Talk:Lancashire/Archive 2

Ports and harbours of Lancashire

(moved to Category_talk:Ports and harbours of England by county)

New Towns

Shouldn't this be mentioned somewhere? Lancashire was where many of the New Towns of the 1960s are located, as overflow towns for Liverpool and Manchester. I think it's important enough to be mentioned. AnthonyUK 23:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:EH icon.png

Image:EH icon.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Lancashire?

The article is way to involved with the 1974 boundary reform and reads as if the text has been compromised. I want to come here to read about the great places of Preston, Blackpool, Lancaster, Blackburn, Nelson, Fleetwood, Cockerham etc, not how bitter some people are about Merseyside and Greater Manchester and how the "Dutchy" is still inplace.

WP:UKCOUNTIES will give some indicators on where to take this, but currently, this article is one of the weakest about a county, which is a shame. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, the simple solution is to CUT EVERYTHING not associated with Lancashire post-1974, and have everything pre-1974 on the [History of Lancashire] page, as a matter of pure consistency. None of this half-arsed was in the historic boundary crap. If Wikipedia asserts that the boundaries were "changed" in 1974, then let's be consistent in its practice.

Link to Yell.com

Hi Tangerine,

We beleived we had provided a useful resource for visitors to the Lancashire wiki entry. We also believe that this is in line with guidelines. "Things you didn't know" is clearly unique, informative and adds value to this entry.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.39.10 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The idea is that content is added to wikipedia articles, not simply that external links to other sites are added on a number of articles. If the information in the link is a useful resource for users reading this article then that content itself, with citation, should be added to this article, thereby adding, in your words, informative content that then adds value to this entry, within the actual article. Please see WP:NOT#LINK and WP:SPAM. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sports

In continuing the trend regarding deleting historically Lancashire football teams that are now in the bollocks, sorry, ceremonial "county" of Greater Manchester, if no one disagrees, then I'm going to delete Lancashire County Cricket Team from the list of Lancashire Cricket Teams, because they're based in Greater Manchester. The name means nothing, and neither does the really really long history and association with Lancashire, apparently. It's all about its actual location.--El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 08:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand the point you are making, but this is just silly. There is a blatantly obvious connection between "Lancashire County Cricket Team" and "Lancashire", regardless of where it is located. Whereas the connection between, say, "Manchester United" and "Lancashire" is nowhere near as strong. In my view, such a connection could be made in the History of Lancashire article rather than here. --Dr Greg (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is, either Lancashire CCC is in Lancashire, and is directly relevant to this article, or it is not, and as far as Wikipedia is concerned, could be in York or London and be just as applicable to Lancashire. LCCC's ground is next door to Manchester United's ground, so either they're both in Lancashire, or neither of them are. It's that simple. --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 16:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not just about physical location, it's also about its connections and associations. If there were some organisation based in New York that had a notable connection with Lancashire, it might be appropriate to mention in this article. --Dr Greg (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

So in that case then, an organisation which existed in Lancashire for 96 years before being geographically located in Greater Manchester would probably qualify? Where's the cut-off point? 100 years? 150 years? Also, does the fact that Lancashire CCC have only five players out of 24 who were born in Wikipedia's rather odd interpretation of "Lancashire" count against their "connections"? They have four from Yorkshire - maybe we should mention LCCC as being a Yorkshire team as well? What about the four players and head coach who are from Greater Manchester then? What about the fact that LCCC was founded out of Manchester Cricket Club? Pretty strong connection to Greater Manchester there, I should think. What about the fact that the This is Lancashire website [1] consider Manchester United, Manchester City, Liverpool, Everton, Bury, Bolton and Wigan to be under their remit?

I was under the impression that by clearly mentioning that the teams mentioned were from the historic county, we had reached a suitable compromise. If the links to football teams who for 100 years before 1974 were considered to be very much in Lancashire are deemed unsuitable, then the link to a cricket team who spent just twelve years more in Lancashire is similarly unsuitable. The connections for the county cricket team compared to those for the football teams are not even slightly different. --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it depends on what areas they represent; LCCC is still a Lancashire team, in the same way that Manchester United is a Manchester team despite moving to Old Trafford almost 100 years ago. Also, LCCC occasionally plays its home matches within the current boundaries of the county (as well as in Merseyside, and more surprisingly in Cheshire). The fact that its ground is now outside the county can be compared with the Surrey County Council being based outside its current boundaries, another anomaly caused by boundary changes. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 03:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Focus

Please keep the focus of this article on the modern boundaries of Lancashire. Yes the application of some commonsense should allow for its wider heritage, but there's little to be gained by duplicating material that is found elsewhere on articles like Cumbria and Merseyside.

Adding material that focuses on "X lies within the historic county" (itself a neologism), but takes value away from contemporary Lancastrian material and is a breach of WP:PLACE and WP:SYNTH. Please also see, WP:UKCOUNTIES. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Bearing the modern boundaries in mind, then, are the victories of football teams such as Liverpool and Manchester United before 1974 counted as Lancastrian or not? It makes rather a large difference as to whether Lancashire can claim to be the best footballing county or whether it only has one successful football club (Blackburn Rovers) from the modern era, and even that isn't considered to be within the county any more (at least according to the county council). I await your wisdom. --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 20:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I just think a balance needs to be struck. I don't object to mentions of its sporting heritage at all, but I'm conscious that introducing phrases like "The historic county of Lancashire is the best footballing county in England", introduces a neologism and is unencyclopedic. I'd rather see something like "Lancashire has a wide bredth and depth of footballing heritage, being the place of founding of Man Utd etc etc." Putting aside the fact that some of those teams were founded in county boroughs idependent of Lancashire, lists (which are infact, discouraged) of teams currently in some territory known as the "historic county of Lancashire" don't really help AFAICT.

We also need a reference for "Lancashire can claim to be the best footballing county" - again, we shouldn't be introducing commentary on personal findings, per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that of the fourteen teams founded in Lancashire, only four (Liverpool, Wigan Athletic, Oldham Athletic and Rochdale - of whom, the latter three have hardly set the world alight with their footballing prowess and fame) were founded in county boroughs, and that county boroughs may have been administratively independent but were by no means considered outside the boundaries of the county by any significant proportion of the county population or any administrative body: Leicester was also made a County Borough, but one would have a hard time arguing that that was therefore no longer a part of Leicestershire), the boundaries of the historic county were really rather well defined. Also, I find it difficult to accept that "historic county" is a neologism and unencyclopaedic when a rather well-regarded encyclopaedia ("widely perceived as the most scholarly of encyclopaedias", according to Wikipedia [2])uses the term (five times within Lancashire [3], also has its own definition both here and on Britannica).

Also, if Lancashire-founded teams have won 8 out of 11 European cups, 52/113 top flight championships and 44/127 FA Cups (facts that were stated clearly previously), then it seems obvious to me that Lancashire can claim the tag of "most successful footballing county", or certainly most successful historical county. However, given the confusion surrounding the definitions of the county, and pre- and post-1974 victories, I take your point, and will remove or rephrase that point until a source appears, to make it less controversial.

I think that the simple deletion of the previous list (rather than a request to turn it into prose), was not the best move forward for this article. I believe strongly that the footballing heritage of the county needs to be mentioned, especially when that heritage includes such world-famous and successful teams as Manchester United and Liverpool, which have spent the vast proportion of their history as part of Lancashire. To delete all mention of them instead of replacing that with what you would rather see ("Lancashire has a wide bredth and depth of footballing heritage, being the place of founding of Man Utd etc etc." is a good start) does not improve the article, and does not offer the reader a full understanding of Lancashire and the history and importance of football to that county. I do not wish to repeat the histories of the football teams now outside the ceremonial county, nor to especially focus on those teams at the expense of those now lying within the modern "boundaries". However, an article on Lancashire cannot be at its best if it ignores the history of sport (particularly football) in Lancashire, and due to the nature of that history and the changing of borders over time, there must be some mention of those teams who now are considered by some to lie outside the county borders. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 08:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"Certainly most successful historical county" - what is a historical county? How is the "county" successful? - don't you mean its inhabitants? Are those teams especially "Lancastrian", and does their position within Lancashire at the time of their founding have any relevance on their status and this article (i.e. would it have made any difference to their status if a few had been founded in Cheshire)? Do those team's websites call themselves Lancastrian? Is football geographically or systematically demarced according to county boundaries? - these are but a few concerns of mine here, that's putting aside the fact that we need a source for this "best county ever" type claim. Also, "historic(al) county" is a neologism; the term "historic counties" was introduced after their superceding of other county systems. It wasn't used at the time.

Per WP:PLACE, "we don't take the minority position that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries". Again, saying "X lies within the historic county of Y" is to be avoided - we should be saying "X F.C. was founded within the (historic) county boundaries of Y, in 1888".

To clarify, I'm not saying don't mention them because boundary reforms in the 1974 removed these from Lancashire forever. What I am saying is this needs to be presented with due care and attention, for neutrality and compliance with WP:PLACE. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, football is not thought of in terms of counties in the same way as cricket, but to ignore the fact that an anomalously high number of successful, professional football teams were founded in Lancashire seems to me to be as unencyclopaedic as focusing too much on those that are no longer counted as being Lancastrian. Why have so many football teams from Lancashire been successful? What were the reasons why six of the founding members of the Football League were Lancastrian? Why did this one county found so many professional football teams compared to the other counties? When talking about the history of Lancashire and sport in general, it would be foolish to ignore that there are teams, created within Lancashire but no longer considered to be a part of her, which are part of a remarkable footballing industry prevalent in the later 19th century. Further, to ignore these teams when then talking about the creation of that footballing industry within the county would be unencyclopaedic. To avoid using the "neologism" "historical county" when talking about the history of a county in this specific instance would also be foolish - ceremonial county is also a neologism, as are Metropolitan county and Non-metropolitan county (mentioned in the first line of the article). Given that Wikipedia has a page dedicated to the historical counties of England (as does Britannica, lending at least some scholarly backing to the phrase), talking about the history of a historical county and not mentioning it within the context of the historical county would be confusing and wrong. The term has been around for at least 34 years now, is easily understood, especially given the pages pertaining to the history of the county and historical counties in general, and should not be avoided, in my view, when discussing something specific to the history of a county. Every single word in every single language was a neologism at some point - I believe the avoidance of neologisms within Wikipedia was intended more towards much more modern words such as "Chav" or "Lol". A term which has been bandied around for decades now probably doesn't fall under the list any more, especially when Wikipedia validates the term by giving an article to it.

Once again, I am not saying I want to repeat the histories of the football clubs such as Man U, Liverpool, Everton, etc. I am not saying I want to focus on the historic county. I am saying that Lancashire was the location for the founding of a remarkably high number of professional, successful football teams, and that this is worth mentioning and expanding upon in the article. It is impossible to do this without mentioning that the boundaries were different back then. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 13:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

One more thing - you might like to take a look at Lancashire County Football Association. Turns out that clubs such as Liverpool and Manchester United do consider themselves Lancastrian, at least in part. Also, it appears that that pesky page seems to be using your least favourite phrase, because it's talking about the history of the association. A section on the history of a county FA talking about the historic county? Blimey... El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 13:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think you're misunderstanding what a neologism is. Terms such as "metropolitan county" are certainly not neologisms - they're terms used today, to describe territories that exist today. They are not terms that are imposed or invented as descriptions after their existance. "Historic county" (not "historical county" - that's erroneous), was invented after their existance - those territories were known as "counties" at the time, not "historic counties" (why would they be historic when they existed at the time??). The term "historic" or "ancient counties" was introduced by scholars after the Local Government Act 1888.

Britannica is a bit of a funny one really, when it comes to the geography of the United Kingdom. I've certainly lost respect for it since it incorporates text and images that I've contributed here at Wikipedia over the years (just look at their page for Oldham - they use an image I sourced from a photographer)! Infact, Britannica used to assert "traditional counties" (an emotive, imitation term dating from the 1990s at best) until the editting community here at Wikipedia revisted the origin of that term and changed our articles to accurately reflect the reality of the sitation. As per the rationale above, Britannica themselves are introducing neologisms into their text as research can confirm. Anyway, back to the issue in hand re football...

Why were so many teams founded in Lancashire? Easy - prevailance of major urban and metropolitan areas with large centres of population, those areas being the result of industrialisation owing (broadly) to the commerical success of textile manufacture. Of course, why are there so few teams in Cheshire and Cumbria? - because they don't have the same centres of population. It's not so much a "cultural reason"; part of a pan-Lancastrian mindset, but rather the historical setting of those places. Those teams would've developed in any county, had those (politically independent) urban areas been there. If anything, its more so to do with the agglomerous nature of the Liverpool and Manchester connurbations rather than historic county boundaries.

I think the way forwards here is set out at WP:PLACE. "We should mention historic counties in articles about places and in references to places in a historic context, but only as an afternote... In historic references we should make sure to note that the county at the time was not the same as the county now, if relevant." --Jza84 |  Talk  13:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

- With respect to the Lancashire County Football Association, there is an association of equal standing for Greater Manchester ([4]), as has been established in the past. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter a blind bit whether the areas were politically independent or not - that's not an issue which affects the day-to-day development of working class men and their identity as Lancastrians. And as I've already mentioned, most of the clubs were founded before the political independence was granted, so that point doesn't really hold much water.

Regarding "historic county", you're saying that a term that, you admit, has been around for 120 years is still a neologism (that is, "a word, term, or phrase that has been recently created")? Riiiight... Like I said, the term is well-understood, particularly with respect to Lancashire, and is used as a term to describe the counties as they were before the 1888 Act, while "Metropolitan" and "Non-metropolitan" counties were used to describe the counties as they were after that act. Even if some do not understand the concept of historic counties, then, just like every other topic on wikipedia, there's a nice link there to find out some more. Regardless of what it's applied to, it's still a term which is of value, accurately describes a past situation, is well understood, and which is used even by this encyclopedia to describe counties back in t' day. It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a neologism. A similar notion is the term "World War One" or "The First World War"- a term which was only widely applied much after the war had ended, and would have been a neologism at the time, to describe an event which was finished. Sufficient use and acceptance among the population would lend its use as the "official" name of the War some merit.

Finally, regardless of the fact that football was able to develop in Lancashire because of the Manchester and Liverpool conurbations, the fact that there is a disproportionate number of teams born from the Lancashire area is worth some discussion. It need not be cultural. It need not be some cross-county footballing mindset. The reasons, as you point out, may well be down to the fact that there were large cities in South and West Lancashire at the time. The fact that those teams may well have flourished elsewhere is, however, irrelevent. They did not flourish elsewhere, they flourished in Lancashire, and that is worth some mention in the article. (It is worth mentioning also the fact that of the founding football league members, four were teams which were definitely not in the Manchester and Liverpool conurbations, and whether Bolton was at the time, is a matter for some debate.) Lancashire as a whole was basking in the riches of its industry at the time, and the football teams came out of this. It may not be a cultural thing, it may just have been chance, but it is most certainly relevant to a section discussing football in Lancashire. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 18:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I say, WP:PLACE takes precedence with the issue in hand. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  18:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Lancashire

Incase anybody was wondering why the change in colour from white to yellow, I made an error when making the original flag, the actual colours with the UK Flag Registry (which presides over said issue) lists it at yellow with the red rose. - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

How authoritative is this UK Flag Registry? It claims to be a authority, but I'm not sure how it is exactly. It certainly doesn't seem to be in anyway official, like say the College of Arms. Why I ask is that this third party site suggests a different flag, whilst the flag touted by the UK Flag Registry was apparently designed by the Friends of Real Lancashire (an outsider non-party political pressure group), which has my alarm bells ringing. Every commercial flag store seems to sell a Red Rose on White ([5], [6], [7], [8]). --Jza84 |  Talk  14:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, most of the county flags shown on the Flag Registry were only designed in recent years. I must say I have always seen the Lancs flag as a red rose on white. Paypwip (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I share Jza84's concerns. The UK Flag Registry looks like it may be a self-appointed organisation, and I wouldn't regard the Friends of Real Lancashire as the definitive authority on this subject, which is the justification that the UK Flag Registry is using.--Dr Greg (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The UK Flag Registry seems to have some authority in the area of British flags; for example they designed the national flag for Tristan da Cunha (a British territory). I'm not sure which colour is the right one, I made the background white on the original one by using crwflags.com as a source before coming across the professional looking UK Flag Registry. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There's little third-party material about this group, so I'm inclined to agree with Dr Greg's point about it being a "self-appointed organisation". Indeed, nearly every page of theirs has an advert for the books they write and sell. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If they were a "self-appointed organisation" how would that explain the fact that they are directly involved with designing the national flags of British territories? - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

....so they claim. That's our point AFAICT. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to weigh in here, I emailed Lancashire County Council a couple of years ago about whether or not Lancashire has a flag. They replied stating (at that time) that Lancashire has no official flag, but that the unofficial one is the red rose on a white background. Not sure if I still have the email, but I'll search through at lunchtime and see if I can find it. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 10:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that confirms something I read too a while back. The use of these county flags in infoboxes is problematic as it reflects designs used by custom alone, rather than by offical decree. Heraldry in England and Wales is only ever granted to people, or groups of people, rather than territories. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The Flag Institute is the body the Government turn to for advice on the use of flags. It is an insider group.

I am not a member, but I did the research and spoke to the Institute.

They appear to have established the UK Flags register to bring some order to a chaotic area. They have published criteria for the acceptance of county flags and will not register just anything. (In addition, a county flag in Scotland must be approved by the Lord Lyon.)

User:Jza84 is quite right that these flags are not heraldic (except in Scotland) as they do not belong to individuals or bodies, so the College of Arms cannot be involved. The Flag Institute's involvement is most welcome, and a good job they are doing. We can take the UK Flags Register as the most definitive, official record there is.

The change of the Lancashire flag's colour was, I am told, the Flag Institute's doing. The Friends of Real Lancashire designed the original white flag and used it for many years. When it came to registering it, they had to be told that "argent, a rose gules" is the arms of the Burgh of Montrose, so yellow it became.

Whether the yellow version will gain any following in Lancashire remains to be seen. I suspect the white one will not disappear.

Howard Alexander (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Good research here Howard. This seems to sum up the situation nicely. However, I wonder why they chose yellow though... Am I the only one who see the irony in the FORL imposing a buerocratic decision upon centuries of custom? I jest of course. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Why they chose yellow is stated on the UK Flag Registry website: "the yellow background was chosen as it, along with red, are the livery colours of the county" (whatever that means). (Flag Date 2008.) The irony is not lost on me.--Dr Greg (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The official word from Lancashire County Council

I couldn't find the email I got previously, so I emailed them again, and got this reply just yesterday:

Hi Samual _{(My name is Samuel, but hey hum)}

sorry for the delay in getting back to you. To be honest, i personally don't really know the answer to your question i am afraid... The day to day council is, i suppose, a separate entity to the historical county of lancashire so the issue never really comes up. i do have a link for an organisation that may be of help though http://www.forl.co.uk/003/index.html.

I will pass on your enquiry to the corporate communications team as they will probably have an interest in making sure the wikipedia page is as accurate as possble.

sorry to be of little help... hope you have some luck with the above link

cheers

dave kincla

graphic designer

Helpful, I'm sure you'll all agree. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 06:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually no help at all yet, but if you get a further response it will be.

Double irony, the Friends of Real Lancashire website's home page (quoted above) shows a red rose on a white background.

Why do we need a flag anyway? The traditional emblem of Lancs is the red rose, without any background at all -- i.e. generate an image with a transparent background. --Dr Greg (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, no help (that was sarcasm) - and you're right about the flag, I think - the red rose flag can often be bought in markets (my brother once bought one in Loughborough, oddly enough, although the seller had no idea it was Lancastrian), but I would say the white background is there merely as something blank to show off the Red Rose, as opposed to being a vital and meaningful part of the flag. --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 13:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Re your question Dr Greg, I agree that the use of the flag or any emblem (other than the arms of Lancashire County Council - which is missing here unlike other counties) is problematic. There is no de jure "flag of Lancashire"; the banner is used through custom alone and isn't in anyway official. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say though that, if anything, the red rose with the white background is the de facto flag, regardless of its official status from the county council (who, it has to be said, aren't exactly on the ball when it comes to issues of Lancastrian identity, as the above email seems to demonstrate). Going off other county articles, such as Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, Devon and Cornwall, the style seems to be with the flag at the top (rather than an emblem), and the council logo in the "Politics" bit. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 15:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the flag deserves to be in the article, that's for sure, but its situation in the infobox implies that it is an official banner, when, it is not. Same goes for the other counties really IMHO. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, there was a picture of the arms (the link is commented out) in the article, but there are copyright issues regarding it being there. I suppose the same applies to the council's logo.El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 15:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Arms can be used so long as there is a suitable fair-use rationale. I'll try to take a look at that for us. :-) --Jza84 |  Talk  16:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the "officialness" of the flag, it seems a bit confused, really. This document (page 3) suggests that there is a Lancashire flag, while the Flag of Wiltshire page suggests that there "is no method or authority to get it accepted as the county flag of Wiltshire, that is all done by public acceptance," even if the flag gets the support of the council, suggesting that it's all down to its popularity. However, on the List of English flags page, some flags (Lancs not included) are noted as being (unofficial). Various county pages do or do not show their county's flag at the top of the page, others lower down, and others not at all. Argh. What I would say, is that if it's decided to move the flag lower down the page (perhaps with a discussion of its unofficial status), that we should do the same to Yorkshire too :-p --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 16:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The external link you gave doesn't say the flag is official anywhere as such (and uses the odd phrase - "parts of the borough from the administrative boundaries of Lancashire and Yorkshire"). Being from that borough I know that some local historical societies celebrate various localities' heritage on certain days with flag-flying (Chadderton H.S. notably flys the "Red Rose on White" flag!), but purely as an allusion to historic or cultural links (Chadderton HS also openly affliated with FORL!). I agree though, we could/should move the flag further down the article, both here and elsewhere (Yorks - as suggested). --Jza84 |  Talk  16:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool. In that case, then, is it worth changing the Infobox template for the ceremonial shire counties? Or is that going to cause a barney with some people who'd like their flag to stay where it is (i.e. does it need a vote)? Also, cheers for looking into the arms. --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 16:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

More stuff from Lancashire County Council

Andrew Walmsley from the council emailed me twice today to point me towards two news articles - Here and Here. It turns out that the "officialness" of a flag is based on the UK Flag Registry, which is run by the Flag Institute. The is no UK Flag Act, or any legislation under which flags might, by law, be deemed "official". In this event, the Flag Institute keeps a formal record of registered flags for UK nations, counties (the flags for which normally apply to the historical counties, not to the modern administrative areas) or regions. However, one of the criteria for inclusion in the Flag Registry is that the flag must be either:

1. Registered with the College of Arms
2. Registered with the Office of the Lord Lyon
3. The traditional flag (the one that FORL originally tried to register)
4. Selected by a public vote, or
5. Selected by an appropriate county or city organisation (in this case the yellow one suggested by FORL after the white one was rejected).

The Guardian news story seems to indicate that if a flag is flown which is not registered with the UK Flag Registry, then under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992 S.I. 1992/666, Schedule 3, Class 7 Here, which reads:

Class 7

Flag advertisements

Description. 7. An advertisement in the form of a flag attached to a single flagstaff projecting vertically from the roof of a building.

Conditions and Limitations. 7.—(1) No such advertisement is permitted other than one—

(a) bearing the name or device of any person occupying the building; or (b) referring to a specific event (other than the offering of named goods for sale) of limited duration, which is taking place in the building, for the duration of that event. (2) No character or symbol on the flag may be more than 0.75 metre in height, or 0.3 metre in an area of special control.

it can be classed as an Advertisement and so Deemed Consent (planning permission, basically), is needed from the council. Flags now registered with the Flag Registry are exempt from this requirement. Yorkshire's flag has just been approved, hence its "official" status, while the approval for Lancashire's white-background flag was not given due to the Montrose problem. The yellow background has now been approved, according to the Lancashire Evening Post article, thus the yellow one is now, technically, the de jure county flag, while the white background one is the de facto county flag. The yellow comes from the colour used on the arms, I think the LEP article says. Also, the flag shown in the picture is (obviously) not the flag actually being discussed, but the one that flies above County Hall - the council man pointed this out to me: it would appear the council have a third flag added for good measure. I suppose with enough publicity such as that in the Evening Post, the yellow background flag will become more prominent while the white one fades away, but until that time we now have this dilemma of which one to use.

My suggestion would be that the yellow background flag should be used at the top of the article, for as long as flags are used at the top of articles, while the article itself should show lower down the three different flags and discuss the reasons for their existences. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 09:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant bit of research El Pollo Diablo! This explains everything. I'm happy with your suggestion. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  11:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Friends of Real Lancashire

Just to let you know, my name is Andrew Turvey and I'm the Secretary of Wikimedia UK - the local chapter that seeks to promote and support Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects within the UK.

We've been approached by the Friends of Real Lancashire regarding the treatment of traditional counties in this article. I've asked them to put their case on the talk page here, and then we can see what other editors think and hopefully come up with a consensus.

When it comes, please could all editors remember not to bite newbies - they aren't used to editing wiki pages and I think we should hear them out. I won't comment on the substance of their case until they've added their case. Thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 20:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a public record where the FORL's approach can be viewed, or was it a private exchange? --Jza84 |  Talk  21:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

They have a website here. I read somewhere that they got an agreement with the Royal Mail to allow the use of traditional county names for postal addresses e.g. Manchester, Lancs. Richerman (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the thing... traditional in the sense that Northenden is south of the River Mersey, so was in Cheshire? ;) --Jza84 |  Talk  17:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The Royal Mail don't tend to use counties now as part of the postal address, just Post Town and Post Code. But I would never dream of putting "People's Republic of Greater Manchester" on an envelope, always "Lancashire". --jmb (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Greater Manchester was never adopted by Royal Mail as a postal county, and so it is not used routinely in addresses (but is an option, and is used by a percentage). But postal counties are not the same as historic boundaries, which is my point; Saddleworth's "postal county" is Lancashire, as is Northenden's/Wythenshawe's/Baugley's, despite them being (according to FORL) in Yorkshire and Cheshire. Putting aside the fact that Merseyside, Avon and Tyne and Wear were formally adopted by Royal Mail, this makes any point about postal counties being a symbol of where a place "is" completely redundant. They are archaic markers of where a locality's postal sorting office was. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's wait for Friends of Real Lancashire to make their statement shall we, no point in getting excited about something that hasn't happened yet. Nev1 (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Jza84 - unfortunately not - it was paper form and too long to reproduce, but I've asked them to put their case in full here instead, so hopefully it will come in due course. AndrewRT(Talk) 00:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The true Lancashire

Your entry for Lancashire is like the curate’s egg, “good in parts”, but other parts are extremely misleading, because in many instances it fails to take account of the fact that there are three areas designated as Lancashire.

The smallest area is that administered by Lancashire county council, part of which lies within the traditional West Riding of Yorkshire. This should be referred to as “the administrative County of Lancashire” or “administrative Lancashire”.

Slightly larger is the area currently covered by the High Sheriff and Lord Lieutenant, consisting of “administrative Lancashire” plus the boroughs of Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool. This should be referred to as “the Ceremonial County of Lancashire” or “Ceremonial Lancashire”.

The largest area is the traditional historic and geographical county of Lancashire, which came into being in the twelfth century and has remained unchanged ever since, this should be referred to as “the traditional County of Lancashire”.

Despite changes to administrative areas, including those made under the 1972 Local Government Act, no legislation has ever changed the boundaries of any of Britain’s traditional counties. Lancashire therefore still stretches from the River Mersey in the south through to the River Duddon in the north. We have on file many statements issued by both central government and the Duchy of Lancaster Office, confirming that the traditional county of Lancashire has remained unchanged since it was first created in the twelfth century. Therefore, the name “Lancashire” used by itself should mean the traditional county. When referring to the other areas of the county the name “Lancashire” should be prefixed by the words “administrative” or “ceremonial”. When your present entry fails to make these distinctions it is misleading. People consulting your online encyclopaedia ought to be able to rely on its accuracy, otherwise it is valueless.

I would draw your attention to the following misleading entries .(Pages are given as they appear in my print out from the site.)

Page 1 Paragraph 1 The entry regarding population should read - “The population of the administrative county is 1,168,100, whilst the population of the traditional county is in excess of six million.”

Paragraph 4 Should begin -

“The administrative county was subject to a significant boundary reform in 1974, whilst the boundaries of the traditional county remained unchanged.”

Paragraph 4 line 5 . Should read “Today the administrative county borders the administrative counties of Cumbria and North Yorkshire and the unitary authority areas of Blackburn with Darwen, Blackpool, Bolton, Bradford, Bury, Calderdale, Knowsley, Sefton, St Helens, Rochdale and Wigan. (Ref. Ordnance Survey Administrative Map of the UK. Note: OS has not recognised any of the metropolitan counties since their councils were abolished in 1986).

Page 1 The heading Geography should read “Administrative & ceremonial geography.”

I would also point out that the flag illustrated on page 1 was registered for the traditional county of Lancashire, not for the administrative county. It does not pertain to the area of administrative Lancashire that lies within the traditional county of Yorkshire. The wording under the flag ought therefore to read “Flag of the traditional county of Lancashire”.

Page 2

Under the heading politics the title in the left hand box –

ought to read “Members of Parliament for Ceremonial Lancashire”, otherwise you ought to list all the MPs with constituencies within the traditional county.

Page 3

Line 1 under the heading Area since 1974 Should read “Administrative Lancashire is now much smaller than the traditional county due to local government reform.”

Page 4 Geography Divisions and environs

When the councils of Greater Manchester and Merseyside were abolished in 1986 they ceased to be the top tier of local government and were removed from maps by Ordnance Survey. So geographically this entry should read - Line 6 - “The ceremonial county, the area including the unitary authority areas of Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool, borders Bolton, Bradford, Bury, Calderdale, Knowsley, Sefton, St Helens, Rochdale and Wigan. (Ref. Ordnance Survey Administrative Map of the UK).

Geology, landscape and ecology The last two lines As you use the name “Lancashire” you should include all the Lancashire rivers, including the Mersey. If you only intend to list the rivers in ceremonial or administrative Lancashire you should prefix Lancashire with “ceremonial” or “administrative”.

Page 5 Duchy of Lancaster

Palatine of Lancaster should read “which includes areas that were removed from administrative Lancashire as part of the 1974 boundary changes.” (Again you need to qualify Lancashire.)

Economy Line 3 should read “Lancashire is historically the location of the port of Liverpool.”

Line 8 Barnoldswick is in Yorkshire unless you qualify Lancashire as administrative Lancashire.

Page 6 Line 1 should read “non-metropolitan administrative county of Lancashire”

Education

Line 1 the word “Administrative” should prefix Lancashire

Paragraph 2 should read “Administrative Lancashire” unless you include the universities in Liverpool, Manchester and Salford which are all Lancashire universities.

Transport Here again you need to qualify which Lancashire you are referring to.

Unless you refer to “Administrative Lancashire” you should include stations at Liverpool, Manchester and Salford.

Both Liverpool John Lennon and Manchester Airports serve “the county” of Lancashire

There are ferry services operating from Liverpool in Lancashire.

Demography Here you have qualified which type of Lancashire this information refers to, which is how it should be.

Page 7 Beginning Some settlements

West Yorkshire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside ceased to be administrative counties in 1986 when their councils were abolished. Warrington and Widnes ceased to be part of administrative Cheshire in 1998 when they became part of the new unitary authority areas of Warrington and Halton. Cheshire ceased to be an administrative county on 1st April 2009.

If you are referring to administrative areas then you should list the current top tier of local government i.e. the metropolitan boroughs and other unitary authority areas that are wholly or partially within traditional Lancashire.

Page 8 Sport

Cricket

Line 4 should read “Due to changes to administrative county boundaries, the club’s home ground, County Ground Old Trafford, is now outside administrative Lancashire, being in the metropolitan borough of Trafford, but is still within the traditional county.

Football

the word “administrative ought to be inserted here.

The entry reading the six professional teams based in Lancashire is incorrect and was corrected by the Lancashire Football Association but was changed back again. The correct information about football in Lancashire provided by the Chief Executive of the Lancashire Football Association to which all teams within the traditional county have first affiliation is that there are now eight teams in the Premier League they are:- Blackburn, Bolton, Burnley, Everton, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United & Wigan.

I trust that you can arrange to have the entry about Lancashire corrected for the benefit of those who rely on your site for information about the county.

Chairman of the Friends of Real Lancashire

Chris D Senior (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

We have been here before and the general consensus is that you don't know what your talking about.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Note on there [9] they admit to being a associate of the Association of British Counties.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The Lancashire we use in this context is the current administrative county. The guideline is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)/Counties, and (as it says there) is the result of a long debate. Mr Stephen (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This is an old, discreditted fringe theory adequately dealt with in our naming conventions. "Traditional County" is term invented by ABC; the administrative counties of England were around between the 1890s until 1974- modern counties are not designiated "administrative counties"; while the Local Government Act 1972 says itself that the "new counties [in England and Wales] shall, without prejudice... be substituted for counties of any other description" ([10]". --Jza84 |  Talk  18:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Out of interest, and coming in peace. If the act was an irrefutable alteration of boundaries, then why do these quotes here; http://www.forl.co.uk/confuse.html#quotations] albeit quotes not on an official or large governmental level suggest the contrary? Surely, if there was no doubt it would be followed through, and reiterated on every level in every department making no doubt of the implications of the act? An index of metals (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The counties created in 1972 in southern Lancashire and northern Cheshire (Merseyside and Greater Manchester) are separated from Lancashire ceremonially and administratively, and are undeniably separate counties in their own right. The traditional borders of Lancashire and Cheshire were redrawn to amalgamate the large urban sprawls. FORL and its sympathisers seem to exist in a world where geopolitics remain stagnate and thus ignorant of contemporary needs. The quotes from the FORL website, denying the existence of the metropolitan counties are going to be far from unbiased. FORL has selected them purposely; select quotations from seemingly "credible" and "official" sources, to attempt to add legitimacy to their cause. (All in vain, of course.) Any acquiescence to these regressive editorial demands would be a complete distortion of geopolitical fact. Nice try FORL. Tong22 (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed entirely. Firstly, forl.co.uk is not a neutral reliable source, but assuming it was for a minute - they are misquotations and misattributations; for example, the first quote is not a government policy statement, but was the commentary of an anonymous official (you think the government published its policy in a newspaper on the day of the act? Who said that quote?). The second quote is an MPs opinion - he can't change law by stating his opinion - what "traditional boundaries" was he refering to? The third quote is a contradiction of English law ([11]), and again, "traditional counties" is a term that does not appear in our law, nor had any use in the published domain until groups like ABC popped up. I could go on to the fourth, fifth etc, but in short, most of the quotes are weak, poorly attributed, selective, and often use things like parliamentary debate and junior MPs opinion; they are not neutral publications, serious independant gazetteers, official guides, statistical outputs etc etc. Again, it's a tired debate dealt with at WP:UCC. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add that the administrative counties still exist, but purely as that. Neither Royal Mail nor Ordnance Survey acknowledges Merseyside etc. as counties. The Royal Mail has long since dropped them from 'Correct' postal addresses and I have in front of me an Ordnance Survey Map of the Lancashire - Geographical County, County Palatine of Lancaster and try as I may I cannot find any reference to Merseyside on it. It is correct that you can be on Merseyside, but not in Merseyside. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.36.175 (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Assuming for a second that you're remotely correct, I respectfully ask, where is your proof? --Jza84 |  Talk  15:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This link from the post office does not mention counties at all by you logic preoving that counties do not exist at all.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This link OS Lancashier and this link OS Mersyside you note that the OS either recornises both or neither but not one or the other.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The Reliability of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is a well known tool that has many adherents, and equally as many detractors; I am basing this on my personal knowledge of internet users' views.

Obviously we cannot possibly expect Wikipedia to be classed in the same category as the Encyclopedia Britannica. However, there is no reason at all why Wikipedia could not be viewed as a reliable pool of information which can be used by the casual browser and the student alike.

Amongst my many hobbies I have a great interest in the history of the Counties of the UK and the constant impact they have in everyday matters and on our everyday lives. That is why I joined both the Association of British Counties (ABC) and the Friends of Real Lancashire (FORL), together of course with my desire to raise the public awareness of their continued existence.

Whatever points have been made in this discussion forum I can categorically state that the counties of the UK exist, have existed for centuries, and will always continue to exist; and despite my perceived bias, I can prove this as I have in my possession the original letters from successive Governments that confirm this - the content of which is of course in the public domain ipso facto is freely available. The reason I have them is because they were written to me as the Secretary of the Friends of Real Lancashire, or as the Local Government Adviser of the Association of British Counties. Other letters have been written to various parties within ABC and FORL.

So, effectively, the editor(s) of Wikipedia should be aware of the continued existence of the real/traditional/historical/geographical/ancient counties - all terminology in use today (for instance the Ordnance Survey refers to them as the Ancient and Geographical Counties)- to enable them to accurately present information. Encyclopedia Britannica is able to do this so presumably Wikipedia can as well.

I would feel far more confident in the contents of Wikipedia if an understanding of one of the most important historical and cultural aspects of British life could be demonstrated correctly.

Martin Philips —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.57.120 (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You may be in possesion of some documents which on there own hint at you view but that only hint and when taken with the documents that you ignore the balance is heavily against you.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)