Talk:Borough of Fylde

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Lancashire and Cumbria Top‑importance

	North West England portal 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 articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

What is the correct pronunciation of 'Fylde'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.162.160 (talk • contribs) 12 January 2006

Rhymes with 'wild'; as in wild animal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.210.201 (talk • contribs) 29 May 2006

I cant see any reason for the "disambiguation page" as I cant think of anything that 'fylde' can be confused with other then what it currently points at —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.105.57.216 (talk • contribs) 23 September 2006

Categories[edit]

I am proposing to create Category:The Fylde and a subcategory Category:Fylde (borough). This latter name would break the convention that borough categories do not include the word "borough" in their name, but I think this is necessary in this case to avoid confusion between the two categories. This is currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Names of categories for local government districts. Please contribute there if you have an opinion. --Dr Greg 17:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree, for the sake of clarity. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case you hadn't noticed, both of those categories now exist. --Dr Greg (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. They are meant to overlap, then? I see that Wrea Green for one appears in both. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The borough category is a subcategory of "The Fylde", so there's no need for an article to be in both. I correct this whenever I edit an article for some other reason, but I don't worry about it too much. --Dr Greg (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Should we treat Blackpool and Fleetwood as sub-categories of "The Fylde" also? And where is the eastern boundary of the Fylde? Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a Category:Blackpool (and subcategories), on the grounds that Blackpool is a local government district, like Fylde Borough. Fleetwood doesn't qualify on that basis. I would say it depends on how many articles there are relating to Fleetwood; I doubt there are enough to make it worth it.

As to the eastern boundary, that is a very good question. In my mind, I think of anything west of the A6 as being the Fylde, excluding places on the A6. But I have no logical reason for this; you might argue that Garstang, Barton, Broughton, etc., ought to be on the Fylde too, and I don't know the answer. Trouble is, there's no official definition of it, as it's not a government district, or constituency or anything like that. (I've actually seen an old book describe Bleasdale as on the Fylde, but I think that's going too far!) --Dr Greg (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amorial Bearings[edit]

Is there any Wiki policy/ project on borough Amourial Bearings ("coat of arms")? A picture might be an attractive addition to this artilce, if a free image could be sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just noticed that this article uses {{Infobox UK District}} which is now considered out of date and should be replaced by {{Infobox Settlement}}. See Preston for an example of this template in use. This template (see its documentation) can include a number of different images, including a coat of arms (assuming you can find a free image, which might be difficult). --Dr Greg (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re copyright of any coat of arms. Surely, if any organisation owns the copyright it is either The College of Arms or FBC itself? As this article is about Fylde Borough then surely this would be "fair use". But I wondered if you'd had experience with articles for any other places in Lancashire which display a coat of arms. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert in this area. I've never uploaded a "fair use" image, I've only ever observed others do this. I'm not experienced enough to judge whether any given fair-use rationale is valid or not. I do recall that, probably a month or two ago, a number of "coat-of-arms"-type images were removed from some articles about districts or towns (I can't remember). It may have been because nobody had explicitly given a valid "fair use" reason, and doesn't necessarily imply that no fair-use argument existed. (Of course, if the copyright owner explicitly releases their image under conditions that are compatible with Wikipedia's own licences, the problem doesn't arise. But I've just checked the Fylde Council website and their conditions are not compatible: "no commercial use".) --Dr Greg (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thnaks for checking. That may have saved me a lot of wasted time. Oh well, at least we considered. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, when I said "not compatible", I meant not for free use. You might still be able to argue "fair use", but I can't judge that. --Dr Greg (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

update[edit]

the 2011 census results have been revealed the population and ethnicy on this page needs to be updated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.18.84 (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]