This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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'. MRSC (talk) 07:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 188.8.131.52 (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 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 12 January 2010
Nope HMG defined Lancashire in the first place it can alter it when it likes. It belongs to it. if you do not like then address the relevant policy. If you make edit which conflict with stated policy then yo edits will be reverted.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
As the counties go back so far in history that many documents from the time of their creation simply no longer exist, it's rather hard to say with any certainty that H.M. Government created them. But that aside, the fact remains that the government has NOT ever decreed that Manchester or Liverpool will no longer be in Lancashire, or that the physical boundaries of Lancashire were to move. The local govt. reorganization of 1974 saw administrative boundaries change, but these were only administrative boundaries which had themselves been created at the end of the 19th century (and were defined in terms of the existing, ancient counties). The wording of the legislation makes it clear that it is only the administrative boundaries which were changing, and the government even went so far as to issue a statement at the time confirming that existing county boundaries were NOT being changed. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
People from Liverpool and Manchester know themselves as "Lancastrians" no we do not.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
OK - Liverpudlians are argumentative, but it's daft/silly/wrong to pretend that Manchester's not in Lancashire, surely?!?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 12 January 2010
Waste of time trying though. Established Wikipedia "policy" apparently takes precedence over documented facts. And even though those who claim that certain counties were legislated out of existence or had their boundaries changed cannot actually cite the legislation which decreed it to be so (because there isn't any, of course).
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)
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)
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)
it says 'lancashire is located in lancashire', this seems a bit silly. not sure how to edit that though. any help? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I've changed the alt text of the map in the demography section so when you hover over it it should now read "Lancashire is in North West England". The previous text seems to have been some default setting rather than something someone wrote deliberately, so thanks for pointing it out. Nev1 (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)