Template talk:Lancashire: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:38, 7 April 2008

(copied from talk page)

County palatine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List cities separately?

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

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 ::I see the only reason you are here is to turn Wikipedia into your personal soapbox. Thank you for confirming that yet again. [[User:MRSC|MRSC]] 18:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
+== List cities separately? ==
+I suggest this template list cities & towns separately instead of mixed in a single section. Why? Because of the way '''bold''' is used to highlight cities. First: this usage isn't explained. Second: it interferes with the way that the article name is automatically emboldened when the template is included in an article. --[[User:Dr Greg|Dr Greg]] ([[User talk:Dr Greg|talk]]) 11:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)