Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Barrow-in-Furness Town Hall Article

There seem to be at least a couple of inconsistencies between the text of the article and the text that accompanies a couple of the photographs. For example, the article states that “The town hall was officially opened on July 14, 1887 by Spencer Cavendish, 8th Duke of Devonshire to coincide with Queen Victoria's Golden Jubliee [sic].” The caption below the first photograph states “The Town Hall's completion coincided with Queen Victoria's Golden Jubilee in the summer of 1887, when the Marquis of Hartingdon [sic] turned a golden key to symbolically open the building.” There is no Marquis of Hartingdon, only a Marquis of Hartington who is the eldest son of the Duke of Devonshire. Thus the two sentences refer, respectively, to the 8th Duke and his son and it isn’t clear which of them actually dedicated the building. Another discrepancy occurs between the sentence “The town hall's main plaza is to the exterior of the building, which has led to many incorrectly believing that the building was built 'back to front'” and the caption below the second photograph that states “This picture was taken from the car park at the FRONT of the building although it is a common mis-conception that the front of the building is on the opposite side that looks onto Duke Street.” The caption of the photograph adds further confusion by stating “The back of Barrow Town Hall during sunset.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.89.205 (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Both are the same person, Spencer Cavendish, 8th Duke of Devonshire (although he wasn't Duke of Devonshire until 1891), and he didn't have a son. Peter E. James (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The other caption, at File:Townhall Barrow.jpg (originally from http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/98816) seems to be incorrect according to [1] (used as a reference in the article) and [2]. Peter E. James (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Ian McKellen

This article was the most viewed article tagged by this project in June 2011 getting over 6,500 hits per day, more than double the 2nd most popular article. Yet it is only B class having been downgraded from both FA and GA! Are there any biography editors out there prepared to give it a go to get it back to at least GA? NtheP (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't help you get it back to GA, but I would find it very helpful if someone could lead me through the Wikipedia rules/standards/guidelines that

a. allow a "Project" to impose itself on articles, e.g. slashing its information box all over the place simply because an article happens to have some association with a particular region or area

b. discuss the notion of "Importance" on wikipedia - in the first instance, what benefits there might be to assigning an "importance" rating to anything rather than relying on the statistical behaviour of wikipedia users - how many people read an article; how many people looked for an article that wasn't there, to name but two possible examples.

Sixareen (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Sixareen, a good question. There is very brief information at WP:PJ but basically it's down to each project to decide what it's sphere of interest is. For this project the interests are given on the project page and you can see it's the history, geography, politics etc of the counties of Lancashire and Cumbria. I think those are easy to define but I have to admit that personally I have some reservations about labelling people as being within the sphere of interest. Historical figures involved in the history of the counties, I think are eay - people like the Stanley family, MPs who have represented Lancastrian or Cumbrian constituencies, no problem. Sports people who have played a role in the sporting history of the counties, again not too much problem. Where I have issues is with people such as Ian McKellen who's only connection is being born in Lancs or Cumbria and have not played a part in the history. It's been discussed before on this page nut no concensus has ever been reached. If it was me I would remove the project tag from articles such as this one but without us reaching a concensus about the scope of the project I end up in endless discussions with other editors who tag articles about why I have removed tags.

I don't think adding tags is an imposition because tags are only to indicate that a project (may have) has an interest in an article. It shouldn't be taken as any claim on ownership unless of course a project is tagging just to raise the numbers of articles it is associated with - a pointless exercise in my view.

Importance, again is up to a project to define. For this project with regards to history, geography etc the definitions are clear on the project page. It might be arbitrary but it works but again it's always open to discussion. NtheP (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:User WP Lancashire Cumbria

User:Loretta BBW changed the userbox image from to Any thoughts about which one you want? (Change reverted to original at the moment) Loretta's comment was cool - I have added a new logo for u guys as the old one was a bit borin really. Hope you don't minnd. I wont change it but hope you can vote and agree it is much more brighter and colourful :) I reckon the flags are gonna be a much better logo. bye for now NtheP (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

There's also in the main project template/banner head which I have to say I quite like. NtheP (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Although both are very clever (and I guess have taken up some considerable time to create) IMO the newer versions do not really work at the tiny size needed for the icon. Sorry. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Preston GA review

Preston, Lancashire is currently under GA review (and we are in the unusual position that the nominator has been blocked). The reviewer has requested a second opinion at Talk:Preston, Lancashire/GA1. (I can't help because I've made significant input to the article myself.) Any members here who could help? -- Dr Greg  talk  19:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Outlying fells

I've just finished a three week project of creating articles for the chapters of Wainwright's Outlying Fells, with redirects from all the named summits - see notes I made at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_British_and_Irish_hills#Wainwright.27s_Outlying_Fells. I still plan to work on the table in the main article, so that it's sortable into book chapter order, both A-Z and by page number (to reproduce the roughly geographical order of chapters in the book). If anyone has anything encyclopedic to add to any of the articles, please do so! (Does anyone have any sourced info about the monument on Latterbarrow?) I think the whole group of "outlying fells" can be claimed to be notable (notable enough for at least a mention and a redirect) because not only are they in Wainwright's book but they are a category in the LDWA's Hill Walker's Register, and listed in the Database of British and Irish Hills. PamD 15:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Lancastrian dialect and accent

Could someone who knows the topic have a look through this section, which to me (from the viewpoint of as far from Lancaster as it's possible to be and still be in the UK) appears to be a blob of poorly-formatted and completely uncited original research that's been abruptly thrust into an otherwise fine article. I know so little about the topic I'm reluctant to start chopping myself, as I'd worry about removing something significant, but I'm fairly sure most of it could happily go. Mogism (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Be bold and delete at least until some sources show up. NtheP (talk)

I'm reluctant to, purely because I don't know what it and isn't legitimate. If someone can dig out a guide to Lancastrian (there must be such a thing), most of it probably could and should be saved. Mogism (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

One of the external links is a guide to Lancastrian dialect - you could try that. What worries me about the section are the number of references to Liverpool when Scouse is a separate beast to Lancastrian. NtheP (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mogism for drawing my attention to this article. I'll do my best to gut and re-build the article this week as it's a complete mess. Koncorde (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the offending section to the article's talk page, pending a thorough cleanup and some (any?) citations being given. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Maps needed

Take a look at Category:Wikipedia requested maps in Lancashire and Cumbria, there are a number that need maps, undoubtedly more that aren't listed. --Bejnar (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Historic Lancashire and categorisation

How should we categorise articles relating to historical events within the pre-1974 events within the Greater Manchester and Merseyside areas? My own practice has been to categorise them under "Greater Manchester" (for example), as that refers to the geographical location (which is timeless), but also, in some cases, to categorise under "History of Lancashire", where that seemed appropriate. Is Category:History of Greater Manchester intended to cover only post-1974 events, for example?

I ask because I recently recategorised Clifton Hall Colliery under Greater Manchester instead of Lancashire, but someone else undid my change.

One option might be to introduce some additional "Historic Lancashire" categories, but that could possibly be controversial in itself.

Thoughts? -- Dr Greg  talk  19:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I've only been looking at the project categorisation and anything which lies geographically within the modern locations of Greater Manchester or Merseyside I have not tagged as being within the remit of this project. In itself I don't have anything against "Historic Lancashire" categories but they might be seen as an unnecessary duplication and, from my perspective, lead to more articles being "wrongly" tagged as being within the remit of this project. I say wrongly because from the start this project has been clear on the Project page that it's interest is in the modern counties of Lancashire and Cumbria and for historical events etc to qualify they need to be located within the current geographical boundaries. NtheP (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The collieries were on the Lancashire Coalfield. Absolutely nothing in my reference books refer to the Greater Manchester Coalfield and it is extremely misleading to describe it as such. J3Mrs (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It is appropriate to categorise articles based on their present status - so Bury is in Greater Manchester. However, John Kay (flying shuttle), whose birthplace was near Bury, now in Greater Manchester, should not be categorised as being born in any location other than Lancashire. The same is true of Clifton Hall Colliery - it was in Lancashire. If it were still operating, then it would be in Greater Manchester. Parrot of Doom 20:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

So, are you saying that Category:History of Greater Manchester should not refer to anything pre-1974? NtheP (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I cannot conceive of ever saying something so profoundly stupid, so no. Parrot of Doom 20:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Why not have a category Collieries on the Lancashire Coalfield? That would be preferable.J3Mrs (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that, what parent categories would the category have? NtheP (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea. Why would it need parent categories? I know nothing about categories other than Category:Coal mines in Greater Manchester is just plain wrong.J3Mrs (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It's only wrong depending on what definition you apply. You and PoD are using historical location, Dr Greg and I are using current geographical location. Neither is wrong, we just need to come up with a consensus. Categorisation is about methods of navigating and should be based on defining characteristics, how you approach this one depends, for example, on whether you want to be able to locate the remains of Clifton Hall in which case Gtr Manchester is a defining characteristic, or what the historical context is in which case Lancashire is a defining characteristic. If you believe both are applicable then add Clifton Hall to both Category:Coal mines in Lancashire and or make these both parent categories to Category:Collieries on the Lancashire Coalfield. NtheP (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree at all, nobody would look for Category:Coal mines in Greater Manchester it is simply misleading, there were NO collieries in Greater Manchester except for Agecroft Colliery's last few years. I think the thing to do would be delete Category:Coal mines in Lancashire and replace it with Category:Collieries on the Lancashire Coalfield.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree, to most people under the age of 35, Clifton Hall will only be known to them as a place in Gtr Manchester so searching for it, looking for a topic connected with Gtr Manchester would be natural. NtheP (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Most people under 35 or over 35 for that matter, will either know the colliery's name and search for that, or will look for it in Lancashire, or will have no idea it existed. It's easy enough to find Clifton and it's linked from there. J3Mrs (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

My reason for raising this is nothing to do with adoption by WikiProjects, but for the categories which may be used by any reader to navigate Wikipedia. I think anyone navigating through the Category:Greater Manchester hierarchy ought to be able to find any articles relating to the area covered by Greater Manchester, including events before 1974. Equally, anyone navigating through the Category:Lancashire hierarchy ought to be able to find any articles relating to events that took place within whatever the boundaries of Lancashire were at the time. The question is how to sensibly accommodate both uses within the category system. The current system is unclear as to which of the two above uses it refers to. So I'm asking for suggestions of what we could do.

As I suggested, one option might be to distinguish between "Lancashire" and "Historic Lancashire", but I can foresee some might object to that. At least one category along those lines already exists, Category:People from Lancashire (before 1974)

I've no objection to a "Collieries on the Lancashire Coalfield" category, but the category itself would need categorising, so it doesn't solve the problem but just move it up to the next level. -- Dr Greg  talk  22:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It occurs to me that this issue has wider ramifications than just Lancashire/Greater Manchester/Merseyside, and there may be similar issues with other counties. Is there a better place to discuss this at a national level? -- Dr Greg  talk  22:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England might be one but I'd be more inclined to leave a message at the Gtr Mcr and Merseyside projects pointing them here. 80.189.165.185 (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

On the narrow issue of collieries, Category:The Bristol Coalfield and Category:Somerset coalfield are in Category:Coal mines in England, but Category:Warwickshire Coalfield is not. All three are in Category:Coal mining regions in the United Kingdom. There isn't a Category:Forest of Deal coalfield or Category:Coalmines in Gloucestershire which leaves (e.g.) Eastern United Colliery with nowhere to go except Category:Coal mines in England. Looks like a mess to me, but I don't see that creating a category for Lancashire collieries collieries on the Lancashire coalfield would make anything worse. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I propose the following:

1. Create a new Category:Lancashire Coalfield as a subcategory of Category:Coal mining regions in the United Kingdom, Category:Coal mines in England, Category:Mining in Lancashire, Category:History of Lancashire, Category:History of Greater Manchester, Category:History of Merseyside. All the collieries in that coalfield go in it, regardless of historic or current county, as well as other related articles. This is compatible with existing categories such as Category:Somerset coalfield, Category:The Bristol Coalfield and Category:Warwickshire Coalfield.
2. Keep Category:Coal mines in Lancashire‎, Category:Coal mines in Greater Manchester, Category:Coal mines in Merseyside and use these in parallel with Category:Lancashire Coalfield to classify each colliery according to the current (post-1974) boundaries. This is compatible with existing categorisation in other topics, e.g. Category:Disused railway stations in Lancashire which refers to current, not historic, boundaries (just one example of many). Also one could argue that, technically, the mines still exist even though they are disused. Many of the collieries currently in the Coal mines in Lancashire category would then be moved to the ...Greater Manchester or ...Merseyside categories.
3. In my opinion that is sufficient, but if really pushed we could have Category:Coal mines historically in Lancashire. However that would be virtually identical to Category:Lancashire Coalfield, so I don't see the point.

All of the above categories should contain a text explanation of the scope of each category.

Would those who have opposed Category:Coal mines in Greater Manchester be prepared to tolerate my proposal? -- Dr Greg  talk  21:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Category:Former collieries in Greater Manchester would be preferable as there was only one colliery that existed after 1974.Category:Former collieries in Merseyside would cover collieries in St Helens but I am not sure when most closed but none were sunk after 1974. Category:Collieries on the Lancashire Coalfield would cover them all, some were in Cheshire.J3Mrs (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I could live with that option. In that case, J3Mrs, would you be prepared to change your vote at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 4#Category:Coal mines in Greater Manchester from delete to rename? The downside to that is that are already a number of other "Coal mines in (county)" categories, see Category:Coal mines in England. -- Dr Greg  talk  13:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment It seems the best solution. By the way, at least one Colliery in Durham is now in Tyne and Wear. J3Mrs (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your cooperation. What do you think of my suggestion for Category:Lancashire Coalfield instead of Category:Collieries on the Lancashire Coalfield? This has the advantage of being compatible with the other coalfield categories that I mentioned above and also can be used for other coalfield-related articles that aren't specifically about collieries. -- Dr Greg  talk  17:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, and thank you. J3Mrs (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

There we go, WP:BRD does sometimes work! I guess we now have to wait for the result of the CfD before taking further action. -- Dr Greg  talk  17:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Windermere is the largest natural lake in England?

I can easily believe that Windermere is the largest natural lake in England, but I came to the article on the lake, hoping to find an inline citation that said so, but there is no citation there that I could find. Is there such a citation, and I missed it? If not, can one be supplied?--DThomsen8 (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Featured article on main page

Blackburn Olympic F.C. will appear on the main page as Today's Featured Article on 22 December. Congratulations to all those involved in getting it there especially ChrisTheDude who seems to have been the driver behind it. NtheP (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

FLC

I wonder if any participants in this project would be interested and willing to look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grade I listed churches in Lancashire/archive1. It has been sitting at FLC for over two months, and attracted rather little attention. I think you will agree that it is an important item in this project. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Mungrisdale Common

In the first paragraph is the following sentence, "There is some speculation that Wainwright included the fell in his guide simply as a way to fill space, although this has never been proven." There is no citation for this statement. I suggest that it be removed.

Wainwright set out very clearly his criteria for inclusion in his books and he only broke his rules to add an extra hill that strictly didn't deserve to be there. (See Castle Crag Book 6) Although he disliked Mungrisdale Common (see the comment in the section in Book 5 The Northern Fells) his was the sort of personality that would not rest until his task is complete - every 't' crossed and 'i' dotted. Mungrisdale Common meets the criteria and so had to be included but it is one of the briefest entries in the entire 7 book set. To suggest that he would include a section as a space filler is insulting to his name. If he had had a need to find a couple of extra pages then he could easily have added another picture to the Blencathra section, increased the Little Man section or if he were really desperate added another subsidiary summit such as Lesser Man. OrewaTel (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Cheshire portal

I have nominated the Cheshire portal for featured portal status. Please join the discussion here. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Training event for UK Wikimedians

Wikimedia UK is committed to supporting our volunteers and to encourage them to teach others how to edit Wikipedia, we are running a weekend training workshop that will take place on the weekend of 23–24 February in Manchester. If you're interested please take a look at the event page for further details. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence at Queen Street Mill Museum

I have recently been appointed Wikipedian in Residence at Queen Street Mill Museum, which is under the auspices of Lancashire County Council. More details and a list of suggested articles for creation are at Wikipedia:GLAM/QSMM. We shall be announcing a "backstage pass" event, with tours of the museums stores and access to its archives, shortly. This will focus on articles related to the Lancashire mill trade. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Does the museum have working power looms? At the moment the power loom article only has photos with no videos and it would be nice if a volunteer could take some footage. A short video, maybe just 10 seconds, would convey the cacophony that people worked in (although it might well blow out the camera's mic). And the visual would give an idea of how the machines work, and how dangerous they could be if you accidentally got your fingers in there. I don't think there's any such thing as a Featured Video, but it would be a valuable resource. Nev1 (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't going to get involved because I'm too busy in the real world right now to contribute, but you read my mind! There's a reasonable quantity of footage on youtube, and I previously suggested the video idea to ClumRutter. But neither of us felt confident that a video ripped from there would survive for very long in commons. Hopefully with the support of the museum this could now happen.

I'm sure we can so something about that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Event

A backstage pass tour and editathon will be held at the museum on 4 May 2013. Please see Wikipedia:GLAM/QSMM/event. All welcome, but booking essential! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Villages / suburbs

Morning all

Just stumbled across the Hensingham article while chasing down a vexatious editor and wanted to clarify why there is an article for a suburb of an otherwise quite small town. Is Hensingham a village in its own right, in which case it should be made quite clear - or is it part of Whitehaven. Whitehaven is confused on the matter too, saying "Whitehaven includes a number of former villages, estates and suburbs, such as Mirehouse, Kells and Hensingham" in which case why is there a separate wiki?

Not asking for deletion, just clarification and consistency.

Thanks all. Koncorde (talk) 09:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hensingham was a village but has been regarded as a suburb of Whitehaven since early in the 20th century[3]; it was a separate civil parish until 1934.[4] I'd say that the article should stay separate; it doesn't lose notability by becoming a suburb. Mirehouse is a housing estate, and Kells is a suburb (it may have been a village or hamlet at first, but I can't verify that). Bransty and Corkickle are also suburbs. Peter James (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Is Hesingham notable? The hospital is, but aside from that it's a suburb? For some additional strangeness - the hospital itself is built in Whitehaven Castle so its notability is stretching it. Koncorde (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Villages (in the UK at least) are usually accepted as notable if it can be verified that they exist. If there isn't much notability, a suburb or small village can be merged to the article about the town or civil parish, but I don't think that should be done here - see WP:Outcomes and WP:Notability is not temporary. West Cumberland Hospital is in Hensingham, if there's an article that says it's still in the castle it's in need of updating. Peter James (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Please help get Lancs and Cumbria ready for the start of the Wiki Loves Monuments competition on 1st September

This September the UK is taking part for the first time in the international photography competition Wiki Loves Monuments. Participants will be invited to submit pictures of listed buildings of significant importance (grades I or grade II*), as recorded by English Heritage. The main external website for competitors can be found here, and you can leave a message there if you have queries about competing. Do please join in, and let people in your local area know of this excellent way in which both existing and new Wiki users can help improve the encyclopaedia by contributing photographs of local listed structures. What about organizing a local Wikimeet to attract new people?

In preparation for the start of the competition on 1st September there is still quite a lot of work to do, and we would like to ask for the help of members of this wikiproject. Your local and expert knowledge will be invaluable in ensuring that the lists of eligible buildings are up to date and correctly formatted. If you look at Listed buildings in the United Kingdom you will see how many structures are included. If you then follow the link to Listed buildings in England, you can get to the detailed lists for your area. Alternatively have a look at the WLM planning table. Can you help to ensure that the lists for your area are up to date and well presented?

Some of the lists have been semi-automatically generated from data provided by English Heritage. These use pre formatted templates (eg EH header) which will make it much easier for competition participants to upload their photographs to Commons as an automated process. Please don't change the template structure, as we need to ensure that the templates are properly compatible with the WLM standards that are in use worldwide. The format will allow a bot automatically to collect the information and to put it into the international Monuments Database.

The data still needs the attention of local editors:

• The "title" may need wikilinking to a suitable article name (whether we currently have that article or not). If there are several buildings in one street all of the wikilinks point at an article about the street; however each entry has a separate line in the list.
• The "location" column looks and sorts better if just the parish or town is included (& wikilinked).
• The "date completed" column sometimes has eg "C19" for 19th century, and "C1850" for c. 1850 when the date is uncertain - these need to be corrected manually.
• The "grid ref & lat & long" (which is occasionally missing) may be given to 8 characters — only 6 (grid ref) or 5 (lat & long) are really needed.
• Clicking on the "list entry number" should take you to the data sheet for that entry on the English Heritage database which can be checked if needed for details.
• The image column should have a picture added if we already have a suitable image on Commons. (N.B. if you are going to be taking photos yourself for inclusion in the competition don't upload them until September)
• References may be added according to normal WP practice.

For further information, please see Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United Kingdom.

If you have any queries, please post them not below but on the Organizers' help page on Commons.

Anything you can do to help improve these lists will be much appreciated. The final deadline for cleaning up is 31st August.

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

On a related subject, if folks could drop by Talk:Grade I listed buildings in Lancashire#New layout I'd appreciate thoughts on whether it's ok to roll out the new list format there. Nev1 (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Mosedales

Went for a walk in the Lakes yesterday, bagged two Wainwrights, and returned along boggy Mosedale. Looked it up in Wikipedia today, as you do, and found an unholy confusion between several Mosedales (eg the Cockermouth, Keswick and Penrith Railway was shown to cross the stream that feeds Wastwater). I think I've now got them all sorted out, but more eyes and editors would be welcome (especially anyone with a WP:RS describing the Mosedale Horseshoe - possibly it needs its own article?, or anything on the etymology of "Mosedale" to add to any or all of them). There are now stubs on Mosedale, Cumbria village and Mosedale Beck (Wast Water) (pre-existed as "Mosedale Beck"), Mosedale Beck (Swindale), and Mosedale Beck (Glenderamackin), a couple of dab pages at Mosedale and Mosedale Beck (all with coords, I think, and sources though some a bit iffy) and various redirects. I debated between creating articles on the dales and the becks: decided on becks, with dab pages at both. Certainly little point in producing both sets of articles - not sure what the precedent is on this, and wouldn't mind if they got moved as long as all the navigation still works! An entertaining morning's work (I always describe editing Wikipedia as like doing an infinite jigsaw puzzle). Now time for a rather late lunch. PamD 12:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Queen Street Mill editathon

We're running another editathon, at Queen Street Mill in Burnley, on May 10. This is a fantastic opportunity to use the mill's archives and to meet and work with the curators. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

A reminder; this event is on Saturday. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

GA article being reassessed: Askam and Ireleth

Askam and Ireleth was reviewed and listed in Sept 2007. I have done a GAR, which indicates that the article doesn't meet GA criteria. Main contributors have been notified, and some work has been done, but progress is slow. Following the guidelines at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, this WikiProject is now being informed as editing assistance may be needed to prevent the article being delisted. See Talk:Askam and Ireleth/GA1 for more details. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Judges' Lodgings Editathon

We are holding an editathon at Judges' Lodgings, Lancaster, on 20th September. This is a fantastic opportunity to use the museum's reference material and to meet and work with the staff at the museum. Booking is essential as numbers are limited. More information about the event can be found here. I look forward to meeting some of you there. Joanna Hayward. — Preceding undated comment added 10:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Preston as a City

We have Preston, Lancashire, which says "Preston is a city... the whole district obtained city status in 2002" and City of Preston, Lancashire, which says "The City of Preston is a city... granted city status in 2002". There is only one city. How should these articles be reconciled? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Stanley Park

The usage of Stanley Park is under discussion, see Talk:Stanley Park (disambiguation) ツStacey (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Editathon, 8 August 2015

You are invited to an editathon in Widnes on Saturday 8 August. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

"Blackers"

Blackers, currently a redirect to Blackpool as a purported demonym, is under discussion at RfD. Your input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 12#Blackers would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Lancashire County Palatine

Template:Lancashire County Palatine has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.  Dr Greg  talk  20:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Crostard

Can anyone help me identify the whereabouts of "Crostard, Cumberland"? This is given in "Oxford University Alumni, 1500-1886" as the place of birth of Rev. Robert Watson (1712 – 1788) who became a vicar in various villages around Sussex. I cannot find any such place, nor anything that could have been misread/misspelt. Any clues? 78.147.144.198 (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Not easy. No record in Mills A Dictionary of British Place Names or in the Alphabetical list of places in National Gazetteer, 1868 Nthep (talk)

An interesting challenge! My feeling is that 'Crostard' is a typo, in this source it seems a little smudged [5]. Also I'm not aware of a single place-name ending in 'tard' anywhere in the UK. Crosford or Crossford would be a relatively common name, and I did find one possible candidate in a National Archive entry for Hesketh Hall, in turns out that is old Lancashire not Cumberland. I found a Crosby, a Crosthwaite, and a Crofton, but no ah-ha moment. One other thought, small lakes in and around the Lake District area are often called a tarn. Hope this gives some food for thought at least. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

These Court of Chancery records mention land in "Crosteede or Crosted, called Exnese, in Cumberland" which I assume will be the same place. Unfortunately neither of those names seems to exist any more either, but if it appears in court records it presumably was a genuine place at one point. – iridescent 18:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I think Iridescent is on to something! I've found a John Watson, Esq. of Crosted, in the co. of Cumberland, settled in co. Carlow, and built the house of Kilconner, so we're getting closer. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

If he was rector of Egdean in 1759, as the original source suggests, it might be worth checking with the parish (contact details on their website). As they never got trashed by those pesky Scots, thrown out to make way for industry or bombed by our Continental cousins, church records in the rural south tend to go back pretty much to the Dawn of Time, and they might well still have the original record of his appointment complete with details of exactly where he came from. – iridescent 20:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This 16th-century record in the National Archives mentions "Crosted under Skiddaw, Cumberland": http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C3775334 Underskiddaw is a parish, and looking at the map there is a former farm(stead) called Little Crosthwaite in the area (see http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/print.cfm#zoom=16&lat=54.6391&lon=-3.1831&layers=6). (Incidentally Little Crosthwaite is "little" in relation to Great Crosthwaite, which is just outside the parish of Underskiddaw.)

Since the record refers to "Crosted under Skiddaw, Cumberland", and there is a place called Crosthwaite in that parish, is it possible they are the same place? Is there some reason why, at the time of the legal case, "Crosthwaite" would get entered as "Crosted"? I suppose an alternative explanation is that there was another property or settlement in the parish of Underskiddaw, called "Crosted", and this has since disappeared.

Having written all that, I have now found this: http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C3784846 It's another 16th-century legal case and refers to "Crosted [Newlands in Crosthwaite]". Explanation of "Newlands" from Newlands Valley WP page: The name “Newlands” did not come into being until after the 13th century when it was used to describe the usable new land which had been created at the foot of the valley between Portinscale and Braithwaite by the draining of a large swampy and marshy area. So perhaps there was a farmhouse or small settlement somewhere on these "newlands", which has since disappeared. The only thing is would such a settlement be too far south to fit the bill for the place in the parish of Underskiddaw mentioned above? Now need to find a detailed old map of the area. Dubmill (talk) 10:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Try Crosted, Westmorland. Somebody previously found some stuff googling the web at the national archives[6]. See a few links [7], [8], [9] Koncorde (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The third and fourth of your links refer to "Crosted, Cumberland" and I believe were already mentioned earlier. Just as there is no current "Crosted" in Cumberland (as was), there is no "Crosted" in Westmorland (as was). BUT, there is a Crosthwaite in Westmorland. It is a village west of Kendal. A few miles north-east of the village is a settlement (perhaps just a farm) called "High Craggs". Could this be the same place mentioned in your second link? No sign of a dam around there or of "Forse Forge" (or Force Forge). I found a link on Google mentioning a "Forse Forge" in Natland (which is just south of Kendal). There is also a Force Forge in Satterthwaite (not far from Hawkshead, nowhere near Crosthwaite, Westmorland). I am tending to the idea that "Crosted" is synonymous with "Crosthwaite" in both cases (i.e. the one in Cumberland and the one in Westmorland), but, if so, I have no idea why it was recorded in this way. Dubmill (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks guys for all your help. For the purposes of my researches, I will assume that Crostard was just Crosted (under Skiddaw) written incorrectly and that at some point Crosthwaite was misheard as Crosted. Perhaps its down to the local dialect. 78.147.148.249 (talk) 09:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, having thought about it some more, these people (farmers) involved in legal disputes in the 16th century must have been illiterate. They were asked by someone at the court where they were from and they answered verbally. The clerk then wrote down what they thought they heard. I've heard similar stories with regard to the people coming into the US as immigrants through Ellis Island. Their names got written down (and spelled) according to what the immigration staff thought they heard. Dubmill (talk) 11:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to Editathon at Clitheroe Castle Museum

You are invited to an editathon at Clitheroe Castle Museum on 26 September 2015. Click on the details here. All welcome, but booking required. Jhayward001 (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

If you are unable to make it, would you like to post article needed suggestions on the Wikipedia:GLAM/Clitheroe Castle Museum page or follow us on-line. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Naples Foot-Ball Club, now S.S.C. Napoli, founders

Hi everybody, I found for a real miracle the datas about George Little, one of possible Napoli founders: I'd like create his article on italian wikipedia but I need help from somebody living in or near Southport (he lived in that city, of course); somebody can help me, please? --2.226.12.134 (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

What information are you after? Nthep (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria/Archive 3 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Coniston copper mines

Started - please feel free to augment and improve Victuallers (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Good start. I have contributed.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Ormskirk Grammar School for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ormskirk Grammar School is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ormskirk Grammar School until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Comicmuse (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Result:Kept.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Quality and Importance

Quality and Importance numbers are down to zero, but when does the table get updated?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, the text above the table says "automatically every 2–3 days" and then gives instructions on how you can manually force an update if you want to. I've just followed them a minute ago. -- Dr Greg  talk  18:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Gleaston Castle

It seems that Gleaston Castle has passed review and is no longer a nominee, rather it is GA status. Can someone please make the update?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I believe those lists get automatically updated about once a month by bot. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lancashire_and_Cumbria/Recognised_content&action=history . I can't see any instructions for forcing it to occur earlier. -- Dr Greg  talk  00:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Dr Gregg.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

St Mary Magdalene's Church, Gilsland

Please help with St Mary Magdalene's Church, Gilsland, which is unassessed, but due to redirects I have been unable to fix the talk page. I was able to add coordinates.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I've swapped the talk page with the redirect, which I assume is what you were referring to. -- Dr Greg  talk  00:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria/Archive 3/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holland's Pies

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holland's Pies Anybody care to comment? J3Mrs (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Wood Pit disaster

Just created Wood Pit disaster. I know it's in Merseyside now, but it was in Lancashire at the time. It's a bit stubby at the moment and any help would be appreciated. Tigerboy1966  12:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing at Bolton Pride

Hi everyone, Wikimedia UK and Bolton Library and Museum Services are jointly organising an editing session on Saturday 21 September to coincide with Bolton Pride. Everyone is welcome, and there will be a training element for new editors. Event details are here. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Pevsner 1969 North Lancs?

Has anyone got to hand the original Pevsner "Buildings of England" for North Lancs? If so, could you see what, if anything, he says about Grange Lido? Possibly under "Promenade". By the time of the new edition it was "Lido, 1933, closed 1992, and now very forlorn", but in 1969 it will have been thriving. Perhaps you could add a quote to the article? Or just reply here to say what he says. Google books only offers snippet view, so I can see that Grange-over-Sands is on page 131 onwards, but the word "lido" isn't getting any hits. PamD 08:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't say anything about the lido or promenade unfortunately. PC78 (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@PC78: Thanks for looking. Pity it didn't get a mention. PamD 19:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Training people to edit

One of our events with the Scottish Library and Information Council in May 2018.

Wikimedia UK are running a 'train the trainer' event in Glasgow late next month. It aims to improve training skills, cover how to develop and design training, and hone presentation skills. in-person events are excellent for getting people to think critically about Wikipedia, and people really enjoy peering behind the curtain to see how this place works. We run events with universities, museums, archives, and the like, and having people who can pass on their knowledge about editing is essential. The event is nominally to support our work in Scotland, but also has a wider scope of supporting our work across the UK.

If you're interested, you have until 1 November to register your interest by emailing sara.thomaswikimedia.org.uk. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

More information

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Lancashire dialect

I've done a revamp of the article for Lancashire dialect recently. This is currently listed as being of high importance and being C class. I was wondering if I might get it up to B class now. Please have a look. Epa101 (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Cross End

Can anyone with local knowledge please help with a discussion at Talk:Cross End - it's not clear what Cross End is - hamlet? suburb of another village? - or indeed if it merits coverage in Wikipedia. --94.197.68.15 (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Sankey Collection

Hi, I have a draft article on the Sankey collection which I am struggling to get accepted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Sankey_Family_Photography_Collection It is relevant here because there are a large number of postcards relating to Barrow and Blackpool in the collection. Any help in getting the article accepted would be appreciated. Peterrivington (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I've read the article and it looks a good one. How can I help get it accepted? (I have no idea what the procedure entails.) OrewaTel (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Peterrivington I had a quick look and as far as I can see this is just an issue of referencing the content. The information in a Wikipedia article needs to be verifiable in reliable sources. I can see that when the reviewer removed the un-sourced content, to create a version that could pass AfC, you reverted it as vandalism. The only source it has which is both reliable and available online is the BBC article added more recently. Victorian Lakeland Photographers and Picture Postcard Annual 1993 will be RS, but I'm not going to be buying copies. signalfilmandmedia.com probably doesn't qualify as reliable by our standards, but will be OK for light use. You have large sections of prose without any references. All of the content needs citations so that other users can understand were the information came from. See WP:CQR for help.TiB chat 16:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Mill town

There's a large unsourced ill-defined list of English mill towns in this article - members of this project might like to join a discussion at Talk:Mill town. PamD 15:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)