598:
74:
53:
84:
22:
166:
324:, and I can see the arguments both ways for either merging or keeping them separate. A merged page would need to explain the differences between the built up area and the district, but there's no particular reason why that couldn't be done. If the decision is to merge though, I'd suggest we should separate out the information about the council to a
581:
I live in
Preston and can see both sides. In a very real sense there is no difference between "Preston" and "City of Preston". Yes if you live in Fulwood you might use that, if you live in Cottam you might use that. Overall, though, Preston is Preston, we're not like, say, Manchester with distinct
379:
is a much wider geographic area, established as a local government entity, with a precisely defined boundary. Parishes and unparished areas don't affect this: inded very few people other than local authority geeks and a subset of
Knowledge editors have ever encountered the word, or concept,
191:
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. The former page's talk page can be accessed at
608:
You only have to look at the map. By eye I estimate that the contiguous built-up area surrounding the city centre (and within the district) is no more than one-third of the area of the whole district. --
144:
671:
134:
514:
I agree with the comments opposing the meger. Family members who live in the parishes of
Broughton and Barton, very much believe that they live in Preston and are proud Prestonians.
459:- not sure I'm following the meaning behind the tick in column no. 5. Although previously named Preston Rural the settlements therein are distinct from the town of Preston.
582:
communities such as
Didsbury or Wythenshawe. I understand that there is the division between Preston and Fulwood which people might want to retain in different articles.
110:
375:
is a long-established town/city with a history and urban character, whose exact boundaries may not be statutorily defined, but which has a recognisable identity, while
666:
532:@DragonofBatley As DankJae has just pointed out in an edit summary, there should have been "Merge" templates added to both articles, to alert interested readers. See
97:
58:
184:
214:
188:
429:
399:
and pay its council tax bills. The two existing articles seem to cover the two entities appropriately and should not be merged.
653:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
371:@DragonofBatley I'm not as familiar with Preston as I am with Lancaster, but it looks as if it is a similar case, where
33:
396:
376:
176:
597:
265:
article as the area of
Preston has no real distinct parishes outside the main city centre other than parts of the
89:
310:
193:
628:
I'm closing this as there is no realistic prospect of merging given the consensus in over a month and a half.
637:
501:
441:
355:
321:
266:
218:
455:. IMO it doesn't satisfy ANY of the criteria in the table for merging so requires a separate article. @
388:
207:
the 2011 census results have been revealed the populatin and ethnicy on this page needs to be updated.
39:
519:
515:
343:
325:
210:
21:
587:
481:
372:
342:
Yes if we do merge the district article (which I don't think we should) then yes we should restore
333:
306:
262:
172:
109:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
630:
494:
489:
456:
434:
348:
282:
270:
73:
52:
615:
565:
533:
464:
384:
278:
328:
page (which currently redirects to this page) so as not to overload the merged page. Thanks.
269:
but the county borough of
Preston was already on par with it and appears to be on par with
643:
623:
591:
569:
555:
523:
507:
468:
447:
418:
361:
337:
314:
222:
583:
546:
409:
329:
286:
660:
610:
561:
475:
460:
298:
302:
294:
281:
for reference in terms of lack of parishes that are part of the built up area. @
274:
102:
79:
320:
Preston is not as clear-cut a case as
Worcester that we have been discussing
537:
400:
392:
290:
165:
395:
do not consider that they live in
Preston, although knowing they are in
485:
106:
596:
160:
15:
180:
243:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
261:I believe this article should be merged into the
672:Top-importance Lancashire and Cumbria articles
246:A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
8:
428:as it fails almost all of the criteria, see
119:Knowledge:WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria
122:Template:WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria
47:
430:User:Crouch, Swale/District split#Others
667:C-Class Lancashire and Cumbria articles
49:
19:
7:
237:The following discussion is closed.
95:This article is within the scope of
38:It is of interest to the following
98:WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria
14:
649:The discussion above is closed.
164:
82:
72:
51:
20:
139:This article has been rated as
125:Lancashire and Cumbria articles
570:17:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
391:, so I imagine the people of
1:
644:20:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
113:and see a list of open tasks.
624:11:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
592:10:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
524:09:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
560:Added the second template.
556:04:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
508:08:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
469:00:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
448:15:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
419:14:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
362:15:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
338:13:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
315:12:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
223:16:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
181:21 August 2010, 20:33 (UTC)
177:City of Preston, Lancashire
688:
346:that I merged last year.
138:
90:North West England portal
67:
46:
651:Please do not modify it.
240:Please do not modify it.
194:Talk:Preston, Lancashire
601:
267:Fulwood Urban District
116:Lancashire and Cumbria
59:Lancashire and Cumbria
28:This article is rated
600:
389:Lancaster, Lancashire
387:but certainly not in
344:Preston City Council
326:Preston City Council
183:. The former page's
373:Preston, Lancashire
263:Preston, Lancashire
189:provide attribution
173:Preston, Lancashire
602:
492:but not district.
383:Just as I live in
271:Worcester, England
34:content assessment
619:
385:City of Lancaster
279:Chester, Cheshire
213:comment added by
200:
199:
159:
158:
155:
154:
151:
150:
679:
640:
633:
622:
620:
617:
553:
544:
504:
497:
479:
444:
437:
416:
407:
358:
351:
242:
225:
168:
161:
145:importance scale
127:
126:
123:
120:
117:
92:
87:
86:
85:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
687:
686:
682:
681:
680:
678:
677:
676:
657:
656:
655:
654:
638:
631:
616:
609:
590:
547:
538:
502:
495:
488:are in Preston
473:
442:
435:
410:
401:
397:City of Preston
377:City of Preston
356:
349:
259:
238:
231:
229:Merger proposal
208:
205:
124:
121:
118:
115:
114:
88:
83:
81:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
685:
683:
675:
674:
669:
659:
658:
648:
647:
646:
626:
595:
594:
586:
575:
574:
573:
572:
529:
528:
527:
526:
512:
511:
510:
422:
421:
381:
366:
365:
364:
307:DragonofBatley
258:
257:
256:
255:
254:
233:
232:
230:
227:
204:
201:
198:
197:
187:now serves to
171:Material from
169:
157:
156:
153:
152:
149:
148:
141:Top-importance
137:
131:
130:
128:
111:the discussion
94:
93:
77:
65:
64:
62:Top‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
684:
673:
670:
668:
665:
664:
662:
652:
645:
641:
635:
634:
632:Crouch, Swale
627:
625:
621:
614:
613:
607:
604:
603:
599:
593:
589:
585:
580:
577:
576:
571:
567:
563:
559:
558:
557:
554:
552:
551:
545:
543:
542:
535:
531:
530:
525:
521:
517:
513:
509:
505:
499:
498:
496:Crouch, Swale
491:
490:built-up-area
487:
483:
477:
472:
471:
470:
466:
462:
458:
457:Crouch, Swale
454:
451:
450:
449:
445:
439:
438:
436:Crouch, Swale
431:
427:
424:
423:
420:
417:
415:
414:
408:
406:
405:
398:
394:
390:
386:
382:
380:"unparished".
378:
374:
370:
369:Oppose merger
367:
363:
359:
353:
352:
350:Crouch, Swale
345:
341:
340:
339:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
318:
317:
316:
312:
308:
304:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
283:Crouch, Swale
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
252:
249:
248:
247:
244:
241:
235:
234:
228:
226:
224:
220:
216:
212:
202:
195:
190:
186:
182:
178:
175:was split to
174:
170:
167:
163:
162:
146:
142:
136:
133:
132:
129:
112:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
650:
629:
611:
605:
578:
549:
548:
540:
539:
493:
452:
433:
425:
412:
411:
403:
402:
368:
347:
260:
250:
245:
239:
236:
215:188.30.226.2
209:— Preceding
206:
140:
96:
40:WikiProjects
661:Categories
534:WP:Merging
516:Greenway26
305:thoughts?
275:Manchester
251:Not merged
103:Lancashire
393:Goosnargh
330:Stortford
287:Stortford
612:Dr Greg
480:Because
211:unsigned
606:Oppose.
584:doktorb
579:Neutral
562:Klbrain
486:Chorley
482:Leyland
476:Rupples
461:Rupples
299:Rupples
185:history
143:on the
107:Cumbria
30:C-class
453:Oppose
426:Oppose
303:KeithD
295:Eopsid
203:update
36:scale.
588:words
639:talk
618:talk
566:talk
520:talk
503:talk
484:and
465:talk
443:talk
357:talk
334:talk
322:here
311:talk
291:PamD
277:and
219:talk
105:and
642:)
541:Pam
506:)
446:)
404:Pam
360:)
179:on
135:Top
663::
568:)
536:.
522:)
467:)
432:.
336:)
313:)
273:,
221:)
636:(
564:(
550:D
518:(
500:(
478::
474:@
463:(
440:(
413:D
354:(
332:(
309:(
301:@
297:@
293:@
289:@
285:@
253:.
217:(
196:.
147:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
