Talk:Drovers' road/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Cleanup

At the least, this needs formatting, subheadings, punctuation, and some phrasing work. Elf | Talk 01:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced about subheadings unless there are going to be more than two paragraphs per section. I have wikified a bit. I can't quite put my finger on what it is, but there is something about the tone of this article which makes it very hazy to me. I know what a drover was and did, but I don't think I would learn that from the article as it stands. Perhaps it needs a "what the typical drover did" before launching into history and evidence? I'll have another go when I have some time. I have a booklet about drovers, one of those Shire ones you get in museums. I'll try to work some of the info in. (The Drovers, Shirley Toulson, ISBN 0-7478-0630-6) --Telsa 15:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Welsh numbering

I'm not terribly clear what this means, and have moved it to here for now: The influence of Welsh sheep drovers is shown by the distribution of counting schemes for sheep throughout England which are based on Welsh. Does this refer to the numbers used? Like the counting rhymes with "Hickory, dickory, dock", "yan, tan, tethera" and so on? (I bet at least one of those is not really a counting scheme at all now, but you know what I mean, I hope.) Ie, the words used were based on the Welsh names for the numbers? Or does it refer to the traditional way of counting in Welsh, where after 10 it starts getting interesting, "one on ten", "two-ten", "three on ten", "four on ten", "fifteen", "one on fifteen", "two on fifteen", "two-nines", "four on fifteen"... "two on fifteen on twenty"..? Or does the sentence refer to a combination of both? (See Welsh_language#Counting_system for the complete run-down.) --Telsa 15:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Drove Road?

Wouldn't 'Drove Road' be a better title for this article? Colin4C 11:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes - in the south of England "drove" alone is the normal term, and arguably "drove road" is tautologous GBH 19:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Drove road works for me. I don't think it's necessarily tautological, because "drove" on its own can refer to the drover and livestock on the move. But if we have problems with ambiguity, perhaps drove route might be less ambiguous? I had a quick look in Shirley Toulson's The Drovers (one of those little Shire publications) and she uses "droveway" and "drove route" in the text. But - to complicate matters :) - she also has a section called "Walking drove roads" which refers to the Harling Drove and the Hambleton Drove (which are roads/paths/routes rather than the whole affair on the move). Oh, "drove roads" crops up in book titles in the reference section, too. I didn't see any mention of "drovers' road", though. Telsa (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have a sneaking suspicion that 'Drover's Road' is an original coinage for the wikipedia...Colin4C 10:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a long tradition in Wales of calling them Drover's Roads or more correctly Drovers' roads. I.e those road used by Drovers for moving their animals to market. See this [1] as an example but there are numerous other references. Velela 18:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That ref is a BBC news item headline, not an example of old Welsh tradition! And wouldn't the Welsh use the Welsh language? Colin4C 19:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It is the accepted local usage that is being reflected by the BBC, not the BBC inventing a usage. This is only one of many references that can be brought to bear. I am also sure that the 30% of Welsh people who speak Welsh do indeed have an appropriate Welsh word for Drovers' road. I don't speak welsh and this isn't the Welsh wikepdia so I guess we stick with the English language version. Velela 20:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

See also this published by the University at Aberystwyth [2] " If you take the drover's road from Aberystwyth, where they drove all the sheep to the London market: it softly winds up the hill. And if the Germans had had to do it under Hitler, they'd have built a bloody autobahn, jah" and the reference now added to the main article. Velela 20:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite relieved about this. I had intended to say "no, drovers' road is the name" until I actually looked in the nearest useful book and found all the names without the 'r'! Now I know I wasn't imagining things. I'm in Wales, so that must be why I think it's drovers' roads. Thanks, Velela :) Telsa (talk) 22:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

what should this article cover?

I think this article should focus on the roads, as the title would lead you to expect. The historic banking infrastructure is not relevant here. The separate articles on droving and drovers are thin, and could do with material from here being moved over. Then this article could, if desired, remain geographically restricted to Britian, signalled as such, and the activities (which still continue in some countries) could get the worldwide focus they deserve. ANy opinions? I'll leave this a couple of days and then be bold. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the title of this article is drover's road (ignoring capitals), so I think that it should talk about roads, but it shall also explain why they are specifically regarded as drover's roads; and that leads on to such things as the specific needs of the drover's, why a particular road goes from A to B and what is special about A & B, etc. At this stage I would not necessarily rule out finance, there is probably little harm in the information about banking for the Welsh drovers, provided that it is correctly referenced and that it is kept in focus. At the moment the article includes information about the Welsh end of droving and its passageway through Wessex towards London. I was intending to add some information in the fairly near future about droves starting in Scotland. It also appears that some droves came across from Ireland, via Wales and/or Scotland. Droves in e.g. the USA and/or Australia, are not within my knowledge, but the US is mentioned in a section and Australia is mentioned in the 'See also' section. If the information is to be included then it needs knowledgeable editors to add it. Droving has been adopted by WP Australia, and at present it is directed at the new world (the UK being old world presumably). drovers is a disambig page at present, are you intended to convert it into an article?Pyrotec (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ref. Req'd

HighKing, please provide a reference that these roads are found in ALL parts of the inhabited world. I'm reverting your change pending provision of adequate refs. LemonMonday (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well for a start, the fact that the article talks about drovers roads in North America and South America is a bit of a give-away, should you have bothered to check the article rather than blindly revert as you have done. There's also mention of a "Stock route" in Australia, which is their term for a Drovers road. Equally, this book published in 2007 is a good reference. It doesn't mention Ireland though, so either way, the term "British Isles" appears to be incorrect in any case. --HighKing (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You said "ALL". That's a big claim. Just because there aren't any in Ireland doesn't mean that British Isles shouldn't be used. Anyway, there will be Drovers roads in Ireland, I'm sure. Can you not just give it a rest? As I've said elsewhere, these continuing attempts to remove all mention of the British Isles is causing havoc all over the place. LemonMonday (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

In this instance i think Highking is correct and the world term should apply --Rockybiggs (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well cattle were imported from Ireland, landed at Portpatrick and taken by Drovers' roads to markets in England. Its documented, because it was illegal at the time, but the Earl of Annandale, in 1627, obtained authorisation from the Privy Council to import cattle from Ireland. So it is possible that there were drover's roads in Ireland. The import of cattle from Ireland to Portpatrick, which had reached 20,000 per year in 1812 fell to 1,080 in 1832, because they came by steamer to Liverpool and Glasgow instead. Its a lot of cattle being transported in Ireland, can we be sure that there were no drove roads there?Pyrotec (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The page is entirely about the United Kingdom and just about stretches to British Isles. The lede should surely reflect this restriction by stating that the term is a British one. --Snowded TALK 09:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It does not have to be confined to the United Kingdom, that perceived restriction appears to comes from one or two editors. There is a certain lack of clarity over the various scopes of Droving, Drover and Drovers' road and that lack of clarity is visible in all of these articles. The best article so far is Drover (Australian), but even that is unreferenced. Drovers' road needs expanding and referencing. The WP:lede can be done afterwards; it is intended to be a summary of what the article is about, not a de facto means of short circuiting discussions on the scope of the article. Pyrotec (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

And until you find a reference, that's WP:OR. So in the meantime, can we actually try to keep the article somewhat encyclopedic? I am changing the article to reflect this conversation. I'm sure references will be forthcoming soon to back up any other assertion. --HighKing (talk) 10:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This is silly - taking edit wars from other pages onto an innocent article about Drover's Roads. I have removed the whole sentence. It adds nothing. The article talks about the UK anyway, it should expand to talk about drover's roads all over the worlds or be renamed. In the meantime the sentence is a waste of a lede.

Yes, Snowded, your first sentence is absolutely correct, so would you like to examine the history of this article and determine who caused the problem in the first place. In case you can't be bothered, here's the original edit that sparked off the problem we now have - [3], and low and behold, it's User:HighKing who made the edit. I've examined his edit history going back to the beginning of this year, and I've looked at his Talk page archives. If you haven't done the same, I suggest you do so; it's a revelation. This editor has been engaging in these disputes in literally hundreds of articles, right across the subject range of this encyclopaedia. Where-ever British Isles appears, HighKing is there trying to get rid of it. He has initiated countless edit wars, been blocked more than once and caused a great deal of ill feeling. Drovers Road is just the latest article to have attracted his attention. He seems unstoppable, don't you think? MidnightBlue (Talk) 15:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) As far as I am concerned there are a group of editors who are obsessed about the deletion or insertion of British Islands. As a result we get Pavlovian reactions to any edit. HighKing is more than matched by editors on the other side. What is needed here is a little bit of objectivity. The fact that HighKing removes BI whenever he can does not mean that he is always wrong and the reverse is also true. Personally I think all four of the editors who are playing this game should be put under a good conduct requirement to cease. Bans have also applied on both sides by the way and several have been lucky to escape censure for their language.

So instead of saying "Ya shucks Boo, High King removed BI so we will put it back in" try and look objectively at each case. The title of this article is not Drover's Roads in the British Isles. It is Drover's Roads. The content is all about Drovers Roads in the Unitied Kingdom (not the British Isles. So if you argue from content then the phrase is UK, if you argue from title (or just common sense) then there is no need for the sentence.

So please place an argument here based on facts and the context of the article, not who initiated what and see if we can get a sensible agreement. --Snowded TALK 15:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If ya'll continue to have edit spats as ya's did earlier? it could get ya'll residency at Block Isles. PS- good to see ya's are now working it out here. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Swowded, you're fast becoming a member of the "group of editors" - watch out! :). I haven't found any instances of British Isles insertions in the same way as there are deletions by HighKing, although granted I've not looked in the same depth as I've now done for HK's contributions. What really irks me are the problems that HK is causing, and has been for long enough. He won't accept a moratorium even while a policy is in the offing. He seems to have a singular determination to get rid of British Isles at all costs. Others such as TharkunColl, and recently myself are really just trying to maintian the status quo. MidnightBlue (Talk) 15:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to like reverting as much as the rest of us (except me, I just revert tendentious edits). I will ask one simple question, and if the answer to it is yes, I will revert your latest change. Are there any drovers' roads in Ireland (that's the island of Ireland). I would appeciate an answer from an expert, if one happens to be looking in. Thank you. PS: even if the answer is No, the use of British Isles could still be justified. 82.28.7.113 (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like a bit of consistency in the argument. Best not to have anything there given the title. However if the argument is that the content of the article should dictate the reference in the lede then at the moment that's UK. If someone puts in material or comparably importance (with citation) then you might say BI. However there are Drover's roads all over Northern Spain and other areas of Europe. Reference in the text above indicates Australia and elsewhere. Fundamentally there is no case for arguing one dominant geography on an article with this title. --Snowded TALK 15:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

There's currently no citation for UK. How come British Isles needs a citation everywhere but other terms don't? MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This is precisely the point. BI needs no more citation than anything else, because it's a perfectly normal part of the language. ðarkuncoll 16:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a copy of the book listed in the bibliography about drove roads in Scotland and there is a strong presumption that another editor has a copy of the book about drove roads in Wales; and both sources (and others) talk about drove roads in England. At this point I don't know whether there were drove roads in Ireland, but as 20,000 cattle per year were being imported from Ireland into Scotland in 1812 (from Donaghadee), and they were also coming from Ireland into Wales and England, there is a strong presumption that they had roads in Ireland capable of moving large numbers of cattle.Pyrotec (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The article title and the first sentence of the lead are generic, i.e., about roads with no specification of where they are. Then the UK roads are described. The biblography only lists books about roads in England, Scotland, and Wales. I.e., "United Kingdom." However, if a book were to appear that were about, say, drovers' roads in Africa, would we say that it doesn't belong in the bibliography because this article is only about the U.K. or the British Isles? If that were true, the title should be different, "Drovers' roads in the United Kingdom." (Or British Isles, but in the absence of anything sourced about Ireland....)

There is nothing in the article about drovers' roads in Ireland. Absolutely, such roads must have existed. However, that also applies in other areas of the world where livestock was driven to market. HighKing probably made the change here because he's got a thing about "British Isles." But his motivation is actually irrelevant. I'm concluding that location is irrelevant to the lead, I'm taking it out entirely. That most of what is in the article is about the U.K. is not relevant, "drovers' road" is a generic term and could be used -- in English -- for any similar road, wherever, i.e., in China. And this might suggest a merge with Stock route, though that's a separate question, there are some differences in meaning. --Abd (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with this comment and the action --Snowded TALK 06:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It is still to go into the article, but we confine ourselves to the "UK" then the main period of droving, and hence droving roads, is 16th century to mid 1800s, so its more correctly the separate kingdoms of England and Wales, of Scotland, the Kingdom of Great Britain and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, rather than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK). Pyrotec (talk) 10:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

A list of drovers' roads

It would be nice to have a comprehensive list of drovers roads, since they appear to be pleasant to walk along, at least in the UK. Some may still survive, others built over or otherwise lost. 89.240.107.12 (talk) 12:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a comprehensive list is really practical, as they would run into thousands even in the UK – I can think of a dozen or so within a few miles of my home. It would be like listing footpaths or bridleways.

It might however be useful to list some well-preserved examples Richard New Forest (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)