Talk:Lancashire/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag of Lancashire

I'm sorry I need to make this point as I thought it was obvious. The Flag Institute is not a reliable source for the continuing existence of the "historical county of Lancashire", nor do they make any such claims. They have criteria for accepting flags into their registry. One of the criteria is, for county flags, that the county must be historical. Historical, unless someone can provide an alternative definition, means established in history. However, even this 'rule' is openly flouted, with the Isle of Wight allowed a 'county flag'. [1] MRSC (talk) 07:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Cuisine section

The cuisine section is very weak. It only had one reference when I looked and I was surprised to see it had no mention of either Bury black pudding or Lancashire cheese. I fixed the last two but it really needs some local expertise to tidy up the remaining content by deleting some of the less notable entries - some of which I never heard of before - and by adding references to each of the remaining entries. --Simple Bob (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Liverpool and Manchester

People from Liverpool and Manchester know themselves as "Lancastrians". There seems to be a disconnect between the "real" Lancaster, and the one defined by some government regulations. This article goes against the common understanding of Lancashire, and omits those two cities, as if the government regulations had more substance than the common understanding.

This is an encyclopedia, so it should not favour such changes. Should it be re-written, using facts, i.e. the "commonly understood" boundaries? We could include the government's erroroneous classifications as a small appendix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.48.80 (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This is dealth with at our naming convention WP:UCC. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Then perhaps that should be changed first? In basic terms, we must use a naming convention that corresponds with current, linguistic usage amongst the population. If another organisation's regulation doesn't correspond with that, surely the organisation (e.g. the government) is wrong?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.49.59 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 12 January 2010
Nope HMG defined Lancashire in the first place it can alter it when it likes. It belongs to it. if you do not like then address the relevant policy. If you make edit which conflict with stated policy then yo edits will be reverted.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
As the counties go back so far in history that many documents from the time of their creation simply no longer exist, it's rather hard to say with any certainty that H.M. Government created them. But that aside, the fact remains that the government has NOT ever decreed that Manchester or Liverpool will no longer be in Lancashire, or that the physical boundaries of Lancashire were to move. The local govt. reorganization of 1974 saw administrative boundaries change, but these were only administrative boundaries which had themselves been created at the end of the 19th century (and were defined in terms of the existing, ancient counties). The wording of the legislation makes it clear that it is only the administrative boundaries which were changing, and the government even went so far as to issue a statement at the time confirming that existing county boundaries were NOT being changed. 87.113.45.234 (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
People from Liverpool and Manchester know themselves as "Lancastrians" no we do not.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
OK - Liverpudlians are argumentative, but it's daft/silly/wrong to pretend that Manchester's not in Lancashire, surely?!?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.49.59 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 12 January 2010
Again, this has been done to death at WP:UCC. If you seek change, please suggest this at WP:MERSEYSIDE and WP:GM. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Waste of time trying though. Established Wikipedia "policy" apparently takes precedence over documented facts. And even though those who claim that certain counties were legislated out of existence or had their boundaries changed cannot actually cite the legislation which decreed it to be so (because there isn't any, of course).

87.113.45.234 (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Culture of Lancashire

Not irrelevant to the section above, I suggest it would be good to have a section of the culture of the county, particularly music, but I would like a little guidance here. What is the exact rational for the change in the borders of Lancashire: were Manchester and Liverpool removed in 1889 or 1974? Obviously the parameters had a big impact on what can be included in such a section here.--SabreBD (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

1974. The separate counties of Greater Manchester and Merseyside were formed then. And Furness became part of the newly-created Cumbria. The history of Lancashire pre-1974 includes Manchester, Liverpool and Furness, so I don't see any problem in including such history in this article, provided it is carefully worded to make it clear that these areas are not part of Lancashire today. And there shouldn't be any excessive duplication of material appearing in the Greater Manchester, Merseyside or Cumbria articles. What do others think? -- Dr Greg  talk  02:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed very much so per WP:UCC. So we might say that the Beatles were formed in Lancashire, but Oasis were not. What we shouldn't do is turn this into a POV zone that basically weasels its way to claim Liverpool and Manchester as Lancastrian, at the expense of modern Lancashire's culture. Editors should be using modern, neutral publications (so maybe akin to this) to see how they tackle the culture of Lancashire, not picking soundbites up about various places in whatever definition of the county they want, and synthesizing together. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
OK thanks, that is pretty clear. I think I see how this can be done at least on the music front, but it will take some work and careful wording, so it might take me a while before I have something for editors to look at. Fortunately the 1974 watershed works pretty well for folk and popular music, it may be a bit more difficult for the more institutionally continuous tradition of classical music. Length is also an issue as this doesn't want to unbalance the article.--SabreBD (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
This now done. I have created a section just for music at the moment. Perhaps regular editors could cast and eye over with a view to the general perimeters of the article.--SabreBD (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Although it's of high quality, which I'm thankful for, isn't this what was to be discouraged? There seems to be a heavy focus on Manchester, Liverpool and Warrington synthesizing local history books into a faux-homogenised Lancashire-esq history. Blackburn, Darwen, Blackpool, Lancaster, Preston all largely overlooked. How are readers expected to learn about their history when dominated by former settlements that have histories of their own? I'm not going to revert/revise, but that's my personal concern. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Using a variety of sources is not synthesis, only using them to advance a point of view WP:SYNTH, which I think is clearly not being attempted here, it is just necessary to use a variety of sources to evidence the information. I understood this article to treat Lancashire as an historic entity that has changed its borders. Manchester and Liverpool are the places with the most significant contributions to music in these periods, so inevitably loom larger than other towns. If these towns were in Lancashire in the period in question then it is legitimate to deal with them here. The only alternative I can see would involve having another article on the historic county of Lancashire, and I suspect that regular editors do not think that is a good idea. If you have evidence of significant contributions to music from other towns then I suggest you add the information in. It is not really the task of this article to inform current resident of modern Lancashire about their history, but to reflect the historic situation as generally accepted in scholarly opinion.--SabreBD (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Boundaries issue again

Looks like someone isn't happy (nor particularly informed about how Wikipedia works for that matter). http://www.southportvisiter.co.uk/southport-news/southport-southport-news/2010/02/17/wikipedia-leaves-southport-off-red-rose-map-of-lancashire-101022-25844624/ —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Same article turned up in the Crosby Herald paper... "Wikipedia Blunder..." etc etc. --born against (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
"Although comments and letters have been sent to the editor of Wikipedia," but I never gave them my address! Longwayround (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Image sandwiching

The manual of style specifically says to avoid the sandwiching of text between images, but the Geography section now has image triple parking. There is only room for one image here, so two have to go. I have no strong views on which ones, but if a decision cannot be made I will be happy to make one.--SabreBD (talk) 09:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been bold and attempted a fix:
That seems to avoid sandwiching as far as I can tell.
By the way, the History of Lancashire article seems a bit thin; some material could be moved from this article to there. -- Dr Greg  talk  19:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Good calls I think. It looks a lot better.--SabreBD (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Mill Towns

Just wondering what the rationale is behind the list of mill towns in the opening section? If they are in any order I can’t see it and Rochdale looks a bit lonely without its neighbours. I’m not disputing the content of statement, although I can’t find any further explanation in the rest of the article.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

weird caption when you hover on the map

it says 'lancashire is located in lancashire', this seems a bit silly. not sure how to edit that though. any help? 109.130.104.11 (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the alt text of the map in the demography section so when you hover over it it should now read "Lancashire is in North West England". The previous text seems to have been some default setting rather than something someone wrote deliberately, so thanks for pointing it out. Nev1 (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Witch trials

Do you think the Lancashire witch trials is notable enough to deserve a mention in the history section of the main Lancashire article? 188.29.34.145 (talk) 04:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Historic county again

I was beaten by @Dr Greg to revert the work of an IP who recently added the following (I've converted the refs):

In 2013, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Eric Pickles formally recognised and acknowledged the continued existence of England's 39 historic counties and their boundaries, including Lancashire.

I'm far from certain that this is even relevant to the article, it certainly shouldn't be in the opening paragraph. IMO It definitely isn't the "smoking gun" that I expect the contributer feels it is. I've put here because it may slightly effect how we describe the relationship between the old county and the current one? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

"Historically in Lancashire"

I use Wikipedia geographical articles in a genealogical website named www.werelate.org. We have an agreement with WP that we can copy articles verbatim. Since our users will refer to our placename articles (and yours) for sources of information, it is important to advise our readers the county location of every town, village, or even hamlet in our database. They will be looking for historical information, not necessarily current information. In reading many WP articles it is difficult, if not impossible, to find out the meaning of the phrase "historically in Lancashire". We know it generally means before 1974, but to an uneducated reader, particularly one unfamiliar with Britain, it could mean any time from Domesday forward. Even those who have time for curiosity and find the link on the word "historically" do not find the answer in the first paragraph of the linking article.

I suggest some thought be given to this problem by writers of pages dealing with places that moved into metropolitan areas in 1974. --Oldontarian (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, it is not immediately obvious what "historically in" means. There have been discussions in the past (many times), and this phrase has usually been the one that most people find acceptable. Mr Stephen (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Under the Terms of use [2] anyone can copy the articles from Wikipedia verbatim or use them and change the text as they see fit. In fact, some people sell books made up entirely of articles from Wikipedia. I'm afraid that raising your point on this talk page is pointless as most of the people who edit articles about places once in Lancashire won't see it. The only answer to the problem would be to add your own explanation to any articles you use. Richerman (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Duchy of Lancaster boundary

Why does someone keep changing a valid and correct edit? The duchy does cover the whole of historic Lancashire not just the modern county and parts of Merseyside and Greater Manchester but also Warrington, Widnes and the Furness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.52.34 (talk) 06:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I’m not sure which edit you are referring to, I don’t remember that info being removed recently. I should point out that the Duchy of Lancaster is not the same thing as the County palatine of Lancaster (historic Lancashire). The problem with trying to accurately describe the different boundaries is the complexity. For instance, Todmorden used to straddle the Lancashire / West Yorkshire border, but the border moved in favour of Yorkshire around 1890. I would also point out that there are people in the areas of Ribble Valley and Pendle that became Lancs in 74 that still associate with West Yorks. One day we might have a separate article for the historic county, but I for one don’t have the time for that right now. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

These links may be of interest to those that support the existence of traditional counties or those that are against and continue to use ever changing administrative boundaries as a term of reference:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/eric-pickles-celebrate-st-george-and-englands-traditional-counties http://abcounties.com/news/government-formally-acknowledges-the-historic-counties-to-celebrate-st-georges-day/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26990828 http://www.localgov.co.uk/Pickles-puts-traditional-counties-back-on-boundary-signs/36134 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.55.252 (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I’ve never understood why anyone cares? All a county is or has ever been is a government administration division. The boundaries of the old ones didn’t change much because prior to the industrial revolution life was scarily short and population numbers didn’t grow that much. Are the people of Greater Manchester and Merseyside so unhappy with their respective councils that they long to be governed by Lancashire County Council? I for one couldn’t recommend it. Maybe people think that being 'from Lancashire' (a strange concept when you think about it) somehow makes them superior to those from Cheshire or Yorkshire? Or is it a history thing? Maybe if whatever place they live in doesn’t have an interesting history, they can somehow share the interesting bits of other places in the Lancashire area? If the word Lancashire ceased to exist would it make any difference to anyone’s lives? The more I think about it, I wonder why we actually need a separate article for the County Council? I’ve also come to the conclusion that the current county didn’t exist prior to 1974 and therefore had no history prior to that date.--Trappedinburnley ([[User

talk:Trappedinburnley|talk]]) 19:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Although the counties began as merely administrative units, over the centuries they developed their own culture and history, which the government have severely damaged by messing with the boundaries. By saying things like "All a county is or has ever been is a government administration division" you show a fundamental misunderstanding of English culture. Zacwill16 (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Establishment

I've added an external link to silent footage of royal visit to Lancaster for the 600th anniversary of the County Palatine of Lancaster in 1951 to the History of Lancashire article. I'm not saying it's any good, I didn't watch much of it. However 1951 minus 600 does not equal 1182. Thoughts?--Trappedinburnley (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

1351 was the year that Henry of Grosmont was made the 1st Duke of Lancaster.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Urgent Update

The results of the 2011 census was published ages ago, Why is this page still using decade old estimates?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Lancashire. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Kirkby, Lydiate and Southport

In these 2 edits on 21 August, 90.208.54.85 added "Kirkby (part of the Simonswood area only), ... Lydiate (part) ... Southport (part of the Crossens suburb only)" to the table of places in West Lancashire in this article. I reverted this, and the user tried again with an abbreviated version of the above. I have now closely examined the county boundary, as shown in OS maps on Bing Maps, and can't find any evidence for any parts of Kirkby, Lydiate or Southport being in Lancashire, other than maybe a handful of houses too insignificant to record here. I think the user may be confused over where the county boundary really is. Perhaps they were confused by former postal counties. I have undone the addition. -- Dr Greg  talk  22:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the person who contributed those edits.
In regards to Southport, I got my information on that town from this article on the Crossens suburb of the town here. It explains that a part of this suburb falls under Lancashire, and thus a part of the town does, albeit a small one. A similar piece of information is given about Lydiate here.
In regards to Kirkby, it's a bit more complicated. As has been said on a few articles, in 1994 the Simonswood parish was given back to West Lancashire. From what I can see, Simonswood has been usurped by Kirkby over time, and in a sense has become a suburb of Kirkby. Some streets on the very far north east of the town (e.g. Weaver Avenue), are labelled as belonging to both Kirkby and Simonswood by numerous sources. However, I could be wrong about this. I did try and find out if anybody could confirm whether Simonswood has come to be a Kirkby suburb over time.
Additionally, there are also some sources stating a part of Horwich belongs to Lancashire (I was going to get round to adding this as well). Namely here, for example, which claims Squirrel Lane is classed as part of Horwich, but falls under Borough of Chorley. The same has been disputed with the boundary between Chatterton and Ramsbottom. Beyond this, though, I can't see any more towns which are split at the Lancashire county boundaries.
Having said all this, I'm aware these are quite small parts of the towns. But, aside from Lydiate, the main reason I thought it was significant is because they are in themselves main settlements as opposed to small villages, and towns split between counties are normally mentioned. Obviously though, it's all subjective! It might not be considered worthy enough to mention due to the small areas the Lancashire sections of these towns cover. I won't challenge the majority's view, but that should hopefully confirm where these statements came from, so they can be disputed in context. Awikipediauser2 (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
An update on this (new account as the password for the account I used to make that last reply is long gone). Without a doubt, parts of Kirkby are still in Lancashire, and most likely Southport, albeit narrowly. I was wrong about Horwich, Ramsbottom, Lydiate, however.
There's a solid (and simple) way of confirming this. On the government website here is a page where by typing in a street address or postcode, you are told which local council your area falls under. This is, to be clear, NOT sorted on the basis of post office boundaries, these are the government's boundaries. To test these, take a postcode from one of the following streets (a quick way of doing this is via Google Maps) then enter it on the site, and you'll see that they're listed under the borough of West Lancashire rather than Knowsley or Sefton.
In Kirkby, Dale Lane, North Perimeter Road, and Pingwood Lane belong to West Lancashire. In Southport, part of Banks Road in the far north of the town also falls under West Lancashire (this may be divided with the village Banks next door, however, the boundary is unclear). These are definitely the only 2 towns with overlapping boundaries at the county borders as of now, so it's not necessarily a common thing in Lancashire. However, whether it's worth mentioning is entirely up to the majority. Awikipediauser3 (talk) 6:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Or you could just look at a map. For example, go to http://mario.lancashire.gov.uk/agsmario/default.aspx, then under the "Local Government Information" tab, select "Borough Councils". -- Dr Greg  talk  18:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Lancashire. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Lancashire. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lancashire. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lancashire/Archive_3&oldid=1160344489"