Talk:Preston, Lancashire/Archive 1

Archive 1

News

NEW WIKIPEDIA:WIKIPROJECT LANCASHIRE A new WikiProject about Lancashire has just opened. We are a WikiProject dedicated to improving and expanding Wikipedia's coverage of articles related to Lancashire, England. We cover the city of Preston and the boroughs of Blackpool, Blackburn with Darwen, Burnley, Chorley, Fylde, Hyndburn, Lancaster, Pendle, the Ribble Valley, Rossendale, South Ribble, West Lancashire, and Wyre., as well as all articles relevant and important to the areas, such as Blackpool Airport.

If you plan to be active in editing the articles above, or articles related to them, please add your name to the participants on the WikiProject. We discuss the project on our talk page and you are most welcome to join in the discussion there.

Follow this link to the WikiProject Lancashire page and get editing. --93gregsonl2 (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Link: WikiProject Lancashire —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93gregsonl2 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

West Preston motorway

There is key evidence that there was going to be a motorway called the M59 running from Liverpool M58 and Coming up to Preston following roughly the A59. Herein, there would be a link from the M65 and the M59 would run to the Missing junction 2 at the M55.

Is there any evidence for the 1980s motorway around western Preston? Was any of it built and where is it? Longwayround 17:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The only two motorways we have at Preston are the M6 motorway, the first stretch of motorway ever built (In 1958, junctions 31-32 I think) and the M55, which does run west of Preston, to Blackpool.

The motorway you are probably thinking of is the (controversial at the time) M65 motorway. Have a look there for more info. --Skoorb 15:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've not got any evidence to hand, but there was a plan for a western bypass of the city, starting from the M6 around where the M61 joins, up to the missing junction on the M55 C2r 18:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

try (cbrd.co.uk) for info on it. Not sure if it's reliable enough to be quoted though. --RedHillian 23:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Watling Street

The article states:

During the Roman period the road called Watling Street from the Setantian port of Neb of the Nese passed one mile north of Preston. The Roman road from Languavallium in Cumberland to Condate in Cheshire intersected in Preston at Tulketh-hall.

Where on earth did this come from? the Watling Street didnt go anywhere near Preston. It went from Dover to Shropshire. G-Man 18:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

- I agree and have removed the reference to Watling Street. Does it make sense now? - PT 20 Sept 2005

We do have a "Watling Street Road". But this does not go anywhere near the Watling Street in Dover. --Skoorb 15:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

- My understanding is that the "Watling Street Road" that we have in Preston follows the old Roman road which ran from the Roman fortress at Ribchester on the River Ribble to the coast. Certainly it is a ruler-straight stretch, or was until it was diverted in the 19th Century to allow for the building of Fulwood Barracks. Why can it not be called Watling St? Who said there could be only one road with that name? - RIG 21 Nov 2006

Moving this article

Why don't we move this article to Preston, Lancashire, and make Preston the disambiguation page.--coblin 22:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Map reference

I am wondering what exactly the very precise info-box grid ref (SD5031330082) is supposed to be for. The railway station is at SD534290.

Odd

While reverting vandalism I saw and removed

• Miscellaneous
  • The boy who ate his dog, David lowry
  • Wooden Man erected

If they were supposed to be in there then please replace. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

We do have a 15ft wooden man on a new strech of Canal. (Naked, and urinating into the canal). That's all I can think of though. See [1] --Skoorb 22:13, == 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh, the "Piddler in the River" does exist but we'll need his real name before he can have a place here =) doktorb _words^deeds 14:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

IIRC it's called "Gauging the Ribble" and it's refenced on one of the pictures at Ribble Link. --RedHillian 23:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it "Gauging the Ripple"? Apparently there are plans to replace thewooden one with a cast iron version. Can this be verified? Nick 3216 (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Guys

I don't know if somebody can confirm this rumour I heard. You know the church with the hge steeple that can be seen from the university library (if looking away from entrance & look = directly right), I heard that that steeple was the largest in both the UK & Europe. Can anybody confirm the name of this church or the rumour? - Charlie Marrow 20:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be Saint Walburge's [2] Longwayround

Lune Street 1842

Please could someone include the full factual story to the above event; thanks! joshthetree

SpunkFluff radio

took this line out *SpunkFluff FM - student radio 1350am/mw as it doesn't seem credible, there no source, no google hits for it and it's not listed in the student union or uni websites. If it is the new am station, it can go back in, but not before it's got sources. --RedHillian 07:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The radio station at University of Central Lancashire is Frequency 1350. -- Luzdanoite (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

City vs. District

While most of this article is about the city of Preston, parts of it are about Preston District, a much larger area (and shown in the map at the top). It's not clear whether some of the facts quoted are about the city or the district. I suggest there should be a separate Preston district article, but I don't know for sure what would go in it.--Dr Greg 12:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I second that. I do not believe it is useful to anyone to suggest, as some have, that Garstang, Leyland and even Chorley are actually in Preston. Longwayround 08:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I live in Leyland and i can vouch that Leyland is classed as Preston. Although not in the city we are infact in the district of Preston. Not many of the older generation in Leyland class it as Preston but I can definetly say that the younger generation class themselves as Prestonions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.88.80 (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense to have separate articles for the city and the local authority. For starters, quite a lot of material from this article could be transferred to a new local authority article. ---- Eric 19:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to complicate things, strictly speaking the phrase "City of Preston" refers to the whole of Preston District (see City status in the United Kingdom#City councils.) I would prefer to use the phrase "Preston Distict" rather than "City of Preston" (to avoid confusion); however this goes against Wikipedia convention for other cities (see e.g. Lancaster, Lancashire and City of Lancaster. This is something to be argued and resolved at a national level.

(By the way, neither Garstang, Leyland or Chorley are in Preston District. (See List of civil parishes in Lancashire#Preston.) --Dr Greg 11:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I was surprised just now to find that Preston and City of Preston are not seperate articles. Whilst it works well for some articles (Manchester, Warrington, Bristol), I do think this is an article that would certainly benefit from a split. Jhamez84 02:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Tithebarn project

Would it make sense for details of the Tithebarn project to be included elsewhere? I fear that there may be some duplication on the Preston bus station page. At the very least, I suspect the project is worthy of its own section within this page. Longwayround 15:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Bus Station

I have removed the information about the Bus Station which is duplicated elsewhere, particularly the oft-repeated myth that it is the largest bus station in Europe. Longwayround 18:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Fishergate

I think the section on the Fishergate Centre needs updating, epecially as the given website www.fg2.co.uk seems to link to some company manufacturing roof trusses! MrPloppy2 (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Landmarks

Is the recently added section about Preston's tallest buildings really appropriate for inclusion? I don't think Preston is a city which contains a significant number of unusually tall buildings. Admittedly, St. Walburge's church spire is exceptionally tall on a national scale (and perhaps even on an international scale) but the other buildings listed are mainly tower blocks of the type I would imagine are found in many towns and cities across the country, and therefore unremarkable. Perhaps the 'Tall Buldings ...' section should be removed; one or two of the other high buildings could instead be mentioned in the section text, as St Walburges is. Beejaypii (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree, unless someone can give a compelling counterargument. --Dr Greg (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, we've waited 10 days and nobody has defended the inclusion of the table of tallest buildings. I've just removed it from the article for the reasons given above. Beejaypii (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

During the Roman period...

I have tried to make sense of the paragraph on the Roman period, but on reflection, what is the point of describing roads from centuries before Preston was founded? It adds nothing to the story of Preston's development, and unless anyone objects in the next few days, I shall delete it. Grafen (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I would urge caution. Even if this paragraph gets turned around to be an explanation of why Preston was (apparently) NOT a Roman town - curious with it lying so conveniently between Ribchester and Kirkham. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I seem to remember reading, somewhere, there was a small Roman fort at Walton-le-Dale where the Roman road crossed the river. --Dr Greg (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine by me. If you think the paragraph might be developed into something useful, I shall leave it alone. Grafen (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Electoral arrangements

"Preston City councillors serve a four-year term.... one councillor from each of the three-member wards is elected every year for three years, and those representing 2-member wards being elected in alternate years. Every fourth year there are no Preston City Council elections.."

For 3-member wards, a fourth fallow year makes arithmetic sense. But, presumably, 2-member ward councillors can be elected only in alternate years of the first two in any four year cycle, with years three and four also being fallow? "Electing in thirds" thus seems a bit of a mis-nomer, as all wards are not 3-seaters. But how are resigations, deaths in office, and so on, handled? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As a candidate in local elections recently, I hope to be able to explain this one. The term is "elected in thirds" but it is a bit misleading. Whilst each three member ward has elections each year for one councillor, the two member wards elected every other year on a kind of rota basis (to give one example, the two-member University ward elected in 2003 for one member, 2006 for its second member, 2007 to re-elect its 2003 member. As it goes 2009 is a fallow year (as was 2005),so the next election will be 2010). Another two-member example is Cadley, with elections in 2004, and 2006, the member elected in 2004 was re-elected this year. It would help - imo - to have all 3- or all 2- member wards to stop any confusion, but such is life...doktorb _words^deeds 04:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

As a sitting PCC councillor, and a winner of three elections, I made this change. Preston does indeed elect by thirds. One third of the 57 members of council, i.e. 19 Council seats, are elected every year for three years and in the fourth year PCC has no elections. By-elections take place whenever they are required but the by-election winner only sits until the next time time that seat is due for election and not a full four year term. The last by-election in Preston was in the Tulketh ward in February 2008 following the sad death of Councillor Jean Al-Serraj in October 2007. Councillor Peter Rankin, who won the by-election, is due to retire and seek re-election in May 2010. Prestonmag (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of prestonlancs.com in the external links

For well over two years the website www.prestonlancs.com has been linked to here at wiki-preston.

For some reason someone recently removed the link and regarded it as spam.

The website in question is a community website. I started it, but I consider it owned by the members. No monies is exchanged on the website, there are no adverts on the website and it costs me money from my own pocket.

I was asked if wiki-preston could use some of my photos, to which I agreed, again, for no money.

There is material on prestonlancs that would benefit wiki-preston and I would allow it to be used for free. But I would expect that the website that gave permission for the use of the material, to be allowed to stay in the flippin external sites section.

I mean it's not like we're a commerciel venture like the other websites that spammed this page, is it?

So I pose the question. Is www.prestonlancs.com suitable enough to be linked to as a PRESTON COMMUNITY website, with related content to this page???Prestonlancs.com (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and answer your question for you. You state that you started the website and it "...costs me money from my own pocket." In other words, it's your website. Here's an extract from wp:el (a Wikipedia style guideline):

Due to the rising prominence of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote sites. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked.

So, including "both commercial and non-commercial sites" you should "avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent.." and that's "even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked." You've already stated that you started the website and it costs you money from your own pocket: so you "own" it and no doubt "maintain" it. Also, your username is Prestonlancs.com, i.e. the name of the site in question: so you "represent" the website via your user name on Wikipedia. Given that you should "avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent", don't you think that you should avoid linking to the site in question?

Furthermore, you state that "There is material on prestonlancs that would benefit wiki-preston and I would allow it to be used for free. But I would expect that the website that gave permission for the use of the material, to be allowed to stay in the flippin external sites section." You seem to be implying that because you would give permission for material on your site to be used on Wikipedia for free, a link to your site should be maintained in the Preston article. I do not believe that there is a Wikipedia policy or guideline which states that the generosity of a contributor to an external website, who allows their contributions to that website to be used on Wikipedia for free, is a factor to be considered when deciding whether a link to that external website should be maintained in an article. Beejaypii (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Beejaypii, you're doing it again. Dancing around rules and guidlines. Would it make you feel better if someone other than myself added the site to the external links section?

Just put aside my involvement with prestonlancs.com for a moment, and answer the question I asked. Which was..

Is www.prestonlancs.com suitable enough to be linked to as a PRESTON COMMUNITY website, with related content to this page???[[ If the site is of no relevence to wiki-preston anymore after two years of being here, then I will capitulate. But I would kindly ask you to take a look through the forums on that site before giving your answer. Prestonlancs.com (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm trying to follow a Wikipedia guideline here, not "dancing around rules and guidlines[sic]".

The fact that your site has been linked to for two years is irrelevant. Material included in an article does not acquire a greater right to be there with the passage of time.

You asked me to look at the forums on your website, but this extract from the Links normally to be avoided (WP:ELNO) section of Wikipedia's external links guideline recommends not linking to, amongst other things, discussion forums:

1. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists.
2. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.

So what would be the point of looking at the forums on your site? And your site also features a blog, which, considering the second part of the extract from WP:ELNO above, adds weight to the argument that it should not be linked to.

Looking at your edit history, pretty much all your contributions to Wikipedia under the username you're currently using, outside of your contributions to this discussion, consist of adding your website to the external links section of several Preston-related articles, or posting comments on the talk pages of editors who have reverted such edits. You seem to be contributing to Wikipedia solely to ensure that your website is linked to from Preston-related articles. Perhaps you'd like to review the advice found at wp:spam Beejaypii (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are dancing around rules and guidlines! If you had bothered to look through the website, you would have noticed there is no blog, there has been no blog for two years now. IF you had bothered to look through the forums you would have seen just how useful they are for people seeking Preston related info. The website used to recieve around 20 hits per month from WIki, hardly worth the trouble I'm going to here, but then I didn't re-post the link for the sites benefit, I did it for the benefit of net-surfers looking for info on Preston. You're are right in saying my only contributions to wiki are posting links to 'my' site, maybe when I start suffering from a personality disorder I'll become a self appointed 'editor'. Yes I'm resorting to insults, so therefor I have lost the argument, but I was never going to win was I? The rules say NO FORUMS.. But then Beejay, there are hundreds of forums linked to from wiki, you just took exception to me re-posting the link, didn't you? In my opinion, you are depriving this wiki page from a very good Preston source of information. Oh and can I ask, do you have anything to do with Preston in any way shape or form? (awaits links to references and rules and guidlines)Prestonlancs.com (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

So does anyone else have any objections to http://www.prestonlancs.com/forum being linked to from here?Prestonlancs.com (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Having looked through the website in question, and the wikipedia guidelines, I'm also not keen to see the link there, specifically on points 1, 4, 10 & 11 therein. --RedHillian (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I hope you are consistant with your editing. I'll join you and seek other links to sites with forums and have them removed also. Oh and Redhillian, point 4? Prestonlancs.com (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, point 4. Links mainly intended to promote a website. prestonlancs.com is an external website, and your linking is intended to promote it. --RedHillian (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, like I've tried to point out, a poxy handful of hits from here is hardly promotion. I re-posted the link because it's a very useful site for people seeking info on Preston. Now get to deleting all the links to websites with forums on them, Reddy..Prestonlancs.com (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Tram system

I removed some comments related to a proposed tram system because it seems highly premature to include them at the moment. There is no proposed route, no proposed funding and no planning application has been made. Despite this there is supposed to be a tram system "very soon". Within ten years would seem ambitious even if the council and other relevant authorities were to press full steam ahead with such a scheme immediately. But regardless of timescales, a few remarks by a couple of councillors both here and in Blackpool do not establish credibility. Nor does a single meeting with a tram company - there hasn't even been a feasibility study done. If we are going to include this then we can just as easily assert that Preston may well soon become an independent socialist republic based on those famous Valerie Wise comments of a few years ago. CrispMuncher (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

RPH?

Call me a pedant but what does RPH mean? This occurs in the main article "Preston College - Based in Fulwood with 2 campuses near the RPH and Moor Park". I thought I knew a bit of Preston but this means nothing.

Yeah, that's pretty lazy article writing. RPH is an acronym for the Royal Preston Hospital. Whether it's near Moor Park is questionable too, since it's relative. I reckon the college is at least a 15 minute walk away from Moor Park, in my experience of walking there. GW(talk) 10:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I got confused because of the poor way in which that sentence is structured. If I got confused, having lived here for 16 years, God knows what a total stranger would have thought! There's a campus on Moor Park for the arts, and a campus near RPH for A-Levels and vocational courses. I'll edit the sentence to remove this ambiguity. GW(talk) 10:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Areas and estates

Am I alone in believing that this section adds nothing to the article? Longwayround (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It is hardly Wikipedia at its best. I think at least it needs some serious weeding since many of the areas (e.g. Barton, Whitechapel) aren't even in Preston. Others are troublesome in that they are not distinct, well recognised areas, e.g. Adelphi. Yes, I know where they mean but does it amount to an area? The fact that it does not have a single name lends credence to it not being - most people I know still refer to that area as the "Poly roundabout". Similarly, if Adelphi is an area then Withy Trees certainly is, but that is absent from this list. I'm not saying that it should be present but it does show the list is inconsistent. I think I'm going to go through that list and remove any entries that are clearly not within the city limits now. That is for starters, it will still need cleaning up after that. CrispMuncher (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just starting checking which of them are actually in Preston and I see a problem in that many of these areas are actually covered by Preston council. We need to separate them up into two classes in my view: areas of the city itself and and outlying areas. CrispMuncher (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have moved this section to List of places in Preston, Lancashire Longwayround (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Butch Cassidy

The suggestion that he may have had a thick Lancashire accent seems dubious at best. The only references I can find are in local newspapers and appear in articles containing weasel words. Longwayround (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and not sure what would count as "proof" of what can only ever be historical hearsay. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2009

(UTC)

As the chap was born in Utah 10 years after his father's emigration to New York, I've deleted this. Longwayround (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Fylde?

May I question as to why the article cites Fylde as part of Preston? I live in Blackpool and I have never heard of Fylde being in Preston it belongs to the Fylde Coast. Warton is also not in Preston it is in Fylde which is a totally separate area. Christian1985 (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it can be a bit of a grey area but despite being in the actual district of Fylde, Warton for example is part of the POSTAL town of Preston, has a Preston postcode and uses the Preston dialling code, the Fylde postcode on the other hand only covers the Fylde coast as far inland as Lytham St Annes. Politically speaking, some constituencies overlap so Fylde includes some western sparsely populated areas of Preston as well as the more densely populated areas such as Kirkham and Freckleton. The same story applies to the eastern side of Preston, some eastern suburbs are part of the Ribble Valley constituency, despite being wholly part of Preston. So in short, the article refers to some parts of Preston being in the Fylde constituency, politically speaking as opposed to geographically speaking.

Population

Hello, The population is quoted as 131,000 and references the 2001 Census. In the census I can only find 129,000. Can you advise where this higher figure comes from and where the district figures are from. Ta Pete CoUk (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

131,000 is the mid-2007 estimate. The estimates can be found in the external link at the end of this article (it's a Rar file). Nev1 (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Rural district arms

Arms of the former Preston RDC: File:Arms-preston-rd.jpg Probably not enough content in this page to justify including them. (moved down from top).--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Preston Rural District has a separate page, it could be used there (although it would probably have to be uploaded again as the image was deleted). snigbrook (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Change on religion and ethnicity in late February

I would like to arise the problem that in history I have noticed that someone with the IP address '91.85.224.76' changed the ethnicity section of this page. He had changed the religion subsection from saying that '8.2% as Muslim' to '8.2% as shoebomb carrying muslims'. Soon after he deleted that, but I was wondering whether we should report this person for even using the privilege of being able to edit pages to put something extremely racist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MJLRGS (talk • contribs) 21:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Just because you remove your own vandlism, doesn't make it acceptable in the first place. It's just the editor in question has been a bit more sneaky about it (Wikipedia:Vandalism). GW(talk) 15:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

So should we do anything about this then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MJLRGS (talk • contribs) 20:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That IP address hasn't made any edits since then, and we can't be sure any future edits from that address have been made by the same person. So all we can do is wait and see if they do something similar in the future. If they do, slap a warning template on their talk page. If they repeatedly ignore the warnings they can be blocked. (P.S. don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages!) -- Dr Greg  talk  22:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Places outside Preston

I've just noticed that the Education subsection lists several schools and colleges that lie outside the City of Preston district boundaries, such as Alston Hall (Ribble Valley), Runshaw College (South Ribble), Myerscough College (Wyre), Hutton Grammar (South Ribble), Penwortham Girls (South Ribble). Are they justified in being in this article? -- Dr Greg  talk  12:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree but then I would - it was me that added that comment about the city boundaries in the schools section, which someone has chosen to ignore when re-adding Penwortham Girls. You have to draw the line somewhere and the boundaries of the borough seem the natural place to do it. The idea that a school or college "serves" Preston is very difficult to define - for instance I know a Preston boy attending Eton. Surely that means Eton serves Preston and should be on the list? When it comes to HE institutions you could probably list every institution in the country. CrispMuncher (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Similarly I think we can safely snip the temple image from the infobox. Its in Chorley. The fact that it is named "Preston" does not alter that. Those images could do with weeding anyway IMHO. I notice the panorama has just been added there and in my view that is the only image we need instead of multiple images that are both too small to see and still clutter up the infobox.CrispMuncher (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Split

Following on from WP:UKDISTRICTS, preparing for a split, I moved City of Preston to City of Preston (Victoria) which leaves City of Preston (Lancashire) available for the district article. MRSC (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Article now created, but at City of Preston, Lancashire to follow standard UK disambiguation style. -- Dr Greg  talk  22:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Retitle & restructure

Hi guys,

Following on from the application of WP:UKDISTRICTS, I'd like to suggest (if not very highly recommend) that we make bold, but effective changes to where the Preston and City of Preston articles sit on Wikipedia. I'm specifically suggesting that Preston adopts the "Salford" structure (that was discussed and passed amicably with a strong consensus here).

I would like Preston to become a disambiguation page, and this article moved to Preston, Lancashire. I believe City of Preston, Lancashire should become City of Preston because the other two meanings are very obscure (a former Australian district and an American village), and this would be more in keeping with the format of other English city-districts. The dab page would look something like:

Preston may refer to:

• The City of Preston, a borough and non-metropolitan district of Lancashire, England.
  • Preston, Lancashire, or Preston proper, the principal urban settlement within the City of Preston
• The County Borough of Preston, a former local government district of the administrative county of Lancashire, England.

...etc...

The rationale for this has several dimensions: the primary definition of Preston is open to interpretation and this method clears up confusion immediately and gives readers more choice; the Salford (proper) and Salford (district) articles are both Good Articles and have since improved, not worsened (this is also true of Carlisle - please take a look); this would ameliorate confusion about city status; the disambiguation page would allow articles about other Prestons (names and towns etc) to have more neutral disambiguation; doubtless that erroneous links to Preston (proper) that ought to link to Preston (district) can be more readily identified and fixed; editors can more readily add material appropriate to the correct article.

There are few, if any drawbacks here (other than a possible resistance to change, that should be overcome with an open mind), so I hope support is forthcoming. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

--Notified WP:LANCS and WP:GM to attract views. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like an excellent idea to me. Are there any local quirks that might cause complications? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I'm not aware of any quirks and can't forsee any in this instance. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds pretty sensible to me. NtheP (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I would've liked to have seen a little more written support from more users but I guess we are where we are! I guess the next steps are to make this happen per WP:BOLD. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Go for it, if anyone objects after the event, we can worry about that then. NtheP (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice job, guys - way to consult with other Wikimedians - I only found out when it was shoved through tonight. City of Preston should correctly be a redirect; there is no fathomable argument that the current English one is a primary use, I'd say they're about equal. One was a major metropolitan district inside Melbourne extant for almost 70 years (with previous forms existing back about another 50) while the English one is only 8 years old. In size terms, one had 80,000 in a country of (at that time) 16 million; the English one has 132,000 in a country of ~60 million. In reliable source terms, the Melbourne one has entire books written about it (several, in fact). I suppose Hendon or East Ham would be "obscure" to an Australian, too - but that's why the encyclopaedia has a global perspective. Orderinchaos 15:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Woah! Hold on. No one has said anything about Melbourne obscure or that Hendon or East Ham are majorly important!... I think I can explain: When looking at the merits of the articles, Victoria's Preston appears to be a former district - abolished, dissolved, amalgamated, no longer present; Lancashire's City of Preston is a living and existing city. "Obscure" was probably the wrong choice of word (although I did say "quite obscure") and perhaps should've spoken of "living" place. I don't have a particular stake in Lancashire's Preston, but I am of the view that if one says they visited or are from the "City of Preston", then, there can only be one possibility (given Victoria's vanished 16 years ago). There are a possible range of views about age, but Lancashire's City of Preston has its origins in an ancient market town and the birth place of the industrial world; it also sits in what I think is one of England's larger metropolitan areas (a million or so inhabitants). Plus there's something of a convienience of how the move-around assists with a format used for the rest of England (no other "City of X" has further disambiguation); Victoria's City of Preston (which probably takes its name from Lancashire) also already has diambiguation added to its title and to get to the article, the exact same amount of page clicks/views stays the same whether "City of Preston" is a dab page or an article. Is there not merit in this or any scope for a compromise? Previously the "Preston" slot was taken up by the "obscure" English settlement, which was the other stimulant to this move around. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Re Hendon or East Ham, I was giving an example of suitably major outer London suburbs which would approximate to Preston's role in Melbourne. I apologise if I confused in doing so.

Part of the confusion might ride on the Australian interpretation of "local government area" (city, town, shire). We don't have incorporated cities; all cities are dependent for their existence on a Local Government Act in each state, and each state has their own separate system for them. In 1994, Victoria decided for some reason or other to abolish and recreate *all* of its - so Preston is now part of the larger City of Darebin. There's a fair bit of politics surrounding that. But there is still a Preston Library and a Preston Town Hall in that suburb. And the thing was in existence for 70 years. After failing to initially find Preston's library because of the one in Melbourne and the one in Ontario, Canada, I finally found it and on looking, found it only has a commemorative newspaper (not a book) written about it, and the title gives away a lot: "The birth of a city : a celebration of Preston, England's newest city from its early beginnings to the present day."

Re the convenience - you do realise all of Melbourne's current and former cities also have the same format, and likewise, this one's the only one that has a dab at its location? It was one of your guys, btw, that moved it to that location in August 2010. I didn't object because I could see there were clearly two (unlike the botched attempts to move City of Ipswich last year). I don't see why Melbourne has to do all the compromising and England gets to do the "we're the primary topic" when it clearly is *not* a primary topic. I'm not asserting Melbourne's is, either - despite the superior source coverage for it. Orderinchaos 15:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that english placenames have been exported to numerous english speaking countries around the world - and regardless of the lancasterian/mancunian sense of identity and self importance in the overall history of the UK or the former empire - there will always be the issue of primacy within a range of criteria that can wobble back and forth over the years within wikipedia (the talk page issues over some years between Perth Scotland and Perth Western Australia where Orderinchaos and I live for instance) - there surely should be a more neutral procedure to create a more encyclopediac balanced non bias towards places with same names - rather than the - we're more notable than you stuff that seems to end up on these sorts of talk pages... SatuSuro 15:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree totally, but using this very logic I'm still personally of the view that Lancashire's Preston is the natural topic that should sit at the "City of Preston" slot - mostly for reasons of Victoria's City of Preston being defunct (I presume that books and statistics are no longer going to be published about that area and that there is no official, .gov website that exists or is likely to exist), and that it is proper to speak of it in the past tense. It was for that reason that I spoke of it being (perhaps wrongly) "quite obscure", and that it not likely to reach a particular zenith or end point that speaks of its living culture, population growth, its living government and politics, statistics, etc etc (it's a presumption of course, but I imagine it has a high probability of being true).

That all said, I do value consensus, and did try to contact a couple of outside views (the real Anglocentricity I'm guilty of is that I devalued Victoria's cityhood and didn't think to post a note there - I hadn't realised that that article moved in August 2010). If you guys are strictly opposed to this move then I'll think it's a shame for WP, but will respect it. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a bit of a whinge, to add a bit of colour(?) to the discussion. (I have a vested interest as my own existence originated in Preston.) Lots of place names in the world (USA, Australia, etc) are copied from places originally in the UK. So IMHO, the bare title should be confined to the original settlement/town/city or whatever. The rest should be subservient (whoops), and be covered by additions to the title (eg Preston, X). It's nothing IMO to do with notability; it's a fact of history. What comes first is first, what comes later only relates to the first. So Preston is a primary title, and all copies of that name should add suffixes to the primary title, and not try to compete with it. As a parallel whinge, I am personally upset that Lancaster, the county town of Lancashire, has to be entitled "Lancaster, Lancashire". This is wrong. It should be entitled "Lancaster", and all other Lancasters should add something to their title to identify their difference. So "City of Preston" is "City of Preston", and that's that (and no "Lancashire" added to it). Hatnotes are there to sort out this sort of thing.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahem, Peter, the City of Preston (Victoria) was created in 1926. The City of Preston, Lancashire, was created in 2002. As evidenced by a source in Preston's own library, which is titled, in part, "The birth of a city : a celebration of Preston, England's newest city" dated from 2002, and the text of the article. Your argument would be entirely valid in application to Preston however, assuming there weren't so many *other* Prestons that it's a genuinely ambiguous topic. And by the way, it's a fallacy to assume that places around the world were necessarily named after the town - the Melbourne one was actually named after a small village in Sussex! There's also a fair few Australian places with names seemingly related to English towns which were actually named after settlers' surnames. A good example is where I live, the City of Stirling, which despite being located in Perth (itself named after Perthshire, not Perth), is actually named for James Stirling, not the town of Stirling near Perth. And I maintain that that particular situation is ridiculous as you have a city of 1.5 million which once hosted the Commonwealth Games not being a primary topic to a Scottish city of about 80,000 (at least we agreed to disambiguate everything in that case). But I digress... Orderinchaos 18:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been offline and couldn't respond until today. I'm content with what has happened, in the interest of consistency with other UK cities, although I have some sympathy with Peter I Vardy's view. I think when most people refer to Preston they mean the settlement not the district (in fact most probably think "City of Preston" refers to the settlement and a title such as "City of Preston district" would be clearer). However these arguments aren't local to Preston and probably apply to most other English cities; there needs to be some national consensus on how to name these things.

Now who is going to volunteer to edit all the pages that link to Preston?

P.S. Intentional links to a disambiguation page called "X" should be made via a redirect "X (disambiguation)" per WP:INTDABLINK.-- Dr Greg  talk  23:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

All of this waffle above really does prove it should not really end up on the respective talk pages of such unfortunate named places but at a third party page - like a project page or specifically created wikipedia page that simply ignore all the geo-centrisms and gives it a specifically neutral loading as it deserves - the arguments in the end become tedious and endless SatuSuro 23:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:FIXDABLINKS

Hi, now that Preston is a disambig page, there's a HUGE number of incoming links that need to be fixed. I'm hoping those who pushed for this page move are willing to help with cleanup per WP:FIXDABLINKS. To put things in perspective, there are about 1,400 links that need fixing - no other disambig in EN wiki has more than 500 incoming links, so this is by far the worst. Anyone willing to join a dab-fixing task force? WP:AWB is a very helpful tool, as is navigation popups with the popupFixDabs flag set to true. --JaGa^talk 16:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Media in Preston

The following question was asked at User Talk:Dr Greg and has been moved here so that others may express their opinion on this topic

Hi there.

Please could I have some justification as to why the site I edit, Blog Preston, was not allowed to be added to the Media section of the Preston page?

Thanks, Andy Halls —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.61.255.83 (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I already gave a reason in my edit summary: have you read WP:LINKSTOAVOID? There it says:

"one should generally avoid ... 14. Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc, controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)"

Now you have given me a second reason: you shouldn't be linking to your own website, you should wait until someone with no conflict of interest decides your site is notable enough for inclusion. The same page I quoted above also says:

"It is true that a link from Wikipedia to an external site may drive Web traffic to that site. But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide. This suggestion is in line with WP's conflict-of-interest guidelines."

-- Dr Greg  talk  19:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

'Dr Greg', thanks for the response. I must ask, however, whether you bothered to click the link and access the site I linked to? You would then have discovered that despite its name being BLOG Preston, it is indeed a local news site.

While I understand the second point about linking to one's own site, the first point is completely ludicrous. Who are you to judge who is a 'recognized authority' as the rigid Wikipedia guidelines so put it?

Best wishes, Andy Halls —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.243.19 (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Blog Preston isn't a personal blog - it seems to be somewhere in between blog and newspaper website. Also it's verifiable[3][4] so may be appropriate to mention in the article. Peter E. James (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree. This website seems perfectly legitimate and indeed more informative than most, if not all, of the local newspapers. Andy Halls, or any link to him, does not appear anywhere. It seems to be have been very inappropriately named for wikipedia purposes? But Dr. Greg not usually msitaken about such things. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Peter E. James & Martinevans123 have made some good counterarguments, so if someone wants to add the site back, I won't revert it. It would be a good idea to include the references above to establish its notability. I was put off by the "blog" name. Sorry Andy! -- Dr Greg  talk  01:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for taking the counterarguments into account. Apologies if I seemed blunt in my earlier posts. Best wishes, Andy Halls. (Ajhalls1 (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC))

October 2011 record high temperature

Several attempts have been made to update the climate figures to include the record high temperatures in October 2011. I have reverted these attempts so far. The problem is that the table becomes meaningless unless all the months are updated from the same source(s) to cover the same period. It's no use including the all-time record high temperature for October 2011 if all the other months are the highs up to 2005. If someone can find a source that covers all months up to 2011, I'll be happy for the data to be included.-- Dr Greg  talk  19:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I agree with you here. At the very least, should there not be some footnote or reference to October 2011's record? Longwayround (talk) 09:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking now at the reference for the record high temperatures, I do not see how to obtain the cited data. I can download a lot of text files but I cannot find the relevant data within them. Longwayround (talk) 09:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I've now added the record Oct temperature in the text (but not the table). And I've questioned the table source with {{full}}. -- Dr Greg  talk  21:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Preston Passion

I propose that this paragraph is removed since it smacks of WP:RECENTISM. Normally I'd simply trim it but since there have been a couple of editors involved it probably merits prior discussion. In five year's time is anyone really going to care? If not it has no business being in there now. Crispmuncher (talk)

I think you are probably right. It belongs elsewhere in the article. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Good article yet?

Hi everyone, I was just wondering if we could come to some agreement on whether this article has reached the proposal for 'good' status? Thanks. (Preston North End Dan (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC))

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Preston, Lancashire/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 17:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC) I'll start the review tomorrow. I'm impressed at first reading to find only one typo, which I think "Brredon Books" probably is. More tomorrow. Tim riley (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Second preliminary comment: there are five links to disambiguation pages that you need to link directly to the intended articles, viz Culloden, Kirkham, Edmund Calamy, Fort William and Paschal lamb. Tim riley (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I have read this article twice through with a critical eye and find very little indeed to quibble at. I don't think I shall have to linger long before passing it for GA. The images are good, but lack alt text, which I should like to see before cutting the ceremonial tape, though this is not a prerequisite of GA. Tim riley (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Alas, no response. Tim riley (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for second opinion

On inquiring into the strange silence I see that the nominator had been indefinitely blocked from editing. I think the article is of GA standard, and I am happy to make the few changes suggested above, but I should like another reviewer's comments first. Tim riley (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you contact WP:WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria to see if anyone is interested. If not then the decision is up to you. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

To be honest I don't think this is at GA standard yet. There are six citation needed tags present and they were there when the article was nominated. This is a sure sign that it was not well prepared before nomination. A link is also tagged as being dead. Other statements are lacking citations that should have them, in particular the History section. While the final decision is yours I think this currently fails on sourcing issues alone (Criteria 2 of WP:WIAGA). AIRcorn (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Another opinion

I have found refs for most of the bus-related citation needed tags, and have deleted a few words to resolve the other. I'm not sure where to look for the football-related one. Using the External Links toolbox option, there seem to be 7 dead links, and at least 2 other potential link problems. While I would normally request that these be resolved when conducting a review myself, I notice that this is not a requirement for GAN (See Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not mistakes to avoid in the Factually accurate and verifiable section.) Bob1960evens (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It really depends on what the dead links are referencing. If they link is available in another form (newspaper, journal, book etc) then they are just convenience links and not required at all. However, if the link is a website and it falls under the "quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons" banner then it can fail criteria 2b. AIRcorn (talk) 09:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed a number of bare urls, and some of the broken refs, but there seem to be several that point to newspapers where the link is no longer active, and there are insufficient details to know which edition of the paper contained the story. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Taking account of the views expressed above, I accept that a little more work is needed before the article is of GA standard. I am therefore minded to fail it this time round, on the basis that though on the whole it meets the standard for references there are enough exceptions to disqualify it. I'll leave this page open for a day or so for any further comments. Tim riley (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to see whether I can bring the article up to Good Article standard, it seems a shame to fail it, when it is apparently so close. Give me a couple of days. --Iantresman (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Fine Tim riley (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Having started on the "Early development" section, I found that the first paragraph on the Roman road was quite contrived (eg. use of the word "forded", now replaced). I suspect that this is either because the text has been closely copied, or not reworded as well as it could be.

The second paragraph in "Early development" begins discussion on Ripon, which has nothing to do with Preston. Sources [5][6] suggest that this is somewhat muddled.

Having spent over an hour on this now, I can now see that there is too much work to do to bring it up to Good Article status in a reasonable amount of time.

I recommend that the GA nomination fails, as I don't have the necessary time at the this stage to complete the work. --Iantresman (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Failing GAN

Thanks to all for contributions, above. I have failed the nomination. I think it is clear from the above what needs to be done before a second nomination in due course. Tim riley (talk) 09:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Impenetrable statement needs help

"In Ripon in AD 705 the lands near the River Ribble were set on a new foundation" This is impenetrable and impervious to editing for clarity. What does this statement have to do with Preston (which is on the Ribble)?--Wetman (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

May be a clue here: [7]? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm boldly removing that statement, leaving whoever inserted it the opportunity to rewrite it more clearly should they wish. Longwayround (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

That seems wise. I'm sure they could be mercilessly hunted down, via the article history, if need be. gulp. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Preston Guild

The familiar significance of "guild" is an association. The average reader fails to see how a guild could be "celebrated" at an interval. The link is a dead 404.--Wetman (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The BBC doesn't seem to have a problem [8]? A link to the history: [9]? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see how the article does not make the meaning of Preston Guild clear. Longwayround (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

Hi, I'm from Preston City Council and we were wondering if you could please link our tourism website ( www.prestonguildcity.co.uk ) on the main Preston wiki page. It'd also be great if you could link the council website as well ( www.preston.gov.uk ). However, our main goal is to generate more visitors to the tourism website and therefore more visitors to Preston itself. This is the offical tourism website for Preston. Many thanks, Steffi 31.221.82.194 (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I have added the City Council link, but the tourism link does not seem appropriate per WP:NOTADVERT. Cheers, Number 57 14:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Outdated population statistics.

Hello I would like to point out the outdated figures under population which should be updated I have been unable to edit myself and was wondering if you could help with this. 51.219.155.121 (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Is Preston a City or Just the District Area?

I hope you don't mind me asking this question or getting some discussion on what your thoughts are. Over on the Colchester page there has been debate on which area is classified as the city, e.g the borough. Similarly, Preston borough was granted city status in 2002. So, is Preston itself a city or just the wider district, or both? What is your take. Goom80 (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Discussion begun at the Talk:City of Preston, Lancashire page on a potential merger with this article. Discuss there if you wish or here. DragonofBatley (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)