Talk:Lancashire

Proposed changes to the guidelines on dealing with UK counties

Please check here [1], if anyone is interested in commenting. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

MPs for Lancashire constituencies

The list of MPs needs updating to reflect 2019 general election. My editing skills on a mobile phone are not adequate I'm afraid. 1967Steve (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Country parks.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The places mentioned in the table under the 'Merseyside' county should be arranged into alphabetical order

In my opinion, the places mentioned in the table under the 'Merseyside' county should be arranged into alphabetical order as in my opinion it would make the article more professional. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of North West England.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Country parks.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Lead

Hello! I've just finished an edit of the lead, but as it seems to be in a state of constant evolution I thought it would be a good idea to have a discussion about what it should contain, for future reference.

The complicated administrative history of Lancashire has tended to produce leads which focus heavily on its evolution, and the lead before my edits today was no exception. While this aspect of the county is important it does tend to dominate, to the detriment of other topics. In my re-write I have attempted to summarise the changes as succinctly as possible, while retaining the paragraph on history and adding one on geography. While I'm sure improvements can still be made, I believe this is a good format which provides the basic information the average reader is likely to want, without getting too bogged down in details. This seems to be broadly in line with the wordier county leads (e.g. Shropshire, Lincolnshire, and Cornwall) although I'm open to the idea that the shorter leads (e.g. Norfolk, Herefordshire, Northumberland) should be followed.

As a starting point for discussion I propose that the article lead should consist of:

• A short introduction, explaining that 'Lancashire' refers to a non-metropolitan, ceremonial, and historic county.
• A brief explanation of the administrative history, leaving the finer details for the body.
• A paragraph on the history of the county, focussing on the Industrial Revolution as this was a time of particular prominence.
• A paragraph on geography, noting the protected areas and general features.
• The usual paragraph on neighbouring ceremonial counties.

A.D.Hope (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

LAN- or LANG- for IPA repelling?

I appreciate that 'LANG-' is the standard respelling of 'ŋ', but 'LANG-kə-shər' is misleading as it implies the first syllable of the county's name rhymes with 'hang'. It actually rhymes with 'flan', as reflected in the longstanding 'LAN-' respelling. You can see many examples of the 'LAN-' pronunciation here.

I suppose the question is whether the respelling should follow the IPA exactly and be misleading, or ignore the IPA and reflect how the word is actually said. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I've looked back through the history, and it looks like 'LAN-' has been used since about July 2021. 'LANG-' seems to have been in place from Jan 2019 until then, and before that it looks there there was no respelling. We seem to have lost the local pronunciation somewhere along the way, too.

Given 'LANG-' really doesn't represent the actual pronunciation well, in my opinion, should there be a respelling at all? A.D.Hope (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I just responded to this, but I don't know where it went. I would think that the article should be accurate to how the word is used, rather than be inaccurate to the usage but accurate to spelling, with a note?Halbared (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I've had a look at Help:Pronunciation respelling key (example "sink") and I concede that the Wikipedia convention is that IPA /ŋk/ is equivalent to respelling "nk", with a footnote that explains (as I understand it and rewrite it) that the reason for this is that everyone automatically pronounces it as "ngk" so there's no ambiguity in simplifying it to "nk". Maybe the syllable split should be "LANK-ə-shər" instead of "LAN-kə-shər", as "nk" is pronounced /ŋk/ and not /nk/. But then the footnote gives an example of "tinker" as "TING-kər", so maybe "LANG-kə-shər" is correct after all.

Summary: I think the correct respelling is either "LANG-kə-shər" or "LANK-ə-shər" (not sure which), but not "LAN-kə-shər" which would be /ˈlænkəʃər/.  Dr Greg  talk  21:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

'LANK-' makes a lot more sense than 'LANG-', so I'd certainly support it.

The problem is where the 'syllable boundary' is, since as the footnote says '/ŋk/ is respelled nk rather than ngk, since the assimilation is mandatory, except beyond a syllable boundary: "tinker" TING-kər.' I reckon the split we have at the moment is correct, with 'ŋ' in the first syllable and 'k' in the second. That would leave us with 'LANG-', and I won't bore you by repeating my argument on that front. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Split Lancs article

I am definitely bringing back up a lot of old arguments here and it must be done to make sure consensus is updated. Every time the historic county starts creeping into this article it gets patched up haphazardly creating two articles alternating for space and having to explain the other.

Please can we simply split Lancashire (ceremonial) and Lancashire (historic). I feel like they should be split with such an area and population difference compared to other county border differences. They is enough content to constitute it. The ceremonial article will be able to take on content from North West England where in Economy for example it goes into way too much detail about each county and oddly Lancashire has a paragraph and map on the NW green belt while the North West article doesn't (unless I missed it) which is even sillier since the green belt crosses into 4 out of 5 north-west counties.

Just think about an article which doesn't have to bother with bringing up politics every other sentence and getting to explain the historic county once in the historic county and the ceremonial county just linking to it and not mentioning it ever again. They is currently a geography section which ignores demography, starting its own demography section while the actual one invents figures dating back to 1801 for a boundary formed post-1998 and a culture section hemmed in and out of place at the bottom. Chocolateediter (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree.

It's convenient that Yorkshire (for eg.) has its own historic county page just because its singular name was discontinued in favour of North Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and Humberside as ceremonial counties.

Yet those counties that retained the name as a ceremonial county (Lancashire, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, etc) have a horrid mess of attempting to talk about two seperate county functions on the same page.

I fully support any proposal that would separate historic from ceremonial across the board. 92.29.200.82 (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

But the notion of whether the historic versions of such counties are separate and notable entities needs to be fully tested and a consensus demonstrated. I suggest a more centralised discussion. Rcsprinter123 (notify) 01:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Crooked landlords in fleetwood

Imrent my flat over a shop pet corner the owner is wayne garside second rate pluumber and cheap maintenance on his 10 houses he got 5 vans one car 10 dogs took old pensioner not related at all he seen that he got 3 pension. My point is i lived in thos flat for 17 years i seen things come and go the flat has damp coming down tge chimney windows are letting wind coming through one window is fall out and now the boiler not working no raditors not working.his houses he doesnt keep maintenance there is one house in oxford road the boiler gone and he said he no money to fix what he does he buy houses like a deck of cards then just rent them out not doing up and just letting them out and when you ask him he frets with section 2. 195.99.235.19 (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)