Talk:Lancashire

Flag of Lancashire

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

Cuisine section

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

Liverpool and Manchester

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

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

This is dealth with at our naming convention WP:UCC. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps that should be changed first? In basic terms, we must use a naming convention that corresponds with current, linguistic usage amongst the population. If another organisation's regulation doesn't correspond with that, surely the organisation (e.g. the government) is wrong?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.49.59 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 12 January 2010

Nope HMG defined Lancashire in the first place it can alter it when it likes. It belongs to it. if you do not like then address the relevant policy. If you make edit which conflict with stated policy then yo edits will be reverted.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

People from Liverpool and Manchester know themselves as "Lancastrians" no we do not.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

OK - Liverpudlians are argumentative, but it's daft/silly/wrong to pretend that Manchester's not in Lancashire, surely?!?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.49.59 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 12 January 2010

Again, this has been done to death at WP:UCC. If you seek change, please suggest this at WP:MERSEYSIDE and WP:GM. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Culture of Lancashire

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

1974. The separate counties of Greater Manchester and Merseyside were formed then. And Furness became part of the newly-created Cumbria. The history of Lancashire pre-1974 includes Manchester, Liverpool and Furness, so I don't see any problem in including such history in this article, provided it is carefully worded to make it clear that these areas are not part of Lancashire today. And there shouldn't be any excessive duplication of material appearing in the Greater Manchester, Merseyside or Cumbria articles. What do others think? -- Dr Greg  talk  02:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed very much so per WP:UCC. So we might say that the Beatles were formed in Lancashire, but Oasis were not. What we shouldn't do is turn this into a POV zone that basically weasels its way to claim Liverpool and Manchester as Lancastrian, at the expense of modern Lancashire's culture. Editors should be using modern, neutral publications (so maybe akin to this) to see how they tackle the culture of Lancashire, not picking soundbites up about various places in whatever definition of the county they want, and synthesizing together. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks, that is pretty clear. I think I see how this can be done at least on the music front, but it will take some work and careful wording, so it might take me a while before I have something for editors to look at. Fortunately the 1974 watershed works pretty well for folk and popular music, it may be a bit more difficult for the more institutionally continuous tradition of classical music. Length is also an issue as this doesn't want to unbalance the article.--SabreBD (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This now done. I have created a section just for music at the moment. Perhaps regular editors could cast and eye over with a view to the general perimeters of the article.--SabreBD (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Although it's of high quality, which I'm thankful for, isn't this what was to be discouraged? There seems to be a heavy focus on Manchester, Liverpool and Warrington synthesizing local history books into a faux-homogenised Lancashire-esq history. Blackburn, Darwen, Blackpool, Lancaster, Preston all largely overlooked. How are readers expected to learn about their history when dominated by former settlements that have histories of their own? I'm not going to revert/revise, but that's my personal concern. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Using a variety of sources is not synthesis, only using them to advance a point of view WP:SYNTH, which I think is clearly not being attempted here, it is just necessary to use a variety of sources to evidence the information. I understood this article to treat Lancashire as an historic entity that has changed its borders. Manchester and Liverpool are the places with the most significant contributions to music in these periods, so inevitably loom larger than other towns. If these towns were in Lancashire in the period in question then it is legitimate to deal with them here. The only alternative I can see would involve having another article on the historic county of Lancashire, and I suspect that regular editors do not think that is a good idea. If you have evidence of significant contributions to music from other towns then I suggest you add the information in. It is not really the task of this article to inform current resident of modern Lancashire about their history, but to reflect the historic situation as generally accepted in scholarly opinion.--SabreBD (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Boundaries issue again

Looks like someone isn't happy (nor particularly informed about how Wikipedia works for that matter). http://www.southportvisiter.co.uk/southport-news/southport-southport-news/2010/02/17/wikipedia-leaves-southport-off-red-rose-map-of-lancashire-101022-25844624/ —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Same article turned up in the Crosby Herald paper... "Wikipedia Blunder..." etc etc. --born against (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

"Although comments and letters have been sent to the editor of Wikipedia," but I never gave them my address! Longwayround (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Image sandwiching

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

I've been bold and attempted a fix:

• File:EnglandLancashireTrad.png removed as we have other maps here also showing the old boundaries
• File:Pendle Hill and the Ribble Valley - geograph.org.uk - 72304.jpg removed as less relevant
• The 1961 map has been moved into the History of Lancashire article
• File:Topography of Lancashire.png moved back to the right

That seems to avoid sandwiching as far as I can tell.

By the way, the History of Lancashire article seems a bit thin; some material could be moved from this article to there. -- Dr Greg  talk  19:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Good calls I think. It looks a lot better.--SabreBD (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Mill Towns

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