Talk:Garstang

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lancashire and Cumbria High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. UK geography Low‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Are any of these events really significant?, favouritism by a Garstang local perhaps, as I can't remember the town ever being in the news. Grunners 01:21, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Garstang Courier

Where are the references to the information on the Garstang Courier? Beech1111 (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The title says it all. Linkof1L (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you can write a good-enough quality article, with references, that can show the school is important enough to deserve it. I think it would be better to add a good quality, referenced paragraph to this article instead. --Dr Greg (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is obviously written by a Garstonian, is pretty comprehensive, and has the makings of a very fine article. But there are too many inaccuracies, misleadingies and incompletenesses. The reasearch has been superficial, magpie-fashion. I do not have the knowledge of Garstang or the wiki-editing skills to fix it. Please, somebody, ...

I have corrected one or two specific detail errors where I can use the existing source text as a template. For example, the A6 was diverted round Garstang in 1928, not 1926. Easy fix, and easy to give a reference. Similarly the distances to Preston and Lancaster (Preston was correct, and I'll prove Lancaster in great detail, to the yard, if I'm challenged on it).

I've also added a very woffley and unsatisfactory small expansion to the historic part of "Government", but it's hardly even a patch.

There is much in this article that is either (maybe) wrong, or questionable, or "not right".

1. Population. The article cites a (presumably wiki-type) German source for Garstang+Bonds+Bowgreave. OK, source may be correct -- but what about Catterall? Catterall is unambiguously part of the built-up area nowadays, and I have heard people from Catterall say that they live in Garstang (damn cheek!), and the article itself gives Garstang as "lying on the Wyre and the Calder" ... you have to go well down towards Catterall before you cross the Calder. I went to www.ons.gov.uk, and www.lancashire.gov.uk, and tried 2011 census headcounts by ward and by LSOA, but neither ward boundaries nor LSOA boundaries aligned with the built-up-boundaries. I'm not going to go post-code-by-post-code -- it would take a month -- but if we can assume that ROUGHLY Garstang+Cabus+Catterall has about the same number out-of-Greater-Garstang as other wards have within GG, we get an estimate of about 8,000 (which is what I got by different route some years ago for an exercise I had to do on a course, but I can't remember what my sources were).

2. "Garstang is famous for being the world's first ever Fairtrade Town." If only! Nice idea, but "is famous for" is NOT encyclopedic objectivity -- the only thing Garstang is famous for is being the only place with big blue signs on M6 that no-one has ever heard of apart from being somewhere that has big blue signs on M6. But don't change it!

3. "award-winning" Dewlay cheese. Is the "award winning" epithet appropriate, unless the award is named and recognised as being prestigious?

3. "official parish church" The word "official" here is inappropriate. A church either is or is not a parish church.

4. Governance

This section is the biggest prob. But it is not easy to fix from readily-available records.

4.1 From catalogue entries (rather than actual documents) there seems to be a slight disconnect (nasty Americanism or not, it's functional) on dates between National Archive references to Lancashire Archive holdings and Lancashire Archive references to their own holdings, but the guts of the matter seems to be (1) there was a Garstang Corporation from about 1663 until 1886/7; (2) Garstang Rural District Council took over 1886/87 but was in existence from 1846 (can't be right?); (3) there was also (pre-1974) a Garstang Parish Council. An article in the London Gazette in 1924 asks those concerned about some new waterworks to write to both Garstang RDC and Garstang PC.

4.2 I have deleted the text that said that Garstang had returned only Conservative Borough coucillors, not because it discorded with my own memory, but because it was in flat contradiction of the author's own quoted ref, the Courier article that said, in 2007, "Fifteen to 20 years ago Garstang was well represented at town and borough level by a strong, progressive, Liberal/Liberal Focus team of councilors." Wyresider (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5. "Official Garstang Web Site" -- on what basis are they official? Wyresider (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my edit, which put the word 'Affluent' before 'old market town' deleted? Garstang is an affluent town just look at the crs and houses. why do other towns/ villages get to be called 'Affluent' on Wiki yet Garstang doesn't? Makes no sense whatsover.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton-le-Woods — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.33.183 (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any claim of affluence needs to be supported by a reliable source. If you find any claims of affluence, without a source, in articles, please delete them. -- Dr Greg  talk  23:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Garstang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110814124542/http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/get_involved/campaigns/fairtrade_towns/about_fairtrade_towns.aspx to http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/get_involved/campaigns/fairtrade_towns/about_fairtrade_towns.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929103133/http://www.rhs.org.uk/britaininbloom/north_west/garstangwinner2005.asp to http://www.rhs.org.uk/britaininbloom/north_west/garstangwinner2005.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]