Talk:Lancaster, Lancashire

I have restored mention of Robert Gillow, because he was clearly notable in the city. His factory was almost in the very centre of the city and the building was the very first building used by Lancaster University. However, the reference needs tidying up to fit the format of the other references and I am uncertain how to do that. If you think he should be removed, please discuss it here. --Bduke (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Liz, DragonofBatley, Rcsprinter123, Thryduulf, Oaktree b, Esemgee, A.D.Hope, Alexandermcnabb, Blythwood, Devokewater, Crouch, Swale, and A. B.: (ie all contributors to the AfD, apologies if I've missed anyone)

Following Liz's closure of the AfD as our agreed "Merge", I've started the process. I have copied the whole contents of the Lancaster City Centre article into this one, in one first phase. I then divided the content up, pasting each part into the appropriate section of the existing article, delimiting it with "<<<<" and ">>>>", so that it can now be edited section by section. It is now past midnight my time and I must stop. I expect to have another session of work on this article in about 8 hours time, but anyone else is of course welcome to work on the merge (please!): see what the merged section adds to the existing content, combine it tidily, then tidy up the section and remove those delimiters.

With hindsight (Hah!) it might have been better to start the merge work in draft space or somewhere, but I think the world can tolerate a messy-looking Lancaster article for a few hours, in the interests of ending up with an improved version.

I don't think the existing article has anything like enough about the 18th-21st century history of the city, in particular the slavery connection (it's got a bit more now than it had a few days ago, plus a link to the separate Lancaster slave trade article which wasn't previously linked from this one!), but that's another project. Let's get this lot merged for now.

I removed the mythical Hindu temple.

This is a lot of work. I think one message to take away is that it would be sensible to consult other editors before investing a lot of time and energy crafting an article which is very closely related to an existing one, and where it can be foreseen that other editors may disagree as to whether a new article is needed. I'm trying to be fair to everyone here, as indeed I was by changing my nomination from "Delete" to "Merge", but it feels that a lot of unnecessary work has been created by the lack of any discussion before Lancaster City Centre was created, and I hope that there won't be any similar undiscussed creations in future.

I hope everyone's happy with this approach to the merge. Goodnight, see you in the morning. PamD 23:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Happy? Happy? PamD, how about very appreciative! You've done a lot.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks PamD Devokewater 08:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@PamD: Everything seems fine apart from the "<<<<" and ">>>>" are they intentional? I considered just redirecting it myself yesterday but reconsidered when I though users may want to see what should be merged first. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Crouch, Swale As I explained above, I used "<<<<" etc to delimit the text I had pasted in from Lancaster City Centre, so that we could look at it section by section and use what was useful. So yes, they were intentional. I think I've now gone through all the sections, merging in detail and removing those delimiters. It's taken a lot of time and energy. If I see a similar totally redundant article again I'll just press for deletion: going for a merge was an act of kindness to the editor who had created it, but there's not been a lot of worthwhile content to include despite some editors glowing words. I wonder who the IP was who dumped an unpleasant reply on my talk page: the text they added with a non-verb sentence had a certain familiar ring. PamD 12:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Crouch, Swale And it would have been incorrect to just turn it into a redirect: that's the difference between an AfD close as "Merge" and one as "Redirect": merge demands that someone does more work than that, and I stepped forward to do so. About an hour and a quarter last night, and a large amount of this morning, with help from others. PamD 12:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Most of the content was scraped from this article with commentary based on misconceptions. Delete was my only suggestion, PamD you are much too kind especially when you are sniped at by an editor who hasn't the decency to log in. I'm going to delete the places of interest list, some of these places are mentioned in the text. Esemgee (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately there is still monumental overlinking. Esemgee (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Esemgee Well, Places of interest, or perhaps Landmarks (am on phone) is one of the sections suggested in WP:UKTOWNS, so perhaps should stay? PamD 14:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'll take a look but just look what he has has tried to do to High Street, Lincoln Esemgee (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

And look how he (if we are going down that route) wrote in the edit summaries "an attempt to rescue a dreadful article by incorporating this one about a historic street.". " you cannot rescue this article by adding a better article" and the proceeding to use Dire, Much Better and Despicable on my talk page. He was WP:Rude and won't back up their claims. More like a one-shot deal on my talk page. Then actually engaging properly. If we are going to start a WP:Hounding run. Why not just leave me alone to edit and bother other users who cause damage? Am I favorite or something? or a chew toy for other editors who want to intentionally WP:Harass and WP:Attack me? DragonofBatley (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I made changes to the C18th part of the article today, adding some detail but being careful about WP:DUE given the size and scope of the overall article. Those were made, AFAICS like others in this process, in AGF... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Obviously Lancaster is the source of the name of the county of Lancashire, but is it, or has it been (when?), the county town? That article suggests Preston, though the source in footnote "f" there doesn't seem to support it. Any thoughts, or, better, sources? PamD 07:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

The one source I have to hand (Brewster's Britain & Ireland, 2005. ISBN 0-304-35385-X) states on page 640 in the entry for Lancashire: "Until 1974 the county town was Lancaster; then the administrative headquarters moved to Preston". On the following page in the entry for Lancaster it states "Lancaster was the county town of Lancashire until 1974, when Preston became the administrative centre." Thryduulf (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Thryduulf: That's just *one* source, though, isn't it?

I've come across quite a few contemporary sources that say that Lancaster is the county town (though I will admit that these sources are of varying quality, and some appear to have simply copied the lead of this article from earlier revisions of it). Here are three such sources:

• https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryMagazine/DestinationsUK/Lancaster/
• https://www.travelaboutbritain.com/lancashire/lancashire.php
• http://www.madeinpreston.co.uk/Lancashire/Lancashire.html

I have also come across a few sources that say that Preston is the county town - though none of these actually state *when* it became so (and, again, they're of varying quality).

Also, take a look at the second paragraph of the lead of the County town article:

"The concept of a county town is ill-defined and unofficial. Some counties have their administrative bodies housed elsewhere. For example, Lancaster is the county town of Lancashire, but the county council is in Preston. Some county towns are no longer within the administrative county because of changes in the county's boundaries. For example, Nottingham is administered by a unitary authority separately from the rest of Nottinghamshire."

Regardless whether it truly is Lancaster, or truly is Preston, I think this may be a scenario in which *more* than one source - reliable, of course - should be cited. The definitive source, of course, would be Lancashire County Council itself. 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:A87A:69EF:D314:E4BD (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

It was quoted above: "Lancaster was the county town of Lancashire until 1974, when Preston became the administrative centre." That casts some doubt on the accuracy of that source, as Lancashire County Council has always been based in Preston since the council's formation in 1889. This is asserted in the Council's Wikipedia article and also in the County Hall, Preston article (built in 1882 and where the council has met since 1889), supported in both articles by a reference to a document published by Lancashire County Council Fishergate Hill Conservation Area Character Appraisal, see "Area 1 – Lancashire County Hall, Pitt Street" pages 7−8. Neither article mentions Lancaster as a location for the council.

For what it's worth, I found Response to the Consultation on Local Government Reorganisation in Cumbria and North Yorkshire submitted by the Chief Executive of Lancs County Council in 2021 which contains the sentence "The heritage of Lancaster as Lancashire's county town is important to community identity and place-shaping." (para 3.11.13, page 11), as part of an objection to a proposal to to place Lancaster under a Cumbria Mayoral Combined Authority.

This evidence casts some doubt as to whether Wikipedia can state as an undisputed fact that Preston is the county town. Opinions seem to differ.  Dr Greg  talk  01:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lancaster as county town was in common usage although its importance has diminished. When Lancaster became a city in May 1937 it was described as "a market town, municipal borough and county town in the Lancaster Parliamentary division of Lancashire". A search for Lancaster county town at the BNA search page brings up lots of results but I don't have a subscription so I can't reference it. Esemgee (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

"County town" and "town where the County Council headquarters are located" are two different things. Monmouth is still regarded by many as the county town of Monmouthshire, but the county council is now located near Usk. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is considerable overlap and overlinking between the first couple of paragraphs of Culture and Landmarks. I propose moving those two paragraphs to Landmarks and editing accordingly. Prose is preferable to lists I think. Esemgee (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Opening a discussion for some photos for the collage since Lancaster is home to many notable buildings and I've added five been reverted and reinstated to allow a wider discussion for anyone to suggest some ideas. It doesn't hurt for five images to be used inline with other Lancashire settlements. Feel free to suggest any new photos but I'd argue Lancaster Priory and Castle should be included in the lead and Lancaster Cathedral since they dominate the skyline along with the Ashton Memorial. @A.D.Hope @Chocolateediter@Crouch, Swale any suggestions? DragonofBatley (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes I'd probably agree. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

There was no discussion before you changed the image so I don't understand why one is required now. Three images would be a good guideline for all settlement articles. The three good quality images are more than enough for the infobox. Other images should illustrate content in the article where appropriate, they do not need to make the infobox longer than need be. Esemgee (talk) 11:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

That was applied the three photo rule to counties. Not settlements. DragonofBatley (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The current selection of photos are pretty terrible, especially the ones of the castle and bridge. Seasider53 (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to suggest some better ones to add DragonofBatley (talk) 11:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

That isn’t how it works. If there are no better options, there’s no obligation to keep the current ones. Seasider53 (talk) 12:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

So you've said they are pretty terrible and haven't suggested any okay. 😂 DragonofBatley (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also, please use edit summaries. Seasider53 (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Jesus whatever have three or five or one or two. Not how it works and three be the guidelines when it's not. Pmsl. I've off to do to some heroin bye. DragonofBatley (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Three images is quite enough, rather than the six and more images we see in so many town or city articles. A.D.Hope's trio as in this version are good clear images showing: St George's Quay, predominantly Georgian buildings and the base for Lancaster's historic port/slave-trade history; the Ashton Memorial, probably the most distinctive building in the city and one which can be seen on the skyline for miles around; and a clear view of the impressive main entrance of the castle. Some of the alternatives proposed are much less distinctively Lancaster and, frankly, could be anywhere: skyline of church tower with just-about-visible castle; river with bridge; yet another town hall, etc. Although the Priory and Cathedral are both important buildings, I think we can do without them in the infobox: they should be, and are currently, illustrated in the body of the article in the "Religious sites" section. I don't see that there is any agreed consensus suggesting that 5 or 6 photos is better than 3 for a UK city. I think we perhaps need a general discussion at the UK Geography Wikiproject about what the purpose is of the infobox image(s) for a city, rather than letting any one editor's chosen style become the norm. PamD 19:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply