![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
OpenStreetMap held a mapping party in this area on 14-15 October, 2006 to make a creative commons licensed map that may be used in Wikipedia articles.
Thanks to all those wikipedians that took part. See http://www.openstreetmap.org for details of other planned mapping parties. |
I have added a self-taken photo of Oakham Castle in response to the image request. I'll leave it to others more expert to add it to the page if/as they see fit. It is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oakham_Castle.jpg Njjh201 21:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the assertion that Rutland is "too small to have its own M.P." on the basis that although true, the comment is not very meaningful, because UK electoral boundaries do not tie in with county boundaries in any case. (I think I'm right to say that they are calculated in terms of population and that each parliamentary constituency area is an accumulation of parishes). So although Rutland by itself is too small to form a parliamentary constituency itself, the county is by no means exclusive in its position of not having a 'county MP'. Njjh201 23:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The source for the assertion that Rutland was originally part of Nottinghamshire is 'Muirs Historical Atlas'. Rutland Weekend Television is personal recollection - though the only detail I can offer is that the station logo was a cow (rather than a conventional globe) whose markings formed a map of the world. Alan Peakall 15:22 Oct 18, 2002 (UTC)
What does possibly derived from being a retreat of the Leicestershire RatCE mean? User:Zoe| (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
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) 05:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I am a little confused as to why you undid some perfectly valid changes I made to the Rutland entry (March 19th) and replaced them with the original, less accurate version. Surely wikipedia is about providing users with correct information, rather than locally biased partial truths? As someone who works with spatial data on a daily basis, I would be very interested to hear your justification!
Just to be clear, Rutland is NOT a county anymore and hasn't been since 1974. I refer you to the 'beginners guide to UK geography' produced by the ONS: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/counties_nonmet_ua.asp
and to the related map:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/downloads/UK_LADUACty.pdf
and to the latest list of UK counties:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/downloads/31_10_01_County_names_and_codes_12_00.xls
I hope this helps with clarification - I would be nice if you could impliment these changes, otherwise I will do it.
Best wishes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.76.215 ( talk) 09:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Constitution of new counties 8.—
(1) Leicester and Rutland shall cease to form part of Leicestershire.
(2) A new county shall be constituted comprising the area of Leicester and shall be named the county of Leicester.
(3) A new county shall be constituted comprising the area of Rutland and shall be named the county of Rutland.
(4) Section 2(1) of the 1972 Act (which provides that every county shall have a council) shall not apply in relation to the counties of Leicester and Rutland.
Lozleader ( talk) 15:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's useful to have a discussion about these things. I do, however, contend that my original revision was more or less accurate and did allow for Rutland's historical county status.
Thanks to Lozleader for the link to the 1996 statutory instrument. This is in itself a little ambiguous, as despite it mentioning a 'Rutland County' in the text, in the heading for the entire document it refers to the 'District of Rutland.' If you refer back to my original revision of the Wiki entry (around 19th March I think) you will see that I stated that 'Rutland can accurately be described as a District'.
It is useful to be clear in the wiki text about these ambiguities. ONS, aware of these issues with geography have produced a useful Gazetteer which should clear things up definitively: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/ons_geography/Gazetteer_v3.pdf
On p41, they state that by legal definition all UAs are also Counties, but 'for many purposes UAs are treated as districts'. From this, I see the appropriate hierarchy as being Unitary Authority (first and foremost), then County (as all UAs are officially counties - not the other way around, all Counties are NOT UAs) with 'district' being a term used to refer to all UAs, Met and Non-met Counties, London Boroughs and other Local Authority Districts.
Finally the ONS produce a regularly updated database of standard name codes ( http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/snac.asp) - Rutland is consistently identified as a UA first and foremost and so I think its Wiki entry should reflect that.
Cheers, Adam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.77.248 ( talk) 08:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I reverted because, regardless of whether you think Rutland should be described as a county or a unitary authority, it is not appropriate to get into a lengthy discussion near the start of the article. PatGallacher ( talk) 13:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I am seeking opinions on the setting up of a Leicestershire and Rutland project.
At its minimum, it is a good way of grouping articles, making it easier to maintain and improve them. With a few active members, it can become a useful area for localised discussion.
I am not specifically recruiting members at this stage. I am just seeing how much interest there is, and if editors think a project would be a worthwhile resource.
Please comment at Talk:Leicestershire#Leicestershire_and_Rutland_project ++ MortimerCat ( talk) 14:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Rutland. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rutland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
To clarify: Rutland has been a unitary authority and a non-metropolitan county since 1997. It is no longer a non-metropolitan district, but used to be one from 1974 to 1997.
I know, it's confusing. In 1974, local government was reorganised into a fairly consistent system but subsequent governments have tinkered a lot with it. Hope this helps. Anywikiuser ( talk) 12:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
The article starts by reference to the county and then moves more specifically into local government. An example phrase in 'history' is Rutland became a non-metropolitan district of Leicestershire. This is a very common mistake on wp with county articles. Rutland did not become anything. All that happened was it's local govt responsibilities came under the remit of another entity. Rutland in 1974 was the same Rutland as in 1874 and 1774. Many things about it changed such as population, industry, local govt, and so on, but that is all. The cause of this and numerous other mistakes is the repeated and very confusing usage of terms such as district, Rutland, Leicestershire, county, etc. Unravelling the confusion will take some time if anyone is interested. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 08:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I am a little surprised to see no mention of Bisbrooke Farm on this page. As a major Rutland family attraction, surely it's worth a mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.181.163 ( talk) 20:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Whilst the ostrich farm is certainly a talking point amongst the locals and gets the occasional confused non-Rutlander stopping to look at the birds, I'd hardly call it a family attraction; I don't think they even do tours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.30.9 ( talk) 23:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could you please allow me to edit the main article? I have a few improvements to make, of an ornithological nature.
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.181.163 ( talk) 13:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Well I'd basically like to replace the flag of Rutland with a big picture of an ostrich. Would that be allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.181.163 ( talk) 14:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Suggest expanding 2nd para to include Louise Doughty's 1998 novel Honey-Dew. Set in a Rutland village, it also mentions the recently successful 1997 campaign to de-amalgamate Rutland from Leicestershire. I note that Doughty is a female writer and understand you may not want to add her to your exclusively male list.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please can I make a request to link the postcode link beginning with LE to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LE_postcode_area as the page does exist, it is just not linked correctly.
@ DragonofBatley: you've added a ref tag with the name ":0", but provided no definition for it. Could you please fill that in with your source? -- Fyrael ( talk) 04:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
the area is wrong it is the same as the population 77.99.65.173 ( talk) 10:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)