Template talk:Lancashire

(copied from talk page)

This is not a POV fork it is a matter of fact. See this BBC article [1] which clearly states "Manchester is in the County Palatine of Lancaster". Please therefore correct your recent edits. Lancsalot 22:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no dispute about the existence of the Duchy of Lancaster or the extremities of its scope. Here is the edit where you removed information without explanation to create your forked template. MRSC 23:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These topics relate to the county palatine not the ceremonial county. I've now provided a source justifying this box so you have no excuse for removing it. Lancsalot 23:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So Lancashire Cricket Club does not relate to Lancashire? History of Lancashire does not relate to Lancashire? Why was the first link on the template piped to appear as County Palatine of Lancaster, but linked to to Lancashire? You say the two are unrelated but you present it as the primary article and the same thing. How does the BBC link support this idea? MRSC 23:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should write my address as within the County Palatine of Lancaster now? The county Palatine is a ridiculously obscure division of land - and the inclusion of a box is like having a NHS trust coverage box at the bottom of every town based article! It's totally useless unhelpful, has overbearing links to stuff like Lancashire dialect and is thus clearly another distruptive POV/County Watch fork. Jhamez84 15:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas Lieutenancy areas are highly relevant to everyday life! C P of L is just a more formal name for Lancashire, which you should certainly include in your address. Lancsalot 16:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the only reason you are here is to turn Wik.ipedia.Pro into your personal soapbox. Thank you for confirming that yet again. MRSC 18:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest this template list cities & towns separately instead of mixed in a single section. Why? Because of the way bold is used to highlight cities. First: this usage isn't explained. Second: it interferes with the way that the article name is automatically emboldened when the template is included in an article. --Dr Greg (talk) 11:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the criterion for "major settlement"? Some of them look rather minor to me. Should we set some population threshold? -- Dr Greg  talk  01:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• ADL 1983 has deleted some settlements with the comment that "Tidy up Lancashire towns - removing random selection of Lancs villages". Among those that he has deleted is Burscough with 2001 Census parish population of 8,968. He has left many that have much smaller population ie. Adlington (5,270), Carnforth (5,350), Earby (4,348), Garstang (4,074), Haslingden (7,7128), Kirkham (7,127), Longridge (7,548), Preesall (5,314), Rishton (7,350), Wesham (3,245), Whitworth (7,260). I am putting Burscough back into this list. Burscough, historically, (with its Priory); administratively (Lathom and Burscough Urban District) and with its rapid growth in the last decade or two is a "major settlement" in Lancashire.Noyder (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chipping in after 10 years... An inclusion criteria that's been used on other county templates is to include all settlements with a population >10k (whatever their status), and any smaller settlements that have a town charter (i.e. excluding small villages). Bazonka (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Applying this, I've removed the village of Adlington (pop 6k), but I've left smaller towns like Earby (pop 4500). Euxton (pop 9993) is a borderline case, but I've kept it in because it'll be over 10k by now. Heysham and Thornton are big enough, so I've added these. Bazonka (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]