Talk:Lancashire/Archive 2

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

message: :Image:EH icon.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:EH icon.png

message: The article is way to involved with the 1974 boundary reform and reads as if the text has been compromised. I want to come here to read about the great places of Preston, Blackpool, Lancaster, Blackburn, Nelson, Fleetwood, Cockerham etc, not how bitter some people are about Merseyside and Greater Manchester and how the "Dutchy" is still inplace.
WP:UKCOUNTIES will give some indicators on where to take this, but currently, this article is one of the weakest about a county, which is a shame. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lancashire? 

message: Hi Tangerine,
We beleived we had provided a useful resource for visitors to the Lancashire wiki entry. We also believe that this is in line with guidelines. "Things you didn't know" is clearly unique, informative and adds value to this entry.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.39.10 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea is that content is added to wikipedia articles, not simply that external links to other sites are added on a number of articles. If the information in the link is a useful resource for users reading this article then that content itself, with citation, should be added to this article, thereby adding, in your words, informative content that then adds value to this entry, within the actual article. Please see WP:NOT#LINK and WP:SPAM. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Yell.com 

message: In continuing the trend regarding deleting historically Lancashire football teams that are now in the bollocks, sorry, ceremonial "county" of Greater Manchester, if no one disagrees, then I'm going to delete Lancashire County Cricket Team from the list of Lancashire Cricket Teams, because they're based in Greater Manchester. The name means nothing, and neither does the really really long history and association with Lancashire, apparently. It's all about its actual location.--El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 08:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the point you are making, but this is just silly. There is a blatantly obvious connection between "Lancashire County Cricket Team" and "Lancashire", regardless of where it is located. Whereas the connection between, say, "Manchester United" and "Lancashire" is nowhere near as strong. In my view, such a connection could be made in the History of Lancashire article rather than here. --Dr Greg (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

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

message: Andrew Walmsley from the council emailed me twice today to point me towards two news articles - Here and Here. It turns out that the "officialness" of a flag is based on the UK Flag Registry, which is run by the Flag Institute. The is no UK Flag Act, or any legislation under which flags might, by law, be deemed "official". In this event, the Flag Institute keeps a formal record of registered flags for UK nations, counties (the flags for which normally apply to the historical counties, not to the modern administrative areas) or regions. However, one of the criteria for inclusion in the Flag Registry is that the flag must be either:
# Registered with the College of Arms
# Registered with the Office of the Lord Lyon
# The traditional flag (the one that FORL originally tried to register)
# Selected by a public vote, or
# Selected by an appropriate county or city organisation (in this case the yellow one suggested by FORL after the white one was rejected).
The Guardian news story seems to indicate that if a flag is flown which is not registered with the UK Flag Registry, then under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992 S.I. 1992/666, Schedule 3, Class 7 Here, which reads:
      Class 7
      Flag advertisements
      Description.
          7.    An advertisement in the form of a flag attached to a single flagstaff projecting vertically from the roof of a building.
      Conditions and Limitations.
          7.—(1)  No such advertisement is permitted other than one—
            (a)  bearing the name or device of any person occupying the building; or
            (b)  referring to a specific event (other than the offering of named goods for sale) of limited duration, which is taking place in the building, for the duration of that event.
          (2)  No character or symbol on the flag may be more than 0.75 metre in height, or 0.3 metre in an area of special control.
it can be classed as an Advertisement and so Deemed Consent (planning permission, basically), is needed from the council. Flags now
registered with the Flag Registry are exempt from this requirement. Yorkshire's flag has just been approved, hence its "official" status, while the approval for Lancashire's white-background flag was not given due to the Montrose problem. The yellow background has now been approved, according to the Lancashire Evening Post article, thus the yellow one is now, technically, the de jure county flag, while the white background one is the de facto county flag. The yellow comes from the colour used on the arms, I think the LEP article says. Also, the flag shown in the picture is (obviously) not the flag actually being discussed, but the one that flies above County Hall - the council man pointed this out to me: it would appear the council have a third flag added for good measure. I suppose with enough publicity such as that in the Evening Post, the yellow background flag will become more prominent while the white one fades away, but until that time we now have this dilemma of which one to use. 
My suggestion would be that the yellow background flag should be used at the top of the article, for as long as flags are used at the top of articles, while the article itself should show lower down the three different flags and discuss the reasons for their existences. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 09:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant bit of research El Pollo Diablo! This explains everything. I'm happy with your suggestion. :) --Jza84 |  Talk   11:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: More stuff from Lancashire County Council

message: Just to let you know, my name is Andrew Turvey and I'm the Secretary of Wikimedia UK - the local chapter that seeks to promote and support Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects within the UK.
We've been approached by the Friends of Real Lancashire regarding the treatment of traditional counties in this article. I've asked them to put their case on the talk page here, and then we can see what other editors think and hopefully come up with a consensus.
When it comes, please could all editors remember not to bite newbies - they aren't used to editing wiki pages and I think we should hear them out. I won't comment on the substance of their case until they've added their case. Thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 20:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a public record where the FORL's approach can be viewed, or was it a private exchange? --Jza84 |  Talk   21:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  They have a website here. I read somewhere that they got an agreement with the Royal Mail to allow the use of traditional county names for postal addresses e.g. Manchester, Lancs. Richerman (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the thing... traditional in the sense that Northenden is south of the River Mersey, so was in Cheshire? ;) --Jza84 |  Talk   17:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Royal Mail don't tend to use counties now as part of the postal address, just Post Town and Post Code.  But I would never dream of putting "People's Republic of Greater Manchester" on an envelope, always "Lancashire".  --jmb (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. Greater Manchester was never adopted by Royal Mail as a postal county, and so it is not used  routinely in addresses (but is an option, and is used by a percentage). But postal counties are not the same as historic boundaries, which is my point; Saddleworth's "postal county" is Lancashire, as is Northenden's/Wythenshawe's/Baugley's, despite them being (according to FORL) in Yorkshire and Cheshire. Putting aside the fact that Merseyside, Avon and Tyne and Wear were formally adopted by Royal Mail, this makes any point about postal counties being a symbol of where a place "is" completely redundant. They are archaic markers of where a locality's postal sorting office was. --Jza84 |  Talk   21:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Let's wait for Friends of Real Lancashire to make their statement shall we, no point in getting excited about something that hasn't happened yet. Nev1 (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Jza84 - unfortunately not - it was paper form and too long to reproduce, but I've asked them to put their case in full here instead, so hopefully it will come in due course. AndrewRT(Talk) 00:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Friends of Real Lancashire 

message: Your entry for Lancashire is like the curate’s egg, “good in parts”, but other parts are extremely misleading, because in many instances it fails to take account of the fact that there are three areas designated as Lancashire.
The smallest area is that administered by Lancashire county council, part of which lies within the traditional West Riding of Yorkshire.   This should be referred to as “the administrative County of Lancashire” or “administrative Lancashire”.
Slightly larger is the area currently covered by the High Sheriff and Lord Lieutenant, consisting of “administrative Lancashire” plus the boroughs of Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool.    This should be referred to as “the Ceremonial County of Lancashire” or “Ceremonial Lancashire”.
The largest area is the traditional historic and geographical county of Lancashire, which came into being in the twelfth century and has remained unchanged ever since, this should be referred to as “the traditional County of Lancashire”.
Despite changes to administrative areas, including those made under the 1972 Local Government Act, no legislation has ever changed the boundaries of any of Britain’s traditional counties.   Lancashire therefore still stretches from the River Mersey in the south through to the River Duddon in the north.  We have on file many statements issued by both central government and the Duchy of Lancaster Office, confirming that the traditional county of Lancashire has remained unchanged since it was first created in the twelfth century.    Therefore, the name “Lancashire” used by itself should mean the traditional county.   When referring to the other areas of the county the name “Lancashire” should be prefixed by the words “administrative” or “ceremonial”.   When your present entry fails to make these distinctions it is misleading.     People consulting your online encyclopaedia ought to be able to rely on its accuracy, otherwise it is valueless.
I would draw your attention to the following misleading entries .(Pages are given as they appear in my print out from the site.)
Page 1
Paragraph 1
The entry regarding population should read - “The population of the administrative county is 1,168,100, whilst the population of the traditional county is in excess of six million.”
Paragraph 4
Should begin -
:“The administrative county was subject to a significant boundary reform in 1974, whilst the boundaries of the traditional county remained unchanged.”
Paragraph 4 line 5
. Should read “Today the administrative county borders the administrative counties of Cumbria and North Yorkshire and the unitary authority areas of Blackburn with Darwen, Blackpool, Bolton, Bradford, Bury, Calderdale, Knowsley, Sefton, St Helens, Rochdale and Wigan. (Ref. Ordnance Survey Administrative Map of the UK.   Note: OS has not recognised any of the metropolitan counties since their councils were abolished in 1986).   
Page 1 
The heading Geography should read “Administrative & ceremonial geography.”
I would also point out that the flag illustrated on page 1 was registered for the traditional county of Lancashire, not for the administrative county.   It does not pertain to the area of administrative Lancashire that lies within the traditional county of Yorkshire.   The wording under the flag ought therefore to read “Flag of the traditional county of Lancashire”.
Page 2
Under the heading politics the title in the left hand box –
ought to read “Members of Parliament for Ceremonial Lancashire”, otherwise you ought to list all the MPs with constituencies within the traditional county.
Page 3
Line 1 under the heading Area since 1974
Should read “Administrative Lancashire is now much smaller than the traditional county due to local government reform.”
Page 4
Geography 
Divisions and environs
When the councils of Greater Manchester and Merseyside were abolished in 1986 they ceased to be the top tier of local government and were removed from maps by Ordnance Survey.   So geographically  this entry should read - Line 6 - “The ceremonial county, the area including the unitary authority areas of Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool, borders Bolton, Bradford, Bury, Calderdale, Knowsley, Sefton, St Helens, Rochdale and Wigan. (Ref. Ordnance Survey Administrative Map of the UK).
Geology, landscape and ecology
The last two lines
As you use the name “Lancashire” you should include all the Lancashire rivers, including the Mersey.   If you only intend to list the rivers in ceremonial or administrative Lancashire you should prefix Lancashire with “ceremonial” or “administrative”.
Page 5
Duchy of Lancaster
Palatine of Lancaster should read “which includes areas that were removed from administrative Lancashire as part of the 1974 boundary changes.”   (Again you need to qualify Lancashire.)
Economy
Line 3 should read “Lancashire is historically the location of the port of Liverpool.”
Line 8  Barnoldswick is in Yorkshire unless you qualify Lancashire as administrative Lancashire.
Page 6
Line 1  should read “non-metropolitan administrative county of Lancashire”
Education
Line 1 the word “Administrative” should prefix Lancashire
Paragraph 2 should read “Administrative Lancashire” unless you include the universities in Liverpool, Manchester and Salford which are all Lancashire universities.
Transport
Here again you need to qualify which Lancashire you are referring to.
Unless you refer to “Administrative Lancashire” you should include stations at Liverpool, Manchester and Salford.
Both Liverpool John Lennon and Manchester Airports serve “the county” of Lancashire
There are ferry services operating from Liverpool in Lancashire.
Demography 
Here you have qualified which type of Lancashire this information refers to, which is how it should be.
Page 7
Beginning Some settlements
West Yorkshire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside ceased to be administrative counties in 1986 when their councils were abolished.   Warrington and Widnes ceased to be part of administrative Cheshire in 1998 when they became part of the new unitary authority areas of Warrington and Halton.    Cheshire ceased to be an administrative county on 1st April 2009.
If you are referring to administrative areas then you should list the current top tier of local government i.e. the metropolitan boroughs and other unitary authority areas that are wholly or partially within traditional Lancashire.
Page 8
Sport
Cricket
Line 4 should read “Due to changes to administrative county boundaries, the club’s home ground, County Ground Old Trafford,  is now outside administrative Lancashire, being in the metropolitan borough of Trafford, but is still within the traditional county.
Football
the word “administrative ought to be inserted here.                      
The entry reading the six professional teams based in Lancashire is incorrect and was corrected by the Lancashire Football Association but was changed back again. 
The correct information about football in Lancashire provided by the Chief Executive of the Lancashire Football Association to which all teams within the traditional county have first affiliation is that there are now eight teams in the Premier League they are:-
Blackburn, Bolton, Burnley, Everton, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United & Wigan.
I trust that you can arrange to have the entry about Lancashire corrected for the benefit of those who rely on your site for information about the county.
Chairman of the Friends of Real Lancashire
Chris D Senior (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We have been here before and the general consensus is that you don't know what your talking about.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Note on there  they admit to being a associate of the Association of British Counties.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

text: The Lancashire we use in this context is the current administrative county.  The guideline is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)/Counties, and (as it says there) is the result of a long debate.  Mr Stephen (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This is an old, discreditted fringe theory adequately dealt with in our naming conventions. "Traditional County" is term invented by ABC; the administrative counties of England were around between the 1890s until 1974- modern counties are not designiated "administrative counties"; while the Local Government Act 1972 says itself that the "new counties [in England and Wales] shall, without prejudice... be substituted for counties of any other description" (". --Jza84 |  Talk   18:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of interest, and coming in peace. If the act was an irrefutable alteration of boundaries, then why do these quotes here; http://www.forl.co.uk/confuse.html#quotations] albeit quotes not on an official or large governmental level suggest the contrary? Surely, if there was no doubt it would be followed through, and reiterated on every level in every department making no doubt of the implications of the act? An index of metals (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The counties created in 1972 in southern Lancashire and northern Cheshire (Merseyside and Greater Manchester) are separated from Lancashire ceremonially and administratively, and are undeniably separate counties in their own right. The traditional borders of Lancashire and Cheshire were redrawn to amalgamate the large urban sprawls. FORL and its sympathisers seem to exist in a world where geopolitics remain stagnate and thus ignorant of contemporary needs. The quotes from the FORL website, denying the existence of the metropolitan counties are going to be far from unbiased. FORL has selected them purposely; select quotations from seemingly "credible" and "official" sources, to attempt to add legitimacy to their cause. (All in vain, of course.) Any acquiescence to these regressive editorial demands would be a complete distortion of geopolitical fact. Nice try FORL. Tong22 (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed entirely. Firstly, forl.co.uk is not a neutral reliable source, but assuming it was for a minute - they are misquotations and misattributations; for example, the first quote is not a government policy statement, but was the commentary of an anonymous official (you think the government published its policy in a newspaper on the day of the act? Who said that quote?). The second quote is an MPs opinion - he can't change law by stating his opinion - what "traditional boundaries" was he refering to? The third quote is a contradiction of English law (), and again, "traditional counties" is a term that does not appear in our law, nor had any use in the published domain until groups like ABC popped up. I could go on to the fourth, fifth etc, but in short, most of the quotes are weak, poorly attributed, selective, and often use things like parliamentary debate and junior MPs opinion; they are not neutral publications, serious independant gazetteers, official guides, statistical outputs etc etc. Again, it's a tired debate dealt with at WP:UCC. --Jza84 |  Talk   23:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: Wikipedia is a well known tool that has many adherents, and equally as many detractors; I am basing this on my personal knowledge of internet users' views.
Obviously we cannot possibly expect Wikipedia to be classed in the same category as the  Encyclopedia Britannica. However, there is no reason at all why Wikipedia could not be viewed as a reliable pool of information which can be used by the casual browser and the student alike.
Amongst my many hobbies I have a great interest in the history of the Counties of the UK and the constant impact they have in everyday matters and on our everyday lives. That is why I joined both the Association of British Counties (ABC) and the Friends of Real Lancashire (FORL), together of course with my desire to raise the public awareness of their continued existence.
Whatever points have been made in this discussion forum I can categorically state that the counties of the UK exist, have existed for centuries, and will always continue to exist; and despite my perceived bias, I can prove this as I have in my possession the original letters from successive Governments that confirm this - the content of which is of course in the public domain ipso facto is freely available. The reason I have them is because they were written to me as the Secretary of the Friends of Real Lancashire, or as the Local Government Adviser of the Association of British Counties. Other letters have been written to various parties within ABC and FORL. 
So, effectively, the editor(s) of Wikipedia should be aware of the continued existence of the real/traditional/historical/geographical/ancient counties - all terminology in use today (for instance the Ordnance Survey refers to them as the Ancient and Geographical Counties)- to enable them to accurately present information. Encyclopedia Britannica is able to do this so presumably Wikipedia can as well.
I would feel far more confident in the contents of Wikipedia if an understanding of one of the most important historical and cultural aspects of British life could be demonstrated correctly.
Martin Philips  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.57.120 (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be in possesion of some documents which on there own hint at you view but that only hint and when taken with the documents that you ignore the balance is heavily against you.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Reliability of Wikipedia.