Talk:Lancaster

message: Here's how I count the votes cast so far:
"Lancaster" should be:
* Lancaster, England: Uppland, BlankVerse ∅ , Dunc|☺, Dpbsmith (talk) 
* The dab page: Anon,  Lupin, Average Earthman, 71.108.65.62, JamesMLane, DreamGuy, Rhobite, gadfium, Carnildo, Firebug, Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης), User:Kelly Martin, Willmcw, nixie
Even if we don't count the unregistered user's vote for the dab page, the community preference seems clear.  Do any of the proponents of the "Lancaster, England" view think we need to keep this open any longer?  If not, we should wrap it up and make Lancaster the dab page. JamesMLane 04:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tally

message: I added the move template at the top, and now there should probably be a formal vote on it. Please vote either support or oppose below, with an optional one sentence comment. The related vote is located at Talk:Lancaster.  Lachatdelarue (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see the point of a formal vote.  We had an extensive discussion here.  Because people were commenting, without putting their names in a "Support" or "Oppose" column, I extracted the equivalent votes from their comments to produce the "Tally" above.  That was five days ago; no one has objected that I mischaracterized any of the votes.  The vote to move was 13-4 (or 14-4 if you count the anon).  Why should everyone have to come back to this page to have their opinions counted? JamesMLane 23:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My thought was because a vote is supposed to take place after you post on the requested moves page. If you feel confident that no one with contest the move after it's been done, I will go ahead and do it. Lachatdelarue (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going by this statement on Wikipedia:Requested moves: "The move should usually be discussed on the talk pages of any relevant articles first . . . ."  We've had the discussion (beginning almost two weeks ago), and five days have elapsed in which none of the opponents of the move objected to the conclusion that the move had been approved, so I'd say it's safe to go ahead. JamesMLane 23:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I'll go ahead and move the pages. I always understood that statement on WP:RM to mean before the page is moved, not before it's listed, or maybe discussed some before being listed, but the voting after it's listed, since listing are supposed to stay there for five days. I don't know, any way it generally works out. Lachatdelarue (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I personally think the move was a mistake and should be reverted; the majority of the links to Lancaster  are about the English place and whoever made the move should have accepted the duty to sort them out. I also think the disambiguation page is odd - there is no evidence that any of the places listed do not have their name derived directly or indirectly from the original place; it also fails since for example Lancaster, New York simply leads to another disambiguation page. --Henrygb 20:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One reason that a majority of the links are to the English place is that, after the move, I went through the links and disambiguated a number that were to other articles.  I didn't disambiguate the English links because of what I understood to be the history.  I think the English article was for a long time at Lancaster, England; that someone moved it to Lancaster, Lancashire; and that someone else then moved it to Lancaster.  Then, by virtue of the discussion here, the article was returned to its original title of Lancaster, England.  Nevertheless, we didn't address the question whether the English city should be at Lancaster, England or Lancaster, Lancashire.  I frankly didn't want to spend the time to change all the links to read Lancaster, England if they were going to have to be changed anyway.  I respectfully suggest that the people involved in editing the article about the English city reach a consensus about its title.  Once it's stable, the links can be disambiguated.  You make a good point about Lancaster, New York, and I'll fix that. JamesMLane 07:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most English towns seem to have gone for "Town name, County name" where the town name alone does not suffice, so I prefer "Lancaster, Lancashire". "Lancaster, England" sounds like the sort of thing an North American would say and sounds distinctly odd to my ears (I'm English). Lupin 07:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

text:  I going to throw 'a spanner in the works' or 'a curve ball' depends on where you are.  You mention Perth, Ontario as having precedence over Perth, Scotland but I would have to say that Perth Western Australia has a greater claim the either based on size location and importance.  Yet its acknowledged that all other cities and towns derive their name from Perth Scotland and wouldn't it therefore be logical for Perth Scotland to be the one with the significant claim.  I suggest where the name originates from a single point that should have precedence  Gnangarra 13:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This article is now the dab.  Therefore, I suggest that the discussion about Lancaster, England versus Lancaster, Lancashire should continue at Talk:Lancaster, England. JamesMLane 06:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: move request

message: Since there are at least four pronunciations for Lancaster, depending on locale (e.g., /ˈlæŋkæstər/ in England, /ˈlæn.kæstər/ in California, /ˈlæŋkɨstər/ in Pennsylvania, and /ˈlæŋkəstər/ in South Carolina and Kentucky), it seems those cities / towns without a pronunciation listed should have one added.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 11:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  pronunciation