Talk:Lancaster

Most popular being in reference to the fact that the majority of users of the internet in the English language come from the United States... NOT Great Britain. California by itself has more internet users than all of the UK, and that it is only one of the 50 states. The majority of those in the United States, the world's primary english language internet location, think of the Pennsylvania city first when referencing the name. This is why it is the most popular reference. And being that California has more internet users than the UK, the California city could quite possibly be referenced more than the English city as well. The point is... the English city does not deserve preference to the name. All three cities have the same amount of clout to have the title. Usually, preference is given to the largest city by the name, which would be the California city, not the English city or the Pennsylvania city. Nevertheless, each city in it's own right could demand preference. There are other cities that would like single name preference which are more worthy of it than any of these Lancasters combined, that have to share a disambiguation page like San Jose. The California city is larger than any city in the UK except London, but the Costa Rica city is large also and is the capital city of that nation. Who gets preference? NOBODY! Each city in its own right has an equal standing in the world. This is why I have changed it back, and it will stay back this way, or I will see that it becomes a protected page by the administrators. There is no need for this useless edit war. The name belongs to a disambiguation page. --Anon 00:04, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

• • California by itself has more internet users than all of the UK? Rubbish, internet use in the UK passed 58% over a year ago [1] and to match that every single person in California would have to be on the net. Average Earthman 09:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • The population of the UK is 60,270,708. Now considering that the average household is 3.2 persons in Western civilization, you must assume that there are 18,834,596 households. Now with 58% having internet access, that would mean 10,924,065 households in the UK have internet. What about California? Its population is 33,871,648. Now that would mean 10,584,890 households. With 96% of California households having internet access [2] that would mean 10,161,494 households have internet. So the UK has 762,571 more internet users than California or the equivalent of the city of San Francisco. --71.108.65.62 17:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the rant! I agree that it's most appropriate to point Lancaster to a disamiguation page (despite only having ever visited or really heard of Original Lancaster myself). I disagree that some sort of justification is appropriate on that page, so I've deleted those parenthetical comments. Lupin 01:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Very well. It is fine now the way it stands.

BTW... of course you have only visited or heard of the original. Your're from the UK. If you asked an American the same, you'd most likely get Pennsylvania as the answer. The answer will vary based on perspective. This is why a disambiguation page is important and I am glad that you agree. --Anon 01:59, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

• • Google appears to think the most important 'Lancaster' is the English University. But the English, Pennsylvanian and Californian Lancasters are all next to each other on the front page (rather than one dominating), so that certainly argues for no precedence. Average Earthman 09:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Anyway, population depends on where you draw the boundaries. The population of the City of Lancaster is actually slightly higher than that of Lancaster, CA. It's all very confusing, because Lancaster, England is a town in the City of Lancaster. Average Earthman 12:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, here's another question - go to Google maps (http://maps.google.com/, not co.uk) and type in Lancaster. Now, is it checking where you are by IP address, or does it send everyone to Lancaster, England? Average Earthman 12:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm getting Lancaster, UK from a Canadian IP address. Lupin 14:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm getting a dialogue box asking which Lancaster I am requesting... CA, PA, OH, or UK?--71.108.65.62 19:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• From the point of view of a non-English speaking user outside either of the countries concerned: the English Lancaster has precedence for historical reasons; it is notable for its association with the House of Lancaster and the Wars of the Roses, is hundreds of years older than any other Lancaster, and it is (presumably) the one all the others are named after. Lancaster, California, as opposed to its English namesake, is probably unknown outside its own region and seems mostly to be a suburb of Los Angeles (or am I wrong?). I would suggest moving Lancaster, the original, back to where it was before, at Lancaster. Uppland 13:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The Pennsylvania Lancaster also has as much historical significance as the English one. It was once capital of the United States for a day and is also known for historic battles in its vicinity during the Independence War from Britain, as well as the American Civil War. It was also the first inland city in the United States. I would say that it has just as much a claim to the title. Yahoo! also lists the Pennsylvanian Lancaster first, followed by the Californian, UK, and Ohio cities all in a row. I agree with Average Earthman that neither of the 3 deserves more precedence over the other. --71.108.65.62 17:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see nothing on this page that convinces me that any of these places is the subject of an overwhelming number of the search box requests for "Lancaster". All these issues of civic pride (age, population, historical events, etc.) are secondary. From the point of view of being of most value to our readers, I'd say that anyone typing in "Lancaster" should come to the disambiguation page. Isn't that the simplest way to deal with all this? If some people are set on resisting the idea, I suppose we should do a poll and/or RfC, but that seems like overkill. With regard to the content of the dab page, we can eliminate a lot of the bickering and reverting by eliminating these attempts to cram in little comments about the various Lancasters, like what was or wasn't named after what. Just list the dang articles. People who want to know why a particular Lancaster is called "Lancaster" can click on it. The same goes for people who want to know how many people live in a particular Lancaster. In general, a dab page should say only enough about the various subjects to enable the reader to pick the right article. Only if there is no article does it ever make sense to give any more information. JamesMLane 04:28, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the disambig page is clearly the best solution. None of the Lancasters is overwhelmingly more popular than others, so it should go to a place where the reader can click on whichever one they meant. DreamGuy 06:04, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

It's obvious to me that Lancaster should redirect to Burt Lancaster. Just kidding, I think it should go to the disambig page. Rhobite 06:17, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

My first reaction to the word Lancaster is to think of the bomber! I agree that the name should go to the disambiguation page.-gadfium 06:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Speaking as a resident of the USA, when I hear "Lancaster", I think first of the bomber, then of the House of Lancaster, then of the UK city, then of the Pennsylvania city. I've never heard of any of the others. --Carnildo 06:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Having come across this controversy on WP:RFC, I think it is quite clear that Lancaster should direct to the disambig page. That is the best way to avoid edit wars over whose city gets precedence. Firebug 06:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

<rant> To User:Uppland, and anyone else that is clueless about California geography and didn't read the appropriate Wikipedia articles: Lancaster, California is in Antelope Valley in the North-east corner of Los Angeles County and is separated from the rest of the county by a very tall mountain range, the San Gabriel Mountains, so it is most certainly NOT "mostly...a suburb of Los Angeles". </rant> With my rant finished, I will acknowledge that Lancaster, England does have historical signifance, and so I have a weak preference for keeping that city as the main Lancaster article. On the other hand, it is certainly not worth a major edit or revert war over, so the safest choice may be to redirect Lancaster to Lancaster (disambiguation). BlankVerse ∅ 07:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• My own view is that all multi-article terms should be disambiguation pages, as we shouldn't be trying to second-guess our readers. (And the argument above that we should always link to what U.S users first think of when they hear a term, because they're more numerous on the Internet, is absurd; one doesn't organise an encyclopædia on the basis of – estimated – contingent facts about the demographics of computer-use. If the Internet were to go out of fashion in the U.S., would we have to start changing all our articles to reflect the fact that most people who hear Washington think of a place in Tyne and Wear?) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then what about: Aberdeen, Andover, Bath, Bedford, Belfast, Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Blackburn, Burnley, Buckingham, Cardiff, Carlisle, Canterbury, Cambridge, Chester, Chesterfield, Coventry, Derby, Dorchester, Dover, Durham, Exeter, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Gloucester, Halifax, Hereford, Ipswich, Leeds, Leicester, London, Lincoln, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Newport, Northampton, Norwich, Nottingham, Oxford, Portsmouth, Preston, Plymouth, Sheffield, Southampton, Swansea, Taunton, Truro, Worcester, York (etc)? Clearly the precedence is for British cities to take precedence over foreign ones. Lancaster is a major city and it does deserve to be at Lancaster. Dunc|☺ 11:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An automatic preference for a British city (because it's older) makes about as much sense as an automatic preference for an American city (because more Americans are online). Let's all put aside our nationalistic fervor and think about our readers. The approach that best serves the readers is that Boston goes to the one in the U.S., London goes to the one in the U.K., and names with no such clearly predominant meaning go to a dab page. With regard to the precedents listed by Dunc, I wouldn't regard them as cast in stone. For example, I think Halifax should be either the one in Canada or a dab page. JamesMLane 11:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I prefer for Lancaster to link directly to some city, any city, rather than to a disambiguation page, because, that way, at least some users find what they seek without an extra click. Of the various possibilities, my first preference is, of course, Lancaster, Wisconsin, because it's the best! Go, City of the Dome! But if we can't have that, the obvious second choice is the city in England, because, well, it's the real one. And famous in literature, even if I do get Lancaster-the-town and house-of-Lancaster and Lancashire all muddled. And, unlike Boston, England, it is not small or obscure or clearly dwarfed in importance by any of the other Lancasters. BTW I live in the U. S. and spell "color" correctly, according to Noah Webster, who was the first English lexicographer. (Caution: preceding paragraph contains lame ironic jokes. I'm not joking about thinking it should link to the city in England though). Dpbsmith (talk) 16:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some users will want to know "How many places are named 'Lancaster', and where are they?" Others, if they're brought to one particular Lancaster, will need two clicks rather than one to get to the one they want. I don't think the current setup produces a net savings in clicks. JamesMLane 20:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I think there is a weak argument for Lancaster, UK, not because it's the oldest or the best or the largest or the one in the UK, but simply because it's the most notable. However, this is a very weak argument and I think it's probably best to redirect to the dab. There certainly should not be a categorical rule that UK cities take precedence over US cities, or that older cities take precedence over newer ones. For example, I think Andover, Bedford, Dover, and Portsmouth should all go to dabs and Halifax should go to the Canadian city, not to the one in the UK. (This comment was from Kelly Martin.)

• Disambiguation seems like the logical choice when there are more than one strong contenders. -Willmcw 03:22, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Tally

Here's how I count the votes cast so far: "Lancaster" should be:

• Lancaster, England: Uppland, BlankVerse ∅ , Dunc|☺, Dpbsmith (talk)
• The dab page: Anon, Lupin, Average Earthman, 71.108.65.62, JamesMLane, DreamGuy, Rhobite, gadfium, Carnildo, Firebug, Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης), User:Kelly Martin, Willmcw, nixie

Even if we don't count the unregistered user's vote for the dab page, the community preference seems clear. Do any of the proponents of the "Lancaster, England" view think we need to keep this open any longer? If not, we should wrap it up and make Lancaster the dab page. JamesMLane 04:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've now posted this at Wikipedia:Requested moves. JamesMLane 22:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

move request

I added the move template at the top, and now there should probably be a formal vote on it. Please vote either support or oppose below, with an optional one sentence comment. The related vote is located at Talk:Lancaster. Lachatdelarue (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I can't see the point of a formal vote. We had an extensive discussion here. Because people were commenting, without putting their names in a "Support" or "Oppose" column, I extracted the equivalent votes from their comments to produce the "Tally" above. That was five days ago; no one has objected that I mischaracterized any of the votes. The vote to move was 13-4 (or 14-4 if you count the anon). Why should everyone have to come back to this page to have their opinions counted? JamesMLane 23:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

My thought was because a vote is supposed to take place after you post on the requested moves page. If you feel confident that no one with contest the move after it's been done, I will go ahead and do it. Lachatdelarue (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I was going by this statement on Wikipedia:Requested moves: "The move should usually be discussed on the talk pages of any relevant articles first . . . ." We've had the discussion (beginning almost two weeks ago), and five days have elapsed in which none of the opponents of the move objected to the conclusion that the move had been approved, so I'd say it's safe to go ahead. JamesMLane 23:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and move the pages. I always understood that statement on WP:RM to mean before the page is moved, not before it's listed, or maybe discussed some before being listed, but the voting after it's listed, since listing are supposed to stay there for five days. I don't know, any way it generally works out. Lachatdelarue (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I personally think the move was a mistake and should be reverted; the majority of the links to Lancaster [3] are about the English place and whoever made the move should have accepted the duty to sort them out. I also think the disambiguation page is odd - there is no evidence that any of the places listed do not have their name derived directly or indirectly from the original place; it also fails since for example Lancaster, New York simply leads to another disambiguation page. --Henrygb 20:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

One reason that a majority of the links are to the English place is that, after the move, I went through the links and disambiguated a number that were to other articles. I didn't disambiguate the English links because of what I understood to be the history. I think the English article was for a long time at Lancaster, England; that someone moved it to Lancaster, Lancashire; and that someone else then moved it to Lancaster. Then, by virtue of the discussion here, the article was returned to its original title of Lancaster, England. Nevertheless, we didn't address the question whether the English city should be at Lancaster, England or Lancaster, Lancashire. I frankly didn't want to spend the time to change all the links to read Lancaster, England if they were going to have to be changed anyway. I respectfully suggest that the people involved in editing the article about the English city reach a consensus about its title. Once it's stable, the links can be disambiguated. You make a good point about Lancaster, New York, and I'll fix that. JamesMLane 07:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Most English towns seem to have gone for "Town name, County name" where the town name alone does not suffice, so I prefer "Lancaster, Lancashire". "Lancaster, England" sounds like the sort of thing an North American would say and sounds distinctly odd to my ears (I'm English). Lupin 07:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with User:Lupin... Lancaster, Lancashire makes more sense than Lancaster, England. Persons in the UK give regard to their counties much like we give regard to our states in the US. Lancaster, Lancashire is the more appropriate for this situation. Those who type in Lancaster, England can have a redirect to the correct page. I also agree with User:JamesMLane and User:Kelly Martin that Halifax should go to the Canadian city. It, like Perth or Boston, quite significantly outweighs it's namesake in size, economy, familiarity, and international importance. Also, Dover and Birmingham should go to a disambiguation page. Here they are capital cities of their respective American states, yet Dover is also a major port in the UK and Birmingham is the UK's #2 city. This presents a situation much like User:Anon earlier stated regarding the 2 cities of San Jose, and the same uniform should follow. --71.108.65.62 04:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I going to throw 'a spanner in the works' or 'a curve ball' depends on where you are. You mention Perth, Ontario as having precedence over Perth, Scotland but I would have to say that Perth Western Australia has a greater claim the either based on size location and importance. Yet its acknowledged that all other cities and towns derive their name from Perth Scotland and wouldn't it therefore be logical for Perth Scotland to be the one with the significant claim. I suggest where the name originates from a single point that should have precedence Gnangarra 13:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is now the dab. Therefore, I suggest that the discussion about Lancaster, England versus Lancaster, Lancashire should continue at Talk:Lancaster, England. JamesMLane 06:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

It strikes me that it is fairly obvious that it ought to be standard Wikipedia practice that, if it is not obvious which is the primary meaning of a name, it should lead to the dab page. We will get all sorts of conflicts if not. PatGallacher 15:26, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

Reopening the debate

I am looking for consistency, and believe the logic of the 2005 decision has been superceded. Can we work to a solution that brings Lancaster back in line with York, Derby etc. This flawed decision has moved over onto commons where the cats reflected the en: decision, and classifying is now unmanageable. The artificial Lancaster, Lancashire mouthful would not be thought of by an uploader, as outside wiki, the term does not exist. It it hampered by the district council calling itself City of Lancaster- leaving the counterintuitive situation where a local thinks of the city as the area roughly enclosed by the ring road, Lancaster as the area including the city and the new suburbs, and Morecambe as Morecambe and the other settlements as the countryside round Lancaster. Wiki calls the City of Lancaster, the entire local government area include remote seaside and fell, and leaves no word for the historic core or suburbs- save the artificial Lancaster, Lancashire. I would love to see a single notable reference for this usage. The only time it seems to occur is in websites generated from webforms where one is forced to enter a town, and a county before the postcode.which technically was wrong for former county towns. I know there is a US convention for referring to a settlement by name/state but this does not apply UK side. So could someone assist in putting the wheels into reverse and correcting this mess- and I will try then to sort out commons. --ClemRutter (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting any particular changes, or asking us to find a solution based on a full review of all the possibilities? If the latter, it may take a while.   Will Beback  talk  20:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This arises from the legal technicality that, as from 1974, city status attaches to a local government district rather than an urban settlement. I agree this is counterintuitive and I would prefer the district to be referred to as "Lancaster District" (as does Ordnance Survey), or "Lancaster (district)", or "City of Lancaster (district)", or "City of Lancaster district" or similar. But this isn't a local matter, it applies to all cities where there is a local government district substantially larger than a settlement of the same name (e.g. Carlisle, Sunderland, Leeds, Preston, ...). So this really needs to be discussed at a national level rather than here. -- Dr Greg  talk  21:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

A full review seems most sensible- even if it does take time. The 1974 city status change was unhelpful (we lost the City Status in Rochester, due to a legal technicality which still hurts), but it is only part of the problem. I claim that the Lancaster/York analogy is the best- as with both. Lancaster/York can refer to a historic core, a university, a royal house, a former county town, a person in the form of a Duke and if you stretch it a postcode area. It falls in that Lancaster is a district council and York has unitary status- I would prefer

• Lancaster/York (disamb)-> Lancaster/York->subtrees.
• Lancaster/York(disamb)-> City of Lancaster/York (district)-> Lancaster/York->City of Lancaster/York (historic city). The later cat being rather redundant in en: but useful in commons: which will mirror the en: decision. It also justifies the use of disamb brackets for City of Lancaster/York (district)

This is not an attempt to force through my opinion of what the solution should be- I am seeking advice and a workable concensus. The decision made here will be mirrored to commons:. My concerns arose on commons where the geograph.org.uk bot dumped several hundred images in the wrong category, and this identified the problem which I am raising. If the cat was not obvious to an experienced bot-driver then it wont be to the general reader. (On commons I have used the non-standard solution of creating a non-standard cat commons:Rural areas around Lancaster where the misplaced images are now dumped awaiting further processing. But that will have to go eventually.--ClemRutter (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

pronunciation

Since there are at least four pronunciations for Lancaster, depending on locale (e.g., /ˈlæŋkæstər/ in England, /ˈlæn.kæstər/ in California, /ˈlæŋkɨstər/ in Pennsylvania, and /ˈlæŋkəstər/ in South Carolina and Kentucky), it seems those cities / towns without a pronunciation listed should have one added.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 11:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)