This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Preston, Lancashire article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Preston, Lancashire was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Material from Preston, Lancashire was split to City of Preston, Lancashire on 21 August 2010, 20:33 (UTC). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
|
|
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)
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)
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... Satu Suro 15:40, 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 Satu Suro 23:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
'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)
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 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)
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 toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Could the collage be tweaked so that the vertical divides between the pics on lines 2 and 3 either coincide or are substantially offset? At present they are a "near miss" which looks odd. Pam D 22:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Preston, Lancashire article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Preston, Lancashire was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Material from Preston, Lancashire was split to City of Preston, Lancashire on 21 August 2010, 20:33 (UTC). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
|
|
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)
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)
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... Satu Suro 15:40, 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 Satu Suro 23:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
'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)
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 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)
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 toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Could the collage be tweaked so that the vertical divides between the pics on lines 2 and 3 either coincide or are substantially offset? At present they are a "near miss" which looks odd. Pam D 22:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)