Talk:Lancashire/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Mediation

The mediation case discussed at Talk:Traditional_counties_of_England#Mediation also refers to this page. --Fasten 14:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Lists of Places in Lancashire

The current list in the Settlements section of the article is in a bit of a state: it purports to list the main townships in Lancashire, whilst still having room for Knott End-on-Sea, Shaw and Crompton and Brindle (an animal coat colouring, it appears!). It's also a hopeless mess of places in the current county, and those in the pre-1974 county, with no distinction given.

My first reaction would be to ditch the list entirely and simply redirect to List of places in Lancashire; however, this only lists those places in the ceremonial county, and I think there is a need for a list of places that were within the pre-1974 boundary in addition. So here are my six preferred options (in descending order of my personal preference):

redirect to List of places in Lancashire; include separately at the bottom of that a list of those places in the pre-1974 county.
redirect to List of places in Lancashire; with the pre-1974 places in-line but demarcated by asterisk.
create a new list of those places in the pre-1974 county under a clear title, redirect to both lists (ie, shunt the current list to a new page of its own and tidy it up). Make the difference between the lists clear in the article.
demarcate pre-1974 places by asterisk in the current list, prune back to places over a certain population figure
demarcate pre-1974 places by asterisk in the current list, no pruning.
leave everything as it is.

For comparison, at the Yorkshire article, they redirect to the List of places in Yorkshire page which is a list of all the places in the pre-1974 boundary (with no demarcation).

There's similar confusion in the [[Category:Towns in Lancashire]] which currently contains Wigan etc.; can I suggest we restrict inclusion in those categories to those places in the current ceremonial county, and say so at the top (much like the current List of places in Lancashire)?

All thoughts and suggestions welcome. Aquilina 16:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I would welcome the changes for one. I think they bring the page in line with other counties (e.g. Yorkshire) like you say. Furthermore, a distinction should definiately be made between the pre and post 1974 local government reformed counties. The Wikipedia encyclopedic |Official Naming Conventions stipulate that their must be a distinction and marked context between the two differing versions of Lancashire. I would wholly concur with Aquilina proposals, I should imagine most users would also be in agreement, and not mind the changes which I believe would improve the article. I vote for number 1 with preference, or 2 failing that. Hope that helps, thanks Jhamez84 22:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I vote 4, subject to my demarcation of settlements in Yorkshire. I think we need a list of the major towns in Lancashire on the main page, with a more detailed list on a separate page. 86.2.0.204 09:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd vote first for 1, or if that is ruled out then 3. I am a little wary of the option involving pruning based on population. Important events often occur in places of low population, and I think it will prove awkward later if we place restrictions on links to places in Lancashire simply because few people live there. I can understand the point of the list becoming over-large and unwieldy at some point in the future, but perhaps a better way of categorising is the solution, not restriction of content? Road Wizard 17:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Support 5 - there's no need to prune - it's all valuable information and it shouldn't be lost. Otherwise support 2. Stringops 17:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions thus far. Looking back, I wasn't very clear in what I said above - apologies. What I meant by "pruning" was the following - have a population or some such limit just for the list in the Lancashire article (which is meant to be a quick overview of the county), and keep the Knott-End-On-Seas for the full list on a separate page. Generally, there seems to be support for sme sort of demarcation - I'll have a go at a trial scheme now, and please leave your suggestions and comments on it here! A q uilina 16:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I've had a go at this - comments welcome. Lancsalot 15:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Added Barnoldswick & Earby, outside the traditional county though currently within the county, with clarification in the key. If anyone disapproves, please feel free to slap me on the hand and revert :-) Theelf29 14:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

With pops of 12k and 5k I don't think they are big enough to warrant inclusion in this list. If we include all towns of this size I think it will get a lot bigger than the current 60 towns. I've tried to keep it to around 20k+ with a few exceptions. See list of places in Lancashire for a more detailed list covering the ceremonial county. Lancsalot 10:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Would it be feasible to make up a table of all towns above a certain size that are in Lancashire or have ever been in Lancashire. Then have columns for each of the categories, it could even cover most of the different periods of the boundaries that way. In the event of yet another local government reorganisation (we must be due for one) then another column could be added. --jmb 11:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Overlay

When I look at the Lancashire page on a 1024x768 screen I notice that the "Duchy Palatine of Lancaster" info box overlays onto the Settlements' section, so that some of the Settlements' information is obscured. Is anyone else having this problem, or is it just me? Road Wizard 12:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I also notice that on the same size screen 'edit' buttons for "Industry", "See also" and "Rejected options for change" also appear in the middle of the Industry section's text. As this is next to the "Duchy Palatine of Lancaster" box, I am wondering if the box has been coded correctly. Road Wizard 12:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Traditional vs administrative counties

It is an established fact that traditional and administrative counties have separate legal identities. This has been confirmed by the government on numerous occasions eg.

"The new county boundaries are administrative areas, and will not alter the traditional boundaries of counties, nor is it intended that the loyalties of people living in them will change despite the different names adopted by the new administrative counties." Government Statement quoted in The Times 1st April 1974

Michael Portillo, then Minister of Local Government and Inner Cities, in a reply of 11 July 1990 to a letter about the status of the County of Avon wrote “I can confirm that the government still stands by the statement ..... that the local authority areas and boundaries introduced in April 1974 do not alter the traditional boundaries of counties. The 1974 arrangements are entirely administrative, and need not affect long-standing loyalties and affinities.”

This article needs to differentiate clearly between the two. 84.9.x.x is trying to push a POV that the traditional county of Lancashire no longer exists. This is factually incorrect. Lancsalot 11:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish.--84.9.194.132 11:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop the edit war now

Before making any further edits, re-read the agreed naming conventions for this sort of situation. One of the agreed acceptable examples is the following:

Southwark is a village in the London Borough of Southwark in Greater London. It is in the traditional borders of Surrey.

Please merely substitute the relevant town names and county names into the above template; eg

Ashton-under-Lyne is a town in the metropolitan borough of Tameside in Greater Manchester. It is in the traditional borders of Lancashire.

That's the agreed wording, formed after an unbelievable amount of strife and argument; please use it to the letter wherever possible. A q uilina 12:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It was formed after a group of bullied everyone else. Your version does not conform to the standard. The traditional counies do not exist. They do not hav eborders so nothing can be within them. It is perfectly clear, places that in the past have been in Lancashire but now are not, are simply no longer in Lancashire. It's just a fantsy of some reactionary regrsives.--84.9.210.236 12:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I regard myself to have been born in, and currently reside in Greater Manchester rather than Lancashire. However, I don't see what the problem is with mentioning that a location or event happened within the traditional boundaries of Lancashire, especially when such an event happened or a location was built at a time when it was inside the traditional boundaries. Sprouty76 13:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Greater Manchester was abolished in 1986. Which cricket team do you support? Lancsalot 13:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Greater Manchester was no more abolished in 1986 than Lancashire was in 1976. Greater Manchester County Council was abolished but the administrative county of Greater Manchester certainly still exists. Sprouty76 13:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I know it still exists as a ceremonial county but all this means is that there is a Lord-Lieutenant of Greater Manchester. The majority of people probably don't even know what a L-L is, let alone which one covers their particular locality. Lancsalot 14:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

As I've said below, it exists in legislation as the collection of quasi-unitary authority metropolitan boroughs that used to fall under that council's jurisdiction. All official references to Bury for example will be to Bury, Greater Manchester and never to Bury, Lancashire - even if no reference is made to the Lord Lieutenancy per se. A q uilina 14:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that 84.9 is a serial vandal and troublemaker and should be banned forthwith. How can the traditional counties be a fantasy of reactionaries and regressives when their continued legal existence has been confirmed several times by the government? Given this fact, why the wording "within the traditional borders of Lancashire" rather than "in the traditional county of Lancashire"? And why can we not make clear that the post-1974 counties are administrative only, as the government has confirmed? Lancsalot 12:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I have had several wars with this particular user, who starts calling everyone "CountyWatch vandals". I agree that your wording is better and there should be a certain degree of flexibility. Given that we have articles about traditional counties where we call them as such it seems petty not to allow the phrase to be used in articles that refer to them. Owain (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I notice that one of the trolls seems to be involved with a Wiki page on "Marketing Manchester" if you look in the history of his edits. --jmb 18:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The current situation

I'd like to collect a few comments together to give people entering this debate on WP for the firet time a taste of what is going on. I'm not the greatest expert on these issues, but I've dealt with them quite a lot.

84.9.x.x is banned - it is the IP of User:Irate = User:IanDavies = User:Pick-A-Low = ... As a banned user, any edits he makes are automatically vandalism, and may be reverted on sight by any user.

All the required information on how we refer to the "traditional" (I prefer ancinet and geographic, or historic, as per the Office of National Statistics) county is on this page, with the discussions preceding the convention here. For anyone wishing to delve further into this, this is required reading. The crux is that as the post-1974 counties have legal definition and standing they are our primary reference frame. However, due to the long history of previous borders we may in addition refer to those. The agreed formulation was that we use the template "X lies in the traditional borders of Y" (or even better "Z lies in the pre-XXXX borders of Y" - borders are in a constant state of flux, so it is best to be precise and add a date)

Reliable sources are very hard to come by - where possible use the albeit ambiguous wording of the Local Government Acts relevant.

The counties of Greater Manchester, Merseyside etc. do still exists - only their councils were abolished in the 1980's. They remain as ceremonial counties and as collections of their constituent metropolitan boroughs.

"administrative counties" as a technical term no longer exists, and it is best not to use this term. The word "county" has myriad clashing and contradictory uses, but it is the term used in the legislature, and should be the term we use here in all its ambiguity. The article Traditional counties of the British Isles explains some of this. You could use the formulation "counties used for administrative purposes", but aren't all counties used for that to some degree? The best way to specify a county is by the date its borders were established, or by the act which established them.

WP:V is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia; if content is challenged you must be able to quote sources explicitly. The famous Portillo letter is one example - this is referred to in may third-hand accounts, but I have never seen its full text in an impartial source. Until this is found, accoridng to WP:V we cannont use it as an informaiton source.

Hope that all helps, A q uilina 13:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. In relation to your last point, how about the 1st statement quoted from The Times 1 April 1974? Or this debate from Hansard, which mentions both the 1974 statement and the Portillo letter (col 116)? Lancsalot 14:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Those sources have been brought up in debate before (I'll try and find the link) - it's interesting, but it's only a statement from a parliamentary under-secretary, and most importantly it does not seem it was actually acted upon - no official statement was drafted, or legislation passed. It is fine to use this source to say that the question was debated and that the informal answer given was as quoted in Hansard, but we cannot say anything stronger than that. It would, however, be interesting to write to the MP concerend and verify the basis for his remarks, and see if the sources can be chased up. The full text of the Portillo letter would be allow a lot of statements in the articles to be strengthened, also; anything other than primary sources will tend to be strongly challenged on this topic. A q uilina 15:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sports Teams In Lancashire

In the list of sports teams in Lancashire, it currently lists Bury, Rochdale and Wigan Athletic. However, these are currently in Greater Manchester. If we wanted to use the traditional definition of Lancashire, then the statement that "Lancashire is home to one Premier League clubs" is incorrect as Blackburn, Wigan and Bolton all meet that criterion and that's excluding the old County Boroughs of Manchester and Liverpool.

As far as I can tell, either Wigan, Bury and Rochdale should be removed from the list, or the "one Premier League club" statement should be amended to include at least Wigan, Bolton and Blackburn and maybe also Liverpool, Everton, Manchester United and Manchester City.

Also, the article mentions that Lancashire is responsible for 7 European Cups, 5 of which were won by Liverpool and 2 by Manchester United. Neither are currently in Lancashire and both were in separate County boroughs. The same problem applies in the league and cup wins.

Anybody got any thoughts? Sprouty76 12:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You are looking at a vandalised version. The previous version, listing all the teams in the traditional county, is the agreed version. Lancsalot 12:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's no definition of Lancashire that only has one current Premier League team in it. Sprouty76 12:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ermm... have a quick look at Greater Manchester - Bolton and Wigan are just as much part of Greater Manchester as Rochdale, Oldham and Bury, and so should be included if and only if they are too. Blackburn was never part of Greater Manchester however, and would be on the list under any definition!

Either way, I'd say leave all the teams in for now, but demarcate them in a similar way to the list of settlements higher up the article. If that's causes general consternation, we can try and think something better up on this talk page. I've left some further notes on this page on writing about counties on Wikipedia - I hope they help! A q uilina 13:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I know Bolton and Wigan are in GM and Blackburn is in Lancashire. My point was about the Premier League though, so Rochdale, Bury and Oldham don't enter into it. I was pointing out that neither the traditional boundaries of Lancashire, nor the current boundaries leave Lancashire with only the one team in the Premier League. However, I hadn't realised when I first commented that the page had been vandalised - it has since been reverted to a form which makes sense in that regard and which makes this whole thread obsolete! Although, is it too soon to add Accrington Stanley to the list? Sprouty76 13:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was getting mixed up. My reference to there being more than one Premier League team in Lancashire was connected to the list of teams in Lancashire containing Wigan as well as Blackburn.

The Rugby teams as well, half of the ones listed are not in Lancashire. The page is abot the county, not what the county once was, it should be made clear in the posrting section that the area refer's to 'old' Lancashire, since the county cannot lay claim to most of the teams in the list anymore.(Halbared 09:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC))It does make it clear(Halbared 09:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC))

Rock Climbing in Lancashire: Why would someone want to delete all my input on rock climing in Lancashire? No commercial links. All valid content. And, rock climbing is by far a bigger participation sport that football. All my input was made in an quasi-official capacity as chair of the British Mountaineering Council in the NW. Carl_spencer

Surely all the sports team, that some troll keeps removing, were originally formed in the county of Lancashire and existed for most of their history in Lancashire so can justifiably be listed under Lancashire. I can't imagine the great players of the past considering that they played for a team from Greater Manchester or Admistrative Area Number 467 or whatever. They would have thought of Bolton Wanderers etc as Lancashire teams so they should be so listed. --jmb 14:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Merger

Reviewing the talk above an article i created i think this article should be treated as the historic county of lancashire and a smaller article on the new county.

Thanks King Konger 20:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This has been suggested before, but was rejected as a POV fork - the agreed standard we are to use in editing is that both Lancashires are the same thing just at different times. The only way to use this definition and keep clarity is to refer to sets of borders explicitly by date. Aquilina 19:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with having separate articles. The main article should cover the real county with a disambiguation link to the administrative county. This is no different to having the main article on Burnley covering the town, and a DA link to the borough. The problem with Lancashire is that the real county is vastly different to the administrative county and it's very difficult to cover them both in the same article without the article itself being very confusing. Lancsalot 20:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Other counties that have been 'reduced in size' retain just one article:

That said, I don't see the harm in the split. Maybe if there is sufficent conflict, and it would certainly reduce confusion. Ergo netural on the topic; perhaps we could get an RfC? --Robdurbar 21:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lancsalot due to the fact many people see Lancashire as what it was was before it was split in the 70s. Also alot more history and cultural reffrences relate to this than the admin county. King Konger 1 June (UTC)

I have gone ahead in making an Lancashire Administration County page would someone help clean and edit it. King Konger

I have reverted as I don't think we can make major changes like this without it being agreed WP policy. Lancsalot 16:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lancaslot's revert; as honourable as the intention, there still isn't consensus to make such a major change. This would need a consensus not just here, but over all Wikipedians who contribute to British geography articles to maintain consistency between counties.

Please be aware that the current situation is the result of extensive debate, which can be found here and here and which is crystallised here. This is required preliminary reading for anyone who has enough time, willpower and significant new arguments to try and change the status quo. The naming convention has to change before the articles can; that's the way the consensus works. Aquilina 17:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Buried somewhere deep in the archives is a proposal of mine for individual pages on Lancashire (traditional), Lancashire (administrative) and possibly Lancashire (ceremonial). The main Lancashire page would then have three sections thusly:

Geography

Main article Lancashire (traditional)

The County Palatine of Lancaster was formed in 1189... more from the other article...

Local government

Main article Lancashire (administrative)

Lancashire County Council was originally formed in 1889... more from the other article...

Ceremonial

Main article Lancashire (ceremonial)

For ceremonial purposes, a Lord-Lieutenant as appointed... more from the other article...

This way each 'fork' could have explicit links to relevant articles in each fork, whereas disambiguation-style links would lead to the main page with a excerpt from each relevant fork. I don't see why such forking would be a bad idea given that we are talking about three different areas used for different purposes that just happen to share the same name. Owain (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Year of establishment

When was the county established? History of Lancashire says 1182, but this page says 1183 since an anonymous editor changed it in April 2005. Which is correct, and is there a source for this statement? I see Morwen was the one that originally added the year. /81.228.148.20 22:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Splitting the article

I have no idea whether this has been before discused, but I wonder whether it would be better to split the article into Traditional county of Lancashire and the ceremonial, administrative county, much like with the Yorkshire articles. I.e. North Yorkshire vs. North Riding of Yorkshire. Although this is a slightly different situation, it would help to remove the mass of infoboxes along the side, and would allow the improvement and clarrification of the two different entities. Lofty 20:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed before (see above). It would definitely improve things although WP policy is apparently to only have one article I've noticed some Welsh and Scottish counties have two. Lancsalot 21:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I would think a separate page covering political and administration for each administrative area (like the modern emasculated Lancashire, Great Manchester, Merseyside etc) and then one page for the traditional county of Lancashire to cover history, food, famous people etc most of which might be common to several of the modern administrative areas. People interested in the customs, culture, history etc of Lancashire can then concentrate on improving and updating that page without continuous changes by the politically correct and saves having to move everything that some bureaucraty decides to "improve" things yet again. --jmb 21:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it'd be worth a try to see whether we can get it split. How can I propse a split? Just by sticking on a Proposed split tag? Lofty 14:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The previous argument that stymied sucha move would be that the new articles would be POV forks. The reason that Yorkshire does have such an article is that there is no current administrative unit called Yorkshire, so the overlaid counties of W,N and S Yorkshire are effectively entriely new. The line taken at WP:NAME is the following: if the name doesn't change, then the "new" county is merely a minor alteration of the "old" county, and so should be treated as the same entity. If the name changes, then you have two different entities. Whether that is a logically consistent position is something to argue over at WP:NAME... It seems bizarre that there are the split articles for Yorkshire and not for Lancashire even though the division was performed at the same time ain the same manner - but this is sometihng that needs to ne agreed for every county beforehand for consistency - creating double articles for just one or two counties would not help anyone. Aquilina 17:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

This article is up for peer review. Please feel free to comment on the nomination - see the top of the page for the link. --TheM62Manchester 11:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This article seems to be a propoganda tool for the Traditional Counties cult. It make numerous inaccurate claims. It inclused areas outside of modern day Lancashire.--84.9.194.125 08:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Until the article is split it has to cover all 3 versions of Lancashire including the real one. Lancsalot 08:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The only lancashire that exists it the one created by HMG. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.9.194.125 (talk • contribs) .

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about or are being deliberately disengenuous. There are at least TWO things that HMG created called Lancashire, one by the LGA 1972 and one by the LA 1997. The THIRD one that you have the objection to was created before HMG! Owain (talk)

It also existed for many hundreds of years with only minor changes in boundaries whereas the modern areas tend to vary every few years at the whim of politicians and civil servants. Most studies of areas from a historical or geographical point of view use these older boundaries to save having to rewrite everything when they are changed. Genealogical studies also always use historic boundaries. --jmb 11:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Your just making things up. Liverpool is not now in Lancashire neither is Merseyside and only 2 M Lancashire teams are in the premiership. You problem is that you can't stand the fact that the world has changed with out you and you silent moral majorities approval, but as you not silent not moral an a small minority it doesn't matter. What you are doing is trying to foist you beliefs on everyone.--84.9.194.174 14:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Showing your ignorance again you think that Wigan is part of the ceremonial county. It isn't. Lancsalot 14:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Didn't say that did I. Just one of you fansasy's. You've added more non lancashire, face it you need therapy. TOgether with your thugish mate Yorkshire Pheonix.--84.9.193.122 20:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It does seem to be a lot biased. Having grown up on Merseyside, I can tell you that there is little or no though given to the idea of being in Lancashire past or present. This article does not need to name all the towns that are not in Lancashire any more, because were they are now lists them and that area Sefton, Knowsley and St Helens and Liverpool boroughs should be mentioned. Adding all the non Lancashire football teams etc. It extremly POV. There is no reason to mention Liverpool or ST Heleans in an article about Lancashire.--MereysideMike 10:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"The only lancashire that exists it the one created by HMG" - so if HMG decided to create a new administrative area called Blair-shire or something then Lancashire would cease to exist? It is a ridiculous statement --jmb 10:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If HMG can do what it likes with Lancashire keep it, detroy it, replace it, split it, abolish it or change it's borders as it has done in the past. It's your idea that it cannot that is irrational. It is their play thing not yours.--84.9.193.208 12:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

84.9.193.208, please be civil. Our user conduct policies are designed to encourage open and honest discussion between equal editors. For that reason, derogatory and inflammatory language is forbidden. You'll find your comments to be better received, and therefore more effective at changing people's minds, if you avoid calling people "irrational" or labelling their contributions to the conversation "fantasies". I want to gently ask you to do this, but I also have to emphasise that this is not negotiable—the policy is very clear on this point (see Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks) and administrators have the power to enforce it by removing editing priviledges. I hope you understand why we have such a policy. Obviously you have very strong views, but please try to not let your strong views lead you into frustration when people disagree with you for the purpose of discussing the issue. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

There is no consnsus her on the POV situation. The people who made the POV edits are the poeple saying it is not POV. It needs external view. So why does the editor remove the flags?--84.9.210.84 18:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Everyone except you agreeing that there should be no tags on the article is consensus enough for me. And I know all of those IPs are all you, and am pretty confident MereysideMike is you as well. —Mets501 (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

So in other words you don'y know what you are talking about. There are only a max of 4 people who have expessed an opinion. You need to think about the concequences of your position. All a minor clique has to do is make edits to obscure pages and provided that the can get a copuple of mates to back them up then in you'll be happy to sign off as consenus approved? The flags created to call for attention can be removed as soon as two or three of the clique have disapproved. You seem to be makinging sure that these flags are never used for their correct purpose.--84.9.210.84 18:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The settlement list gives undue weight to the ancient county. It needs to list places in ceremonial Lancashire first and then separately list the rest (perhaps with some history as to what happened?). Bolding Manchester is particularly misleading. MRSC 06:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It also perpuates the fiction that something about Lancashire is traditional. Rather than Historic.--84.9.195.51 14:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Historic means "with a lot of history" something that applies to the ancient county, but not the recent admninistrative or ceremonial creations. Owain (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

According to wiktionary Historic pertains to an actual event of history.--84.9.195.51 15:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

From the OED (a more authoritative source than "wiktionary"

1. Of or belonging to history; of the nature of history; historical; esp. of the nature of history as opposed to fiction or legend.
2. esp. Forming an important part or item of history; noted or celebrated in history; having an interest or importance due to connexion with historical events. (The prevailing current sense.)
3. Conveying or dealing with history; recording past events; = HISTORICAL (which is the usual prose equivalent).

These definitions fit better with that used by Owain than the one from anonymous writer. --jmb 19:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The list is a bit of a joke really. It list more places that are not in the ceremonial county than are actually in it! MRSC 08:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The list is based on modern population figures, rather than the archaic institution of lord-lieutenancy. It reflects the fact that the majority of Lancastrians live outside the lieutenancy area. Note that the ceremonial county has it's own list of places article which doesn't need to be replicated here. Lancsalot 10:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In which case we agree that archaic use should be avoided. The places in historic Lancs should be removed from the list. MRSC 11:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As per previous discussions, this article has to cover all 3 versions of the county. The current list does just that. Lancsalot 11:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

But giving undue weight to the historic info. The list needs to be reformatted to be more clear. MRSC 11:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe it gives undue weight - the relative proportions are just a consequence of the relative sizes of the pre- and post-1974 formulations. As the county's name has not changed, it needs to cover information from all periods of its existence (cf Yorkshire, where Yorkshire can cover the historical content vs. West Yorkshire etc. for the ceremonial), so I think the extended list here is justified. Personally, I think it's quite clearly demarcated, but a clever reformatting (without pruning) may clarify things further. As mentioned above, the List of places in Lancashire has the post-1974 situation covered in even more depth than the list here, and is clearly linked to. Aquilina 23:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

How does that look now? Morwen - Talk 09:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a big improvement - thanks for that. Aquilina 21:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, what is the deal with removing Barnoldswick and Earsby (which had been properly noted) whilst claiming that "the article has to cover all 3 versions of the county"? It seems reasonable to include them as representatives of the area regardless of their low populations, whilst other low population towns in the other areas of Lancashire would still be excluded. I smell after-the-fact rationalisation. Morwen - Talk 10:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Just trying to establish a cut-off point. From the list, Clitheroe, Coniston, Carnforth, Ulverston, Grange-over-Sands have pops less than 20k, but they are all more significant then Barnoldswick or Earby. Lancsalot 10:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I have to say this article is a pretty enormous mess. Especially the transport section. I thought our counties naming policy said something to the effect of "we do not take the position that historic counties still exist with their former boundaries" So why then do we have pictures of Manchester and so forth. G-Man * 19:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes that is the position we take, but that doesn't mean content relevant to the past boundaries cannot be covered. Just compare the situation to that of Yorkshire - there, information relevant to the pre-1974 county can go in Yorkshire, and information restricted to the current boundaries in each of West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, etc. Where else could the Lancastrian information go, other than here? This unfortunate situation is down to the almost passing coincidence that the current ceremonial county has exactly the same name as an older entity, unlike Yorkshire. If the northern half of the county had been renamed "North Lancashire" "Ribbleshire" or "Greater Prestonshire" this wouldn't be an issue. But this is the best way to live with it, and not lose relevant detail and content. Aquilina 21:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

At the very least the transport and sport sections need to identify which of the areas are no longer part of the geographic county of Lancashire. Currently this passes unmentioned, which would be tolerably in an article about historic Lancashire, but not here. Morwen - Talk 14:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

So apparently the "the article has to cover all 3 versions of the county" now means the article can't note that for example Everton aren't based in Lancashire (this is not obvious otherwise - the other cases are perhaps debatable). Morwen - Talk 13:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Everton are based in the traditional county. The sports section lists all the teams in all 3 versions of the county. It is already stated in the environs and settlements sections that Liverpool is no longer part of the ceremonial county. Lancsalot 13:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

it is not stated in the article that Everton is in Liverpool. Please stop making wholesale reverts that make the article less useful. If this continues I'm minded to gut the two offending sections entirely and make them about the Lancashire shown on maps, not your revisionist version. Morwen - Talk 13:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Who made you judge, jury and executioner? What are you going to do with the other teams then? Split them up on a metropolitan district basis? Those are the entities which are shown on maps. Please try to be a little flexible. Owain (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd tried to put brackets round things to show where they were - this was deemed unacceptable by User:Lancsalot as redundant and summarily reverted. Therefore, I propose solving this in another way which isn't redundant. Morwen - Talk 14:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Which made the article very difficult to read and was merely repeating info included in other sections. The sports section covers the traditional county for obvious reasons - otherwise we couldn't mention the cricket team for example. Lancsalot 14:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, how was the fact that Everton do not play in the modern borders of Lancashire stated in other sections? The user would have to check the Everton article to find that out. Morwen - Talk 17:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

They do of course play in the modern borders, of both the traditional county and the county palatine. It's hardly worth ruining the presentation of the sports section just to say Everton play outside the ceremonial county. Lancsalot 18:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting that. The article needs to very careful make the distinction between the Lancashire incarnations clearly in all sections, if we are to treat historic Lancashire as present tense : to quote your own words again : "the article has to cover all 3 versions of the county" - you should consider what that means. I did that - you reverted all my changes including the ones to the airport, on the basis that one of them had too many brackets. Morwen - Talk 18:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

if we are to treat historic Lancashire as present tense : Hold on hasn't it already been agreed at the naming policy that we should 'not' refer to historic entities in the present tense? G-Man * 20:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite so : just as we don't put a mention on every animal to the creationist point of view saying that the animal was created by god, because it would be Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight, neither should we give undue weight to "alternative" geography. But you know, I don't want to edit war with them because hey, we tried that and it doesn't make them go away or even stop. We had for a little while an uneasy ceasefire: I had hoped that would continue - but certain people seem to have decided that was not enough, and to instead restart the argument with various provocations that give not just undue weight (which I've been happy to ignore in the interests of peace), but outright prominence, to their viewpoints. What little common ground there was has broken down, and at this stage I think it should go to mediation, and would be happy to file a mediation request if other parties agree.

I do wonder, though, what has caused this flurry of activity. Possibly we've been mentioned in a newsletter or a mailing list? Morwen - Talk 22:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"Alternative geography"? What a joke. Are you seriously suggesting that there is "but one true and proper geography"? That itself is seriously PoV. There are different geographies for different purposes: The fact that these articles suggest that a geography that is actually designed for one very specific purpose (i.e. the appointment of Lord Lieutenants) is suitable for general geographic use is a PoV. The Act itself states that the areas are designed "for the purposes of this Act". Who are you to extend this usage to something for which is was not intended and then state that this is the one true geography? PoV nonsense. Owain (talk) 08:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever claimed there is "one true and proper geography", as you put it. I know some people claim that, but I don't hold a mirror image position, I don't have any affection for the real existing boundaries, I just happen to dislike seeing Wikipedia abused as a soapbox, which you have been doing pretty consistently ever since you arrived here. I don't ever remember saying the ceremonial counties are perfect: but they do have some mainstream use. If you find ceremonial counties unsatisfactory, we can revert to just using the 1974 counties. We have, as i see, it several options when organising lists by county

use the traditional counties as defined by the ABC, with or without the 1844 exclaves in place. this is unworkable, as List of English Leage football teams by traditional county amply demonstrates
use some system based on the traditional counties constructed to conform with boundaries that can actually be found on maps. this is probably the actually practical achievable option to #1, but we'd be inventing new stuff and that would be dumb, and it wouldn't satisfy anyone
use the current non-metropolitan (including unitaries) and metropolitan counties. this is unworkable.
use the current ceremonial counties (which Britannica refers to as 'geographic counties', by the way). this has a few defects : Bristol is a bit of an oddity, and the borders of the Yorkshire and Humberside region don't coincide with that , but is otherwise tolerable.
use the 1974-1996 counties. this is simple. they are amalgamations of units found on maps, they fit into the current regions. it is also likely totally unacceptable to traditional counties people. Morwen - Talk 12:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You have claimed that there is one true geography - you did it a bit further up this page, by disparaging everything else as "alternative geographies". I resent your suggestion that I have abused wikipedia as a soapbox - in what way have I done that? I am not espousing my own opinions, but mirroring the concerns of a number of users. Exactly what is so unsatisfactory with List of English League football teams by traditional county? That list looks absolutely fine to me. As to the options, given that they all have pros and cons, why not use common sense and apply the best bits of each to each given situation? There will always been exceptions to any rule as you've already pointed out. Owain (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I use "alternative" in the sense non-mainstream. There are of course several mainstream geographies: I listed a number of them, the latter 3. The former postal counties might be added, as might be postcodes. The edit history of that list demonstrates my point regarding the list's ludicrousness. Morwen - Talk 15:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Something certainly needs to be done. Imagine how many hours have been wasted editing and re-editing the introductory sentences of articles that often only consist of a few sentences anyway. There are many excellent and prolific editors who would otherwise be writing detailed and content-rich articles but instead are wasting their time with this still, years after it started. It has become entirely disruptive to Wikipedia and is diverting resources away from writing excellent articles. This clearly isn't a problem that is going to go away, or get resolved on this talk page. It needs to be taken to the next level and sorted out once and for all. MRSC 11:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, quite. Morwen - Talk 12:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

duchy palatine

Is this current usage? Any sources? (the palentine bit specifically). Also the article opens stating that Lancashire is a duchy but doesn't refer to Duchy of Lancaster. Should there be a link? MRSC 05:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Duchy of Lancaster/county palatine of Lancaster is a palatine territory in which crown rights go to the Crown in right of Duke of Lancaster. I think this covers the ancient boundaries, but i was unable to find a reliable source actually addressing that issue. county palatine or duchy palatine certainly shouldn't be used for the modern borders. For some purposes - such as the appointment of Lord-Lieutenants and justices of the peace the Duchy has special rights in the area of the ceremonial counties of Lancashire, Merseyside and Greater Manchester. I think the term "duchy palatine" was a neologism. There is also the issue of the liberties of the Duchy of Lancaster in other counties and how they were treated. Morwen - Talk 09:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it for now as it is not explained properly in the intro. But I feel this needs to be expanded elsewhere in the article. The only reference to the duchy is to the variant The Loyal Toast. It doesn't explain at all how the two relate. MRSC 09:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it again. Whether the county is owned by the duchy or not is irelevent. This article is about the county and not the duchy. josh (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Lancashire is a county palatine. Palatine status was conferred in 1351 by royal charter which is equivalent to an act of parliament. This is referred to in Halsbury's Laws vol 8 paragraph 1523 and is irrefutable legal proof of the existence of the traditional county. I invite User:Mrsteviec, when he has recovered from his marathon 8 hour POV pushing session, to amend the article accordingly. Lancsalot 17:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I take offence from the last comment. If you think providing eight hours worth of quality prose, thoroughly backed up by citations drawn from a wide range of credible sources is a "POV pushing session", you misunderstand the scope and purpose of the Wikipedia project. MRSC 08:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You claimed earlier in an edit summary "county palatine is a modern administrative division, legally separate from the traditional county". Now you claim the opposite?! Morwen - Talk 17:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

No - the law defines the palatinate with reference to the traditional county, which obviously existed before it became a county palatine. Lancsalot 17:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The concept of a "traditional county" didn't exist in 1351, I think you will find. Morwen - Talk 17:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of citations

What is going on here? Mass reverting, in particular where backed-up by multiple citations (also removed) is VERY bad form. MRSC 09:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You are POV pushing. Major changes should be discussed on the talk page first. Lancsalot 09:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Using credible citations is not POV pushing and does not require discussion. Reverting to an unreferenced version on the basis of "POV" is entirely outside the scope of academic writing and this project. MRSC 09:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The main effect of your edits has been to remove content from the article. Lancsalot 10:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Referenced quality writing is preferred over simply quantity, especially where it contains errors or directly repeats the article. MRSC 10:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The article now has the exact wording "the historic county borders include the cities of Manchester and Liverpool and most of their surrounding conurbations..." TWICE. fantastic. Morwen - Talk 10:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Can I remind everyone about WP:3RR. I haven't been counting. Morwen - Talk 10:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The introduction with direct text repeats has been restored at least three times. Its completely disruptive. MRSC

As a result The Red Rose of Lancaster is the traditional symbol for the House of Lancaster, immortalized in the verse "In the battle for England's head/York was white, Lancaster red" (referring to the 15th century War of the Roses). appears in two places. MRSC 10:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Naming convention

This edit violates the naming convention by talking about a place being in a "traditional county" in the present tense. MRSC 10:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

using the term "for administrative pruposes" for Cumbria is just totally wrong, i shall explain why, briefly

the Local Government Act 1888 made a distinction between 'for administrative purposes' and 'for non-administrative purposes'. it created administrative counties for the former, but for the 'non-administrative purposes' it altered the counties.
the Local Government Act 1972 then made the new counties it created used for all purposes, the ones covered by 'administrative purposes' and also the ones covered by 'non-administrative purposes'. saying that Cumbria is merely an administrative county or that it places are in in "for administrative purposes" is wholly misleading, as it totally ignores what the term was understood to mean from 1888 to 1974, and that Cumbria is in every sense a geographic county as the term would have been used then. if there is any analogous entities to the 'administrative counties' today, this would be the shire counties excluding unitaries that were carved out of them, such as Lancashire without Blackburn & Blackpool, or Leicestershire without Leicester. Morwen - Talk 10:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, wording saying "The county palatine includes Manchester and Liverpool" is used before the concept of different Lancashires is introduced. This is problematic. Morwen - Talk 11:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive "minor" edit

Also, it is a straightfoward falsehood that metropolitan counties were abolished in 1986. In fact, they have been redefined slightly since, even! this order, for example, varies the border between West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester. Morwen - Talk 10:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This edit was particularly bad form as it made the citation appear to support nonsense. MRSC 10:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a straightforward falsehood that traditional counties were abolished in 1974. Yet you are editing as if this was the case. Lancsalot 11:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Citation? MRSC 11:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed true that the county of Lancaster was not abolished by the Local Government Act 1972, i suspect you are alluding to that. However, the county of Lancaster included Wythenshawe. Morwen - Talk 11:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

bearing the name Lancashire

this edit (marked as minor) tries to imply that "historic" Lancashire still exists alongside the current county. This has the opposite meaning to the citation it is paraphrasing and all the other citations in this article and the Wikipedia naming convention. MRSC 11:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

also, it makes the following paragraph into rather a non sequitur as the paragraph is discussing changes to Lancashire's borders between 1888 and whenever. non-metropolitan counties don't get introduced until the next paragraph. Morwen - Talk

Constabulary

I feel the section about the police force is excessively long. It warrants probably a sentence somewhere. Morwen - Talk 11:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Like most British police forces, those of the Lancashire Constabulary are not habitually armed, but armed response teams are on patrol around the county armed with G36 assault rifles and GLOCK pistols. should be removed. The rest could get added somewhere. The transport police is probably irrelevant too, Lancs is no special case in this respect. MRSC 11:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Sport

This edit violates the naming convention by speaking about places being in a "traditional county" in the present tense. This is unnaceptable and is discredited by the multiple citations provided in this article. MRSC 11:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Where have you provided a citation that the traditional county no longer exists? I can provide numerous stating that it does. Where the naming conventions get in the way of facts I will ignore them as per WP:IAR. Lancsalot 11:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

We haven't inserted claims into the article that the "traditional county" no longer exists. So we don't need to provide citations for that. As I note above, the County of Lancaster was not formally abolished by the Local Government Act 1972, but includes Wythenshawe and excludes Reddish - so its not your historic, real, Lancashire. Equally I don't think its appropriate to refer to South Wight and Medina (borough) in the present tense. Searching through the Times archive, I can't find any references to a concept of a "traditional county" that ignores all border changes including 1888 until the mid 1970s. Morwen - Talk

Slight problem with your POV - the gov have stated that they do exist. So have Lancashire county council. Lancsalot 12:04,

23 September 2006 (UTC)

Please provide citations. The 1974 statement we looked into and it turned out that it had been misquoted wildly and widely. I can explain further if you desire. Morwen - Talk 12:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, [1], [2], [3] all have somewhat misleading edit summaries, which i have to protest about. whilst they all accurately describe part of the purpose of the edit: all three edits also placed greater emphasis on historic borders: the latter two seem to be reverts, or at least, close, and the edit summary 'order by division' would rather be 'remove the split by county, re-order by division'. Morwen - Talk 11:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The meaning of minor edit has also been stretched far beyond the usual. MRSC 11:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Citations

In order to suggest a "source is clearly unreliable" it is usual to, at the very least, provide an alternative source. MRSC 12:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Disruption

This edit is pure disruption. This article has a wide range of sources to back it up (more than many featured articles). Citations have been alluded to, but not provided, for the "alternative" point of view. What are the motivations for such edits. It seems far beyond the scope of writing a credible piece of encyclopedic work. MRSC 12:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Postal county for Saddleworth

All the settlements listed at Saddleworth are in the Oldham post town so, on the basis of the rules of following the post town county, they would postally be in Lancashire. This confirms it had postal link to Manchester (and therefore Lancs) in 1872. MRSC 13:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Cuisine and identity

Is there some way these sections could come together? They seem related. MRSC 13:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Latest nonsense

What on earth is this supposed to mean? Changing the date of the creation of Lancashire from 1182 to 1889 and an edit comment saying "per Morwen"? And without changing the citation - does George D. state that it was founded in 1889? This is really starting to border on WP:POINT. It's barely worth noting I seriously doubt that User:Lancsalot believes that Lancashire was founded in 1889 - therefore he is delibarately making a false edit to prove some kind of point, I suppose he is trying to imply I said that somehow? I object to people putting words into my mouth like that. Morwen - Talk 23:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The citation that is being paraphrased is: The county was formed rather later, after most other counties, in 1182. There is no possiblity it could be misconstrued to read 1889! Furthermore, this is the third edit in 24 hours that has changed the meaning of a phrase directly attributed to a citation, disruptively changing the meaning to something totally different. What motivates someone to do this? MRSC 06:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Settlements

This edit attempts to show places that were, and places that are, in Lancashire on a like-for-like basis and this is not the case. It is clearer, and in keeping the way other articles are written to show a clear distinction. MRSC 17:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No doubt you will be accused of POV-pushing for this. If you were, of course, the thing to do would be to remove the list of places that aren't in Lancashire from the article entirely. Morwen - Talk 17:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm would be minded to remove them entirely or possibly move to History of Lancashire. MRSC 17:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine as it is, and History of Lancashire isn't really the place for lists of places in that format. If it gets too big we could make it a summary-list (ie the list as it is now) and find some article to spin it out to. Morwen - Talk 17:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The current layout, and location, provides the right level of information in a suitable format. MRSC 17:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

EB as source

So if we are using EB as a source here, then we could refer to the ceremonial county as the "geographic county" - shall we do that? I don't think we should be relying on tertiary sources, however, especially when (a) there is a surfeit of primary sources and secondary sources, and (b) they are muddled enough that they are misusing technical terms. If anyone would like to respond to my argument above about why using "administrative county" for the modern counties is misleading : please do so. it certainly leads to confusion and nonsense edits like this. Anyway, what does it matter what type of county Cumbria is the section of the article about rivers in Lancashire? Morwen - Talk 09:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

EB refers to historic counties in the present tense. It does not use the "within the historic boundaries of" terminology. Also, it is perfectly acceptable to refer to Cumbria as an administrative county since the government made clear the changes in 1974 were administrative only. Cumbria was merely a replacement for several administrative counties abolished by the 1972 act. However, as per the 1888 act, "ancient or geographic" counties exist in law and they bear no resemblance to the ceremonial counties. Thus referring to ceremonial counties as geographic is highly misleading and not in keeping with established legal definitions. Lancsalot 10:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a citation for "the government made clear the changes in 1974 were administrative only". What do you mean "as per the 1888 act"? User:Lozleader and myself have both checked the full text of the Act and found no such wording. Which section do you think did this, or are you just repeating claims you found in FoRL literature? Morwen - Talk 11:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"They are administrative areas and will not alter the traditional boundaries of counties, nor is it intended that ther loyalties of people living in them will change." I thought you had checked this yourself in the Times digital archive. The "ancient or geographic" counties are not specifically referred to by the Act itself but it is made clear in subsequent censuses that the Act had not altered them. Lancsalot 11:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we did, and we found out the quote had been (a) misquoted and (b) misattributed. An anonymous briefing by a civil servant is not the same as "the government made clear". Articles in the Times of the era happily talk of the "county boundaries" changing unquestioningly. This single quote appears to have been seized on and given weight far beyond its significance at the time.

The Act specifically includes wording to alter "counties" as well as administrative counties, by the way by the inclusion of urban sanitary districts wholly within one "county" or another as well as within one "administrative county" or another.

Further, the census point is rather irrelevant. Of course censuses would continue to use the ancient counties for a few times, in order that comparisons can be made! This doesn't imply anything about their existence : any more than the availability of census figures for the former county of Avon would imply Avon's continued existence. (and for references, modern censuses do indeed contain figures both for boundaries as they exist and boundaries as they existed the last time) Morwen - Talk 11:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Numerous academic and official commentaries, such as the HMSO reference, in this article do not agree with Lancsalot's assertions. MRSC 11:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Is the above quote misquoted? I don't have access to the archive to check. Was confirmed by Portillo in 1990. The Act alters the counties for the purpose of the Act. And censuses specifically refer to the counties as "ancient or geogrpaphic" not former counties. Lancsalot 11:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The 1888 act doesn't alter them for the purpose of the Act, it alters them for what it called 'non-administrative purposes', enumerating these as 'sheriff, lieutenant, custos rotulorum, justices, militia, coroner, or other'. We've not yet tracked down Portillo's statement, I would welcome a hansard reference or other details. The censuses we checked just called them "ancient counties", by the way : "ancient or geographic"/"ancient and geographic" on the internet appears only from Wikipedia or ABC. There were a lot of things we were told in 2003/2004 that we accepted - because we didn't quite believe that the ABC would just fabricate stuff out of nowhere - which subsequent research has shown to be, um, dubious at best. Morwen - Talk 11:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This Portillo quote: He refers to standing by a "government statement". As we have seen The Times quote was no such thing. Which implies he didn't know that, and had been presented with the "statement" and asked if he agreed or disagreed. As I said elsewhere The Times quote was also misquoted in The Guinness Book of Answers (9th edition, 1994), and on that occasion stated to be part of the "1974 Act"! Interestingly earlier editions of the book didn't mention traditional counties, which again points to an early 1990s origin for the ABC movement. The real quote is at Historic Counties of England. It was part of an article on Yorkshire. Lozleader 12:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Unsuitable edit summaries and other comments

This edit by User:Lancsalot with edit summary "rv POV-pushing Londoner" is a direct personal attack and I take personal offence from it. This edit "User:Mrsteviec, when he has recovered from his marathon 8 hour POV pushing session" (in reference to copyediting and the addition of 20+ academic citations) is also personally offensive. Is this level of personal abuse and disruption likely to continue? I was under the impression there was a zero-tolerance to this kind of thing on Wikipedia. Perhaps there is a process that should be followed to prevent further personal abuse and general disruption? MRSC 08:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It is disheartening that an apology was not forthcoming. MRSC 16:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Confusion

It is generally accepted (eg. in EB) that there are 3 versions of each county: traditional, ceremonial and administrative. However according to the WP naming conventions counties are single entities that have changed over time. So why does this article discuss two different versions of the county ie. ceremonial and administative, in the present tense. Surely this is a violation of the naming conventions? Which then is the "real" county according to the naming conventions? The primary focus of this article is the ceremonial county. But the primary focus of the Buckinghamshire article is the administrative county eg. Milton Keynes is discussed in the same way as Slough. So we have two articles on English counties which clearly contradict each other and yet both are in violation of the naming conventions! Is anyone going to sort this mess out? Lancsalot 11:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

it says to use the "current, administrative, counties" as opposed to the historic counties. i can assure you that the naming conventions aren't primarily meant to decide whether to use the ceremonial or the LGA1972/1992 counties - "administrative" doesn't necessarily mean here what you want it to mean - and indeed reading them now they seem rather vague on that issue whilst coming firmly against historic counties. If you think the "treated as one county" bit is ambigous I could clarify the wording to what is meant. I don't see that either article really violates the naming conventions (at the moment). In the early days of this policy it was a bit unclear how this would be best implemented - where it would be appropriate to use ceremonial counties and where it would be appropriate to use LGA1972/1992 counties. However, I agree that articles should take a consistent approach, and that for example, Buckinghamshire should cover the entire county, including Milton Keynes, and that Cheshire should cover the entire county, including Warrington and Halton. You'll note I've argued with User:Concrete_Cowboy over my attempts to say that places that are in Milton Keynes are in Buckinghamshire.

Here is a rough table showing the various definitions of the terms over the various time periods.

Date	Area used for county administration/county council	Area used for Lieutenancy	Town independent of county administration
before 1844	county, or division thereof (no overall term)	county	county corporate
Counties (Detached Parts) Act 1844
1844-1889	county, or division thereof (no overall term)	county (or in the 1891 census, 'ancient county')	county corporate
Local Government Act 1888
1889-1974	administrative county	county or (later) geographic county	county borough
Local Government Act 1972
1974-1986	county (both metropolitan counties and non-metropolitan counties)		none
Local Government Act 1985
1986-1996	county (non-metropolitan counties only now)	county (both metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties)	metropolitan borough
Local Government Act 1992
1996-current	shire county (EB: administrative county)	ceremonial county (EB: geographic county)	unitary authority/metropolitan borough

Basically, the Encyclopedia Britannica usage appears to be to project the 1889-1974 usage, of geographical counties being made up of administrative counties and county boroughs, onto the modern situation analagously. This somewhat makes sense. Picking some random examples they have

East Riding of Yorkshire: unitary authority and geographic county, historic county of Yorkshire

Cumberland: historic county [...] is presently part of the administrative county of Cumbria

Cumbria: administrative county

Greater Manchester: metropolitan county

Lancashire: administrative, geographic, and historic county

Buckinghamshire: administrative, geographic, and historic county

Bedfordshire: administrative, geographic, and historic county

Norfolk: administrative and historic county

Avon: region and former administrative county

Humberside: region and former administrative county

Berkshire: geographic and ceremonial county

Slough: town and unitary authority, geographic county of Berkshire [...] historic county of Buckinghamshire

as you can see if something is a non-metropolitan county and a ceremonial county on the same borders it only mentions the former existence (as "administrative county"). I don't think we should be following EB as a model, although it is obviously evidence of usage. Also it should be remembered that EB is American! Morwen - Talk 17:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Article in Spectator

Some interesting snippets of an article about Lancashire and identity in Spectator with mixed views on boundary changes:

FIRST, it is important to recognise what Lancashire is. Despite the worst efforts of local government reorganisation in 1974, which created the metropolitan counties and yoked together such different places as Herefordshire and Worcestershire, the County Palatine of Lancaster remains in the minds of all true Lancastrians. The southern boundary separated it from Cheshire, and the northern territory stretched as far as Ambleside. In other words, Lancashire includes most of Greater Manchester, much of Merseyside and a mighty chunk of the southern Lakes. That part has gone for ever, alas, submerged in `Cumbria', while poor old Westmorland was done away with altogether.

[snip]

Strictly speaking, Liverpool is not really Lancashire at all, and Lancastrians have been quite happy with that arrangement. It has always been more of an independent city state, with laws and customs of its own. When Alan Bennett, from the other side of the Pennines, wrote that `every Liverpudlian seems a comedian, fitted out with smart answers, ready with the chat and anxious to do his little verbal dance', he struck a gong that resonates far beyond the Mersey. `They are more like cockneys than Lancashire people, and it gets me down.

It's a useful distinction because Lancashire folk are funny, indeed the funniest in England, but not in a self-advertising way; they are not easily deceived, either, but they are less likely to parade their practicality than their neighbours to the east. Yorkshire has more land, more money and a greater sense of self-importance, but those qualities are not always universally admired. Lancashire people, to put it plainly, are widely liked for fairly obvious reasons. `Gradely folk' may be a cliche, but it is true for all that.

[snip to end]

It's not an `obvious' or a fashionable county. People who take their holidays in Umbria and Perigord would feel terribly out of place under Pendle Hill in winter, or riding a Fleetwood tram. But within its diminished boundaries Lancashire contains the most decent, warm-hearted and generous folk in the kingdom.

Source: Henderson, Michael. "Lancashire. (Best Of British)." Spectator 288.9057 (March 9, 2002). MRSC 23:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of citations (yet again)

What on earth is this supposed to mean? Page xiii of the historical background section begins "Old Lancashire, as defined before the 1974 reorganisation of British counties..." and later "However, in 1974 the Furness District or 'Lancashire over the Sands' was transferred to the new county of Cumbria". This text specifically supports the fact that the Local Government Act 1972 caused boundary changes to the county of Lancashire (which some groups try to claim did not occur). MRSC 11:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be especially odd for a history about Lancashire written in 1991 not to mention Merseyside or Greater Manchester at all, which is the implication of the edit summary. Has User:Lancsalot got the book and found it had no references to these counties? Morwen - Talk 12:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

There is such a consistent pattern of removing and changing the meaning of citations that it is difficult assume good faith. MRSC 12:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It is on google books. I searched for Merseyside and GM and got no results. Another example of dishonest referencing by User:Mrsteviec. Lancsalot 15:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Please explain in what way the text does not support the fact the boundaries of Lancashire were altered in 1974. Perhaps you should read the texts you dispute, rather than jump to conclusions.

Furthermore, I take issue with your "Another example of dishonest referencing by User:Mrsteviec" claim, based on your search of Google. This is a very serious accusation and I take strong issue with it. You obviously have a disrespect for academic citation in general (having removed and altered so many citations) and now you have compounded the issue with a personal attack. I would advise you to withdraw your accusation now.

You might take the opportunity to reply to my earlier comments above about your incivility, personal attacks and other disruptive edits which appear to have gone unanswered. MRSC 17:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

This edit appears to make the section and article contradict, speaking in a mixture of tenses about former and current county boundaries. MRSC 12:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This text: "The whole of the Coniston group lies within Lancashire" remains in the article. It is clearly put there to try to prove a point (being against the established naming convention) or is another opportuinity to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. The Furness Fells are located in Cumbria. It is also not particularly relavant to the section subject of "county top" as this is already detailed without this information. MRSC 18:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about it, how come the article doesn't mention The Pennines? They are kind of an important thing to mention in an article about Lancashire, one would think. the 'county top' subsection is a bit odd. Morwen - Talk 19:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The physical geography section is quite short. The two subsection titles could probably be removed and the whole section given a good copyedit. MRSC 19:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

More contradiction

The opening paragraph gives one set of boundaries for the county palatine and then later two sets of boundaries are presented. The text in the introduction should either summarise the unclear position or be removed - it is covered later in good detail. MRSC 13:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed references to its area from the introduction and moved all the citations to the Duchy section where they can be presented with equal weighting. MRSC 18:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at Traditional counties of the British Isles it contradicts all the attempt to rationalise and remove the fantasies.--84.9.193.208 21:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I have again removed the odd and lengthy list of things associated or containing the name "Lancashire". See Wikipedia:Disambiguation for what disambiguation actually means

Lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms only a part of the article title don't belong here. Disambiguation pages are not search indices. Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title (where there is no significant risk of confusion). MRSC • Talk 16:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree the list was too long, I've curtailed the list to specific ones for Lancashire links. Cwb61 (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not about the length of the list. Please read Wikipedia:Disambiguation again. The list is still nothing more than a collection of things associated with Lancashire or sharing part of the article title. There is no need for disambiguation as none on the items on the list would normally occupy Lancashire under any circumstances. MRSC • Talk 17:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Have it your way. YOU have decided that there shouldn't be a "Lancashire (disambiguation)" page. It wasn't doing anyone any harm, it was useful to for people. You and your type are the same, "you can't do that, its against the rules". Well they are NOT rules but guidelines. However, if it make YOU so happy to remove the useful "Lancashire (disambiguation)" page, then I won't revert it again. In fact I'm going to go through every county disambiguation page and if they don't match up to the Wikipedia:Disambiguation RULES you so much rely on, then I'll remove the offending links or #redirect the page to the county page. Cwb61 (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't shout or get upset and definitely don't make personal attacks. Wikipedia is a co-ordinated effort to write an encylopedia and not a directory or indiscriminate collection of information; the rules and guidelines are good for achieving a co-ordinated and consistent result. Your goal to remove other unneccasary disambiguation pages sounds exciting, I wish you good luck with that, but pleae be nicer when you speak to other editors in future. MRSC • Talk 18:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Why all this fuss over what in essence is very, very minor? As Cwb61 has said, it wasn't doing any harm being there. In addition I actually found it quite useful, but now because of this, it has dissapeared completely. I really do not see why there has to be such a strict interpretation of wikipedia guidelines on this, especially when it isn't doing any harm whatsoever and was in my opinion, very useful. And I would further ask that rather than the disambiguation page simply being removed on the basis of one editor removing it, that this is discussed further on here.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 18:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In answer to Tangerines BFC, the list should (if included and I don't specifically object to this) occupy somewhere like List of things associated with Lancashire, it definitely should not occupy Lancashire (disambiguation) simply because it is not a disambiguation page. MRSC • Talk 18:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact there some disambiguation with Lancashire.

What about Sarah Lancashire. Imagine someone couldn't remember her firstname, they'd find hundreds about the towns about Lancashire, but with the disambiguation page could have been helpful.

Lancashire Road, the downhill street in Hong Kong, that's not in the county of Lancashire.

What of Lancashire Stadium, the home of the Zimbabwean football club Lancashire Steel FC, they aren't not in county of Lancashire either.

On the Yorkshire (disambiguation) there are useful links, even the Yorkshire Terrier, a breed of dog, but the "Lancashire (disambiguation)", which has been removed, mentioned about Lancashire Heeler, a small breed of dog. One rule for one area but not for another. There are other county disambiguation pages that don't exactly with the Wikipedia:Disambiguation rules. These disambiguation guidelines aren't written in stone.

Its been suggested a List of things associated with Lancashire. Oh yes, that one rolls off the tongue easily, why didn't I think of that!

I too agree that one editor, not even an administrator, has taken the unilateral decision to remove the disambiguation page.

So far for a "Lancashire (disambiguation)", 2 in favour it, 1 against it. Cwb61 (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The things you have suggested are not alternative meanings for Lancashire, this is the purpose of these pages. If you want to change the purpose of disambiguation pages, I suggest you start a debate at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, this is not the forum for that. MRSC • Talk 19:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this needs to be checked further, as the Yorkshire (county) page has a link to Yorkshire (disambiguation), and as MRSC suggests, things associated with Lancashire, should be included in any disambiguation page. Cwb61, whilst I do agree about the Lancashire disambiguation page being relevant, please bear in mind the wikipedia policy on no personal attacks when replying to MRSC.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 21:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

County Palatine

There have been some edits saying the Palatine gained land from the boundary changes, citing the duchoflancaster site saying the palatine comprises Greater Manchester etc. While it is true Greater Manchester includes areas of Yorkshire that were not included in the palatine, this reference does not provide explicit confirmation that the palatine includes all of Greater Manchester. This could simply be a reference to the parts of GM that were already a palatine. Indeed, there is a reference on the page to a parliementary debate that explicitly states the boundaries for the palatine have not changed. 88.104.88.173 18:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there some citation/reference to state that there hasn't been any changes to the County Palatine of Lancaster's boundaries? Cwb61 (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes - check ref #27 (duchy of Lancaster section, 2nd paragraph): http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199293/cmhansrd/1992-06-15/Writtens-2.html 88.104.88.173 18:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The Lord Lieutenant of Greater Manchester is appointed by the Duchy of Lancaster. The website also states it comprises of Lancs, Gtr Mcr, Msd & Furness - thus Altrincham and Saddleworth are under the executive power of the duchy. Jhamez84 18:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't actually say that though - it says Greater Manchester comprises the Palatine and does not say if it is all or part of Manchester. If you are going to say the boundaries have changed then we need an expliciti statement like "all of Greater Manchester" 88.104.88.173 18:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Erm, by logic Greater Manchester is just that - Greater Manchester! It doesn't need to say "all of"! Look at it this way, it states it includes the Furness part of Cumbria - it's explicit with it's boundaries there, it does not state part of GM or Merseyside. Jhamez84 18:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with you, bizarrely. On the map it looks like teh whole of Manchester but the problem is that we have an explicit counter reference which says the boundaries having changed. I'm include to believe we are both right: The estate only draws income from the old area, but appoints a lord lieutenent for GM, meaning that on some levels the boundaries have changed and on some levels they haven't. Idealy this section nees to be expanded, but at the moment we don't know exatly WHAT has changed so I think the section should give equal balance to both schools of thought. If you want to reword the section to your liking be my guest, but I request you keep an equal balance. 88.104.88.173 19:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm always happy to compromise, when inline with policy. More research is needed here I suppose. Jhamez84 19:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Since there is some contention with the Duchy/County Palatine of Lancaster being mentioned in the article’s introduction, perhaps it should be removed, after all, the article is about administrative/historic county of Lancashire not the Duchy/County Palatine of Lancaster. They seem to be two different things today. The duchy is mentioned further down the article and more fully in its own article. Cwb61 (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a possiblility, but someone could come along and add it back in. I personally think the whole section needs a overhall if it's going to stay since there are contradictory sources about its borders. Ultimately the article is about lancashire so an alternative would be to state that its "historic boundaries were the same as the County Palatine of Lancaster, but now its modern boundaries means it only forms part of the county palatine". Views? 88.104.88.173 19:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives