth of dormitory towns and car-oriented development". What is wrong with that? Is it not still expected to be completed in 2025? Was it not designed to integrate residential and retail buildings and counter the growth of dormitory towns and car-oriented development? And "village ammenities"...!? Can I assume good faith with regards to your insulting plea for me to read how to write about UK settlements which isn't relevant here as Dorset isn't a town? Might I suggest you read WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_counties?--Ykraps (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Physical geography

 * ‘’... its underlying geology, which is partly responsible for the diversity of landscape’’ was changed to ‘’ contains considerable variety in its geology, chiefly responsible for the diversity of landscape.’’
 * This came up at FAC, and it was decided that as erosion also has a major affect on landscape, to change it to “partly responsible”.--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of that so consensus applies. However surely all European geography of coastal areas has been similarly affected?  Surely the heritage coast documents cite the geological strata and not the tides and weather as the main reason for designation.  This sounds like a clear subtle attack of the Heritage Coast designation and AONBs by geographic egalitarians.
 * "Landscape" is a complex subject governed by both natural and human processes. Geology is important in influencing landscape, but it is not the only factor. For example, three factors that have influenced the relatively undeveloped nature of Dorset's coast (built-up areas are a part of landscape) are the existence of Poole Harbour (which has deflected westbound routes from travelling close to the coast), the distance of Dorset from London, and the particular attitudes and financial circumstances of the landed gentry who historically owned large sections of the coast (and still do). Obviously the influence of geology on the last two factors is not so immediately apparent. So, whether it is more accurate to state geology is partly responsible or chiefly responsible for Dorset's landscapes is difficult to say; if this statement is in dispute, I suggest referring to what the relevant sources state. Incidentally, erosional processes interact with geology to produce landscape features; I wouldn't consider them as separate. Also, I do not understand the comment about geographic egalitarians attacking landscape designations. Lastly, it would be helpful if people could sign all their individual points; the way this thread has developed has resulted in it being difficult to see who has said what. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ‘’The remainder is less straightforward and includes Portland and Purbeck stone, other limestones, calcareous clays and shales’’ was changed to ‘’ The remainder takes in the spectrum of sedimentary rocks/stones from Portland and Purbeck stone through other limestones to more recently laid calcareous clays and shales.’’
 * This now sounds like the stated formations are sequential, which I’m not sure they are, and that this is a complete sequence, which it isn’t.--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Spectrum from... to... clearly deals with this spectacularly well. Perhaps it is not a construct which you employ, but it is one regularly used by the media.  On the reverse anti-editorial note which is better perhaps 'less straightforward' could be changed to something not so condescending (and which would connote the 3 types of rock and possibly gemstones and metals which is far from the case).  Again one fresh sentence can be linked to the next not making it sound like the statements (as with the south or Poole and Bournemouth area) might be quite separate topics.
 * But again you have altered the meaning of the sentence. Your removal of the word "includes" has caused the sentence to imply that Portland, Purbeck stone, other limestones, calcareous clays and shales are all of the same group and that they are in a chronological sequence, and this is not correct.--Ykraps (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ykraps. Also I do not believe using the words "less straightforward" is overly editorialising, nor is it condescending. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ‘’Portland and Purbeck stone are of national importance as a building material and for restoring some of Britain's most famous landmarks’’ was changed to, ‘’ Portland and Purbeck stone and are of importance as a building material especially restoring or emulating many of Britain's landmark buildings’’.
 * Emulate means to copy or mimic so where are these buildings which are copying Britain’s landmarks? Is there a copy of St Paul’s Cathedral somewhere, for example? Also why lose the national importance bit when it’s the national importance that makes it notable?--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Most town halls up and down the land and various churches in terms of gothic and perpendicular architecture - I did not want to bombard your readers with architecture but it does seem that the historic casting of the stone is wholly inappropriate. Of course it's very expensive so easy to typecast as had its day but it's still very much in demand.
 * We are not discussing industry here. It is the "national importance" which makes it worthy of inclusion; a bit that you have now removed. And no, it's not very much in demand; the price of Purbeck Marble in particular is prohibitive, most of the quarries are closed and specially open to cut the stone to order.--Ykraps (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ‘’Dorset's diverse geography ensures it has an assortment of rivers, although a moderate annual rainfall coupled with rolling hills, means most are typically lowland in nature’’ was changed to, ‘’ Sedimentation of different ages and coastlines has resulted in ridges of rolling, variously eroded hills, highest around Cranborne Chase but also high along much of the south coast’’.
 * The purpose of this sentence was to explain why Dorset has a variety of rivers but many are lowland in nature. I’m not sure what it is saying now but it appears to be almost repeating a previous sentence. Again, more importantly, not what Wright was saying in his book.--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not more important. The individual hill range articles go on to make far more verifiable points.  Wright points to rainfall being a main factor in the rolling nature, one could point to Vietnam and contrast with the old hills of Dorset, it is geographic plates and the era in which there was last volcanic activity which chiefly determine hill height.  "An assortment of rivers" - this applies to all geographic counties of the size and is thus thus non-notable.
 * Rivers are notable and WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_counties specifically requests their inclusion. See the Geology, landscape and ecology section. And no, not all counties have a variety of rivers. In East Anglia for example, all the rivers are wide slow moving, lowland types because the area is pretty much flat.--Ykraps (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ‘’...the Frome, Piddle and Stour which all flow to the sea in a south-easterly direction’’ was changed to ‘’ the Frome, Piddle and Stour which flow with very small meanders south-eastward to the sea.’’
 * Very small meanders, the Stour?! There are two massive meanders around Sturminster Newton and Manston and I’m certain you’ll find a few more if you look on Google Earth. Again the sentence is completely uncited.--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the lack of sinuousity. When a fact is visible from a map one does not need sources.  But point taken about meanders more generally.  'To the sea' is daft.  The introduction to this article presently reads full of so many self-indulgent repetitions and impliedly or intuitively true facts that it is among the most editorial of the featured articles I have come across in my view.  Circular prose is very common in wikipedia and becoming more common around the world.
 * You are presumably incorrectly assuming that all rivers flow into the sea. They don't. Some flow into other rivers, some flow into the ground and some flow into lakes etc.--Ykraps (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Demography
I fully appreciate that being a Featured Article doesn’t mean there isn’t room for improvement or that the article is complete but I don’t see how any of these recent edits are an improvement. However, I am happy to entertain the thoughts of other editors.--Ykraps (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The table only includes information for the area of Dorset controlled by Dorset County Council and not the entire county. This is not made clear and also therefore means the rankings are incorrect.--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would actually agree with you here. I wondered if adding more data for formally, currently exterior parts of Dorset for local government but as regards headline economic data would be data-consuming.  But I think you are right to continue to compare them as UAs that are not Met. Dists. remain the main economic driver of their surrounding historic county.
 * The citation for the table does not give the information required.--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually yes it does, are more simple addition and % brackets required however? I am not sure the ONS would agree with you that it does not makes it statistics very accessible!  However I would agree with that critique if you would still like the heavily data-consuming brackets.  Trust is in important element of any statistical source, the source is neutral and primary data thus easily verifiable.
 * Umm, no it doesn't. Your link took me to a search page where presumably I was supposed to guess where to find the information.--Ykraps (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Abbreviations such as JSA and Inc Supp need explanations.--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed.
 * Most populous to my mind refers to population density and West Dorset is largely rural. Perhaps most populated is less ambiguous.--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a shame. I don't see how people would assume a division would be the same size unless it is a ward.  This underlines where our minds differ but yes I would accept the unambiguous solution.
 * The newly added sentence above also needs references, particularly “reliant upon” which sounds like OR (JSA isn’t means tested for a start!). Claiming might be a better word.--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a summary of the information below and repeated in the ONS's own headlines, maps and tables all of which are versions of viewing the neighbourhood.gov.uk website - which incidentally is supposed to be opinion-neutral by the best statistical minds in the country unlike most of the other sources in this article which sometimes verge upon whimsy or focussed on one particular snapshot. I could go around collecting conflicting sources for most of this article's WP:OPINION statements but most of those opinions match academic WP:CONSENSUS so that would be petty and require a sub-rebuttal in each case.
 * The fact that JSA is not means tested makes any assumption that all those claiming it are reliant upon it, wholly incorrect and original research!--Ykraps (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If the point of this table is to show levels of poverty, and I suggest it probably is, given the preceding sentence, then benefits such as: working families tax credit, housing benefit, sickness benefit etc.  are more relevant as JSA is a short term benefit and isn’t means tested. If the purpose of the table is to show economic inactivity then perhaps it is better suited to the economy section.--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I think the economic section would be more important and relevant. The purpose is not to delve into those transient or widely claimed benefits which change at the drop of a government but to focus on economic inactivity as in the UK constituency articles on Sheffield which I did not write (and somewhat found appalling) being less resistant to change as it requires economic transformations or costly social interventions.-  Adam37   Talk  09:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The West Country Challenge
Would you like to win up to £250 in Amazon vouchers for participating in The West Country Challenge?

The The West Country Challenge will take place from 8 to 28 August 2016. The idea is to create and improve articles about Bristol, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Dorset, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire, like this one.

The format will be based on Wales's successful Awaken the Dragon which saw over 1000 article improvements and creations and 65 GAs/FAs. As with the Dragon contest, the focus is more on improving core articles and breathing new life into those older stale articles and stubs which might otherwise not get edited in years. All contributions, including new articles, are welcome though.

Work on any of the items at: or other articles relating to the area.
 * Core articles
 * Missing article hotlist
 * Missing photograph hotlist

There will be sub contests focusing on particular areas:
 * Bristol (Day 1-3)
 * Cornwall and Scilly (Day 4-6)
 * Devon (Day 7-9)
 * Dorset (Day 10-12)
 * Gloucestershire (Day 13-15)
 * Somerset (Day 16-18)
 * Wiltshire (Day 19-21)

To sign up or get more information visit the contest pages at WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge.&mdash; Rod talk 16:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Infobox - coat of arms
Should the top of the infobox contain the Dorset County Council coat of arms and motto? This article covers the entire ceremonial county including the unitary authorities of Poole and Bournemouth and each of these towns have their own coat of arms and motto. I think the infobox is misleading as it suggests they are used by the entire county. Barret (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I vaguely remember this coming up before and I believe consensus then was against its inclusion for the reasons you state. I feel it ought to be all or nothing and, as including the unitary authorities is going to bloat the info box, my preference is for nothing.--Ykraps (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Whilst I'm not standing on ceremony on the subject: I'm in favour of keeping the Coat of Arms for the short time the County Council will exist. Bournemouth and Poole unitary authorities are relatively new and formally used on County Council services, with the rest of the county - this Coat of Arms. David J Johnson (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Local elections
What happened in the My 2019 elections? Jackiespeel (talk) 09:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Dorset for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Dorset is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Dorset until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 21:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Royal Signals School of Signals Blandford (section Economy and industry) - 'retirement' of sentence
The paragraph regarding Defence sites in Dorset ends with prediction of possible local economy losses following the then (2009) mooted move of the School of Signals to South Wales (MOD St Athan). In fact this did not materialise so I propose 'retiring' this sentence as obviated by events (or the lack of them).

Plans to relocate the Royal School of Signals from Blandford to South Wales could result in a loss of up to £74 million GVA for the area. Cloptonson (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Your actions are entirely correct. Wire723 (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * While your actions were not incorrect, if you have a reference that the signals school is still based at Blandford, we can modify the sentence and retain the figure that shows its value to the local economy. Or at least what it was worth in 2009.--Ykraps (talk) 08:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Television
I have removed a recently-added section on Television, after my attempts to place it in suitable context and suitable prominence were reverted by. Since my reasons are a bit long for an edit summary, I'm putting them here: If people do think there's something notable of encyclopedic value to say on the topic - and that this article is the correct place to say it - perhaps we could first work on a media section for Culture of Dorset, and then produce a concise summary for the main article when we're happy with what are the important things to say on the topic? Joe D (t) 01:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Contrary to David's edit summary, the previous content is not "correct". There is nothing special about "the size of the county" that causes it to fall into multiple regions; it mixed the undefined (but likely to be interpreted as journalistic coverage) "covers" with the quite different "receives"; and it gave readers no context as to what television regions are.
 * 2) Television should not be an entire section on a county article -- it's too specific, there's not enough to say, and what there is to say is too trivial. If there's anything really notable to say, we typically include it alongside other local media (radio stations, newspapers, etc) in the Culture section or Culture sub-article. (It's not even considered worth mentioning on WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties!)
 * 3) It is borderline notable enough to mention at all on this page IMO. Indeed, this page made it all the way to Featured Article status without anybody ever noticing that it was missing an all important mention of television regions. So the simplest solution to any dispute for now is to remove it, unless and until people agree that it's worthy of inclusion.


 * I don't think there needs to be a mention of television at all. It wasn't included for FAR because WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties doesn't mention it and finding good quality reliable sources on the subject is very difficult (which is presumably why the entire section wasn't cited). --Ykraps (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ykraps, there is no need for a "television" mention at all. My original objection was that Steinsky had deleted mention of the coverage for central Dorset, whilst retaining East and West Dorset. Regards to all. David J Johnson (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I think local radio and newspapers as well as television should be under Media not culture because culture will have food, religion and etc... The county of Dorset has 3 different regional news in different areas (not just one regional news people watch) and people in the Central part of Dorset get their TV news from both South and South-West. Some towns and cities in the UK may get more than one regional news program, if you don't believe it or you disagree here is the website to proof it:. It's important to know what county or town gets their TV news and programmes. From anonymous


 * Why is it important? Those who live in the county already know which stations they receive and those that don't live in the county cannot possibly be interested. You can also get Sky and Netflix and dozens of other cable and streaming services but you don't feel the need to mention those. It is far too trivial and unencyclopaedic to be included in an article on a UK county, which is why it's excluded from the WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties guidelines. As a featured article, this article must conform to the guidelines and telling people which television channels they can watch, simply isn't the style. Thanks for coming to the talk page to discuss it though. By the way, you would be far more anonymous if you created an account; I already know your location. --Ykraps (talk) 05:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Durdle Door Overview.jpg

Flag of Dorset
Sorry, but why is the flag of Dorset not shown in the infobox, like it is for some other counties? Ivario (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


 * It was removed by User:A.D.Hope with this edit []. They would be best place to answer your question. --Ykraps (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The infobox relates to the ceremonial county, but the flag to the historic county. Our source for the flag is the Flag Registry of the Flag Institute, which only deals with the historic counties. The flag is still in the article though, in the Dorset section.
 * Whether ceremonial county article infoboxes should include flags or not is a bit of an ongoing debate, so the articles are likely to be inconsistent in that regard. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it was me who added the flag to the 'Culture' section as a stopgap, since it was nowhere to be found :)
 * In this case, the infobox flag might be suitable as it seems there is no article on the ceremonial county of Devon, as is the case for others... Hopefully the debate will lean more on including the flags in the infoboxes. Thanks for the info! Ivario (talk) 08:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's good, a lot of county articles cover their flags in an equivalent section, although it's a bit ad-hoc at the moment.
 * The ceremonial counties form the basis for the English county articles, and we generally try and cover all of a county's history in one article. The main exceptions are historic counties which don't have an equivalent ceremonial county, like Middlesex, Yorkshire, and Cumberland, and former ceremonial counties like Avon and Humberside. In Dorset's case the ceremonial county covers basically the same area as the historic county, so it's possible to cover both in a single article. England just has too many types of county, that's the trouble! A.D.Hope (talk) 11:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)