Talk:Shaw and Crompton

message: I hope you don't mind, but I did agree somewhat with the comment that User:DrKiernan made in this article's ongoing FA review, about some of the phrasing being "a little strange". I also don't think that it's right to ask a reviewer to point out every instance of something like that, and then make corrections in some sort of a fire fighting exercise. Examples, yes. Exhaustive list, no.
So I've made a few proactive copyedits today, where the phrasing looked strange to me. My phrasing may look strange to you of course, in which case feel free to revert it. But there's so much good information in this article that it would be a shame for it not to be promoted just for the way something's phrased. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me! Great improvements, Jza84 02:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I hope you don't mind

message: The new guidelines I'm sure will be a great help.
But I'm a bit alarmed by the Toponymy subsection in the history section of this article. The word is intimidating to a reader, and the information that can be provided hardly seems likely to justify its own subsection in many articles does it?. --Malleus Fatuarum 02:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Etymology was used prior but Toponymy is the correct terminology for the origin of a placename. I don't think it does any harm as a subsection. WP:UKCITIES just asks for a note on Toponymy, not necessarily a sub-section, but if you feel strongly about it you could raise this there. Jza84 12:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm quite happy with including information on toponymy, it's just the appearance of a subsection with that name that alarms me. But, as you say, the new guidelines don't ask for a sub-section anyway, just the information. --Malleus Fatuarum 13:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:UKCITIES]]

message: "this name aptly describes the appearance of the place, with its uneven surface, its numerous mounds and hills, as thought it had been crumpled up to form these ridges
Has this been quoted accurately? Should it be "... as though it had been ..."? --Malleus Fatuarum 12:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops! That'd be my mistake - yes you're right! Jza84 12:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotation

message: The section on the Crompton family gives the name as "De La Legh", but ought it not to be "de la Legh"? The reference given initially talks about "Hugh de la Legh", but does go on later to use "De La Legh" admittedly. I'd have thought that "de la Legh" would be correct though?
:I've just checked how The Changing Face of Crompton uses it, and yes it's "de la Legh"! Well spotted! These mistakes are all mine of course... sorry! Jza84 14:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The de la Legh family

message: "The Saxon King of Northumbria sent an army across the Pennines into Mercia. As they marched they founded a string of hamlets ending in '-ton'- Royton, Ashton, Clayton, etc. Crompton was one of these ..."
"The first recorded use of the name Crompton for the township was discovered in legal documents dating from the early 13th century ..."
I may well be misunderstanding what's meant here, but are these two statements consistent? How do we know that the Saxon king founded a hamlet called Crompton if it isn't recorded? --Malleus Fatuarum 21:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Peteb16 added the former of the statements, and I've asked him to pass comment, just for clarification.... What I think is meant here, is that "The first recorded use" was in the 13th century, but looking at the Timeline of the Anglo-Saxon invasion & takeover of Britain and the toponymy of the settlement - it must have been founded earlier in the 7th century. Jza84 14:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that toponymy proves anything does it? It's an after the fact explanation, one of a number of possible alternatives. What's the evidence that the Saxon king did indeed found a hamlet called Crompton? Is it simply that the name ends in "ton"? --Malleus Fatuarum 22:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree here. I've had a look at the source (Changing Face of Crompton) and there is nothing to support the seventh century. As Peteb16 hasn't responded (yet), I suggest we remove the paragraph; we can always put it, or something simillar, back in if this is indeed supported by some citation. Jza84 23:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Six months later and I've cracked this! It was in A Chronicle of Crompton by E. Ballard. Full details now provided in the article. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: First recorded use of the name Crompton

message: ... but is it "cotton-spinning" or "cotton spinning"? --Malleus Fatuarum 20:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Google (sorry!) seems to suggest "cotton spinning"! Jza84 21:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whichever is correct, maybe the article ought to be consistent? :) --Malleus Fatuarum 22:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! You've got eyes like a hawk!!! In a good way of course! Jza84 23:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll take as I think it was meant, as a compliment. :) --Malleus Fatuarum 00:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW, if I'm getting on your nerves with my niggley little questions or copyedits, don't be afraid to tell me so. I don't take offence easily. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no! Not at all, I think these are really really helpful issues you're raising. The article has sat stagnating for far too long. I'm not an especially good writer by any means, and a fresh pair of eyes are really bringing this up to scratch!... I'm sure you could open a tourist infomation centre in the town by now!... maybe not though! Jza84 00:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Hopefully the article will soon get the FA status that I'm sure it deserves. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A small thing, I know

message: "The parish council comprises 14 locally elected members including three who also act as councillors to the wider Oldham local authority."
Does it mean that 3 Oldham councillors, elected in some other way, are members of the parish council? Or that 3 of the parish councillors are also elected to the bourough council? --Malleus Fatuarum 20:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Time has moved on, and I still don't know what it means either. When I last looked the 14 members of the parish council were elected separately from the 6 (yes, 6) representatives to Oldham MBC, 3 each for the wards of Crompton and of Shaw. Can anyone clarify, please? Jan1nad (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll shift it. Jan1naD - (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm not sure what this means

message: Where amounts of money are given, as in GB£ 4,000, sometimes there's a space between the GB£ and the number, and sometimes there isn't. I'm not sure what's recommended, I'd guess GB£4,000? But whichever, it needs to be made consistent. --Malleus Fatuarum 17:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's without the space - I thought I'd fixed that the other day... obviously not! Jza84 17:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Amounts of money

message: In the second para of the intro there was a statement which stated:'At its zenith, according to the national press, it had more millionaires per capita than any other town in the world.'.....'according to national press' is a vague statement....pls cite references if available.Gprince007 10:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's referenced in the main body of text (and see discussion above). References were in the lead, but moved per steamlining for FA. Jza84 11:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Oops !! sorry for the mistake. Gprince007 11:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: certain vague statements

message: i wanted to know whether the war memorial inscriptions are really written in all block letters at the memorial....because if its not, then we might have to change it in the article..Gprince007 04:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both inscriptions have been transcribed exactly as they appear on the memorial, block capitals and all. ~~ Peteb16 21:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: War memorial inscription

message: I like the neighbouring locations table, however as Oldham doesn't actually border Shaw and Crompton from the south, I can't help thinking the following would be more accurate.
~~ Peteb16 21:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Derker lies to the south as well as Heyside. I'm happy with either really, or perhaps both. I'm also thinking that "Heyside"/"Derker"/"Moorside" should be piped to link to either Royton or Oldham as I should imagine, at least in the mid-term, there is little scope for articles on Heyside, Derker and Moorside. Jza84 12:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compass

message: After the outcome of the Featured Article review is known, I will record a spoken version of this article, as per the request left above.  Hassocks5489 17:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have started today.  Well done on the FA-status!  Hassocks5489 19:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look forwards to it! Jza84 12:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uploaded today - see the link above.  Hassocks5489 19:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoken version 

message: Congratulations on the FAC pass! Epbr123 17:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FA promotion

message: Is it acceptable to state "Shaw and Crompton is a town and civil parish"?
Evidence for the inclusion of town:
*It was once reported in the national press that Shaw and Crompton had more millionaires per capita at its zenith than any other town in the world.
*Shaw and Crompton is known as a notable former mill town.
*Every local history book (all of which meet the reliable sources criteria) for the town describes it at such. It is not described in any as a village, parish or district. One book states it has a parish council.
*Local amature websites describe Shaw and Crompton as a town (e.g. , , ) indicating local convention.
*According to this site, Shaw and Crompton meets definitions of a town. 
*The LGA 1972 s245.6 has been repealed.
*The Office for National Statistics says: "The traditional concept of a town or city would be a free-standing built-up area with a service core with a sufficient number and variety of shops and services, including perhaps a market, to make it recognisably urban in character. It would have administrative, commercial, educational, entertainment and other social and civic functions and, in many cases, evidence of being historically well established. A local network of roads and other means of transport would focus on the area, and it would be a place drawing people for services and employment from surrounding areas. It would often be a place known beyond its immediate vicinity." () - Shaw and Crompton meets this defintion.
*Dictionary defintions invariably define a town as: "a thickly populated area, usually smaller than a city and larger than a village, having fixed boundaries and certain local powers of government." () which Shaw and Crompton meets.
*Terms used in the town locally such as town centre (,  - council literature), town crier and town hall indicate the use of town over village, parish or district in Shaw and Crompton.
*Shaw and Crompton has statutory boundaries, its own two councils, and a population nearly double that of the City of Armagh.
*Shaw and Crompton is just as much as a town as Dudley, Oldham and Richmond, London. A removal of the mention of town would have these settlements remove all mentions of "town-hood". This isn't just for the lead, but the entire article.
*Other webspaces call Shaw (and Crompton) a town (, ).
*That Shaw and Crompton also happens to be a civil parish is irrelevant - Stretford is a town without charter or parish council. Shaw and Crompton was called a town before and after it had a parish council.
*NO evidence explictly stating that Shaw and Crompton is not a town has been produced.
*This NWRA report states Shaw and Crompton has a town council.
*The local media, the Oldham Advertiser reports on the town of Shaw and Crompton (), with specific mention also to the town centre.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jza84 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite, and the additional issue is that the criterion we should be using is verifiability rather than truth anyway. On that count, the status of it being a town wins hands down.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Should I close the poll? Looks like WP:SNOW from my point of view. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No further comments. Closed with this sig. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
The statement The council, which has town council status comprises 14 locally elected members, including three who also act as councillors to the wider Oldham local authority is going too far. The parish council does not have town council status and the three councillors must be separately elected and not on Oldham BC by virtue of being S&C parish councillors as you appear to be suggesting.  You are also continuing to use a discredited source here and in the lead. Chrisieboy (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Remove the source if you like. A overwhelming consensus exists for the claim however and trust you will repect that. --Jza84 |  Talk   13:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Eight votes either way is hardly what I'd call overwhelming and this issue will come up again, but I have no intention of removing it now. Chrisieboy (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: I'm confused as to why Crompton Clinic is referred to in the past tense as if it's closed. As far as I'm aware the clinic is still in full use. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably My mistake. I used to be referred there, but now have to go to Royton. I thought Crompton had closed as an NHS facility and is now something else (a private health centre or something). Feel free to amend :) --Jza84 |  Talk   00:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, it's still got NHS signs outside. I think the redevelopment citation is quite old now and probably doesn't reflect any immediate future plans accurately. Far from building a new clinic, to my knowledge, the following things have happened over the last year or so. Firstly the Village Practice (which was on Collinge Street) was closed and moved into the clinic (technically now there are two receptions sharing one waiting room). Secondly they replaced the fire alarm system (or at least that's what I think they were doing - there were lots of red cables sticking out of everywhere when I went in once) Third, they've painted the outside trims blue And finally they've improved wheelchair access by putting automatic doors in. There's probably more, like buying new stethoscopes but that's all I've noticed. (Me, cynical? Never! :D) ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I think so, but I can't find any citation. --Jza84 |  Talk   01:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Public services

message: There are 3 dead links in the article, this is one of the project's outstanding examples so let's try and get rid of them! Ref #22 is from the Oldham Advertiser website but appears to be one of 4 references used to back up one statement: "Because of this highly profitable share dealing, it was reported in the national press that Shaw and Crompton had more millionaires per capita than any other town in the world". I think we could get rid of it and not bother with a replacement since there are plenty of other sources. I've replaced #58 with what is probably a better source anyway (Oldham council). The final dead link was a church website that now appears to be defunct. Since it's not being used as a source, I have removed it altogether. Nev1 (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to tackle these asap. Actually, once the Royton article had padded out to a B-class, I was hoping to revisit this page and make a few FA-type improvements to keep the article's standard high. --Jza84 |  Talk   19:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead links

message: I'm doing some basic research to start a Philips Park, Bury article, and believe that Thomas Crompton and family may have owned some of the land between 1581 to 1799.  I don't suppose anyone could confirm this, using the references in the article? Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunatly, I haven't read about any connection with Thomas Crompton and the Crompton family. I can have a double check though. Do you have any more clues which may help? :) --Jza84 |  Talk   02:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thomas Crompton 

message: I'm thinking of doing a bit of an update, or improvement drive to bring this article upto speed a bit. Most of the article should be fine to stay as it is, but I do want to make some significant changes in some areas, particularly the history section, namely:
*Try to replace "GENUKI", "1911encyclopedia.org", "British-publishing.com", "shawcam.co.uk" and "web.onetel.com" as sources.
*Cite specific page numbers from specific books.
*Tighten up some of the prose to remove some innocent commentary.
*Reword the Filmography section and bring it into the history section, (I want to create a Post-industrial subsection like Royton's).
*Possibly remove the mills table - I want to convert that material into more solid prose. Still keeping a link the main article.
*Expand the Religion section a bit more.
Any comments? --Jza84 |  Talk   00:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. I thought "1911encyclopedia.org" was an acceptable source? (Although I've not used it in any of the articles I've worked on) If you plan to remove the table of mills perhaps the mills section could be integrated into the Industrial Revolution section seeing as how they're so closely linked? And I agree with moving the content from 'filmography' into history. Possibly something on the history of religion in the area? Not necessarily easy to get hold of though, so maybe not. Nev1 (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a few bites to add. The fact that Shaw had a chapel pre-industrialisation is quite unusual, so I want to expand that. It also had an alternative name. Yes some of the sources used in the article at the time of its FA, I wouldn't really use these days, like 1911encyclopedia.org. --Jza84 |  Talk   10:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Damn! Looking Back at Crompton has no page numbers! --Jza84 |  Talk   15:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, I'm making some changes in User:Jza84/Sandbox2. :) --Jza84 |  Talk   01:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just finished the upgrade/rewrite. The History section recieved most attention, but I also added much more depth to the latter sections, particularly historical christianity and education in the area. --Jza84 |  Talk   17:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work methinks, well done. I was always uncomfortable with the amount of space the mill list took (I can be critical about it because I made it! :D), however I had, some time ago, wondered whether it would be useful in a summary section, or even posing as a TOC in the List of Shaw and Crompton Mills article. Any thoughts? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read that a couple of times but I'm struggling envisioning what you quite mean! I was up all night finding those page numbers, so I'm a little frazzled! --Jza84 |  Talk   20:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know how you feel. ;) What I had in my probably-not-quite-as-frazzled-as-yours-but getting-there head was something similar to say... a television series table at the top of an episode list. These are often set up as a quick summary, sometimes in place of a table of contents. Clicking on a series takes you to the list of episodes in that series. Could we not replicate this style by having the list of mills as a summary and, if you click a mill name, the page jumps down to show more information about it? While we're on the subject I think, although I still think it looks smart, we may do better with expanding that article if we put each mill in a section rather than a table split by sections of the alphabet. (P.S. Sorry, I've just realised we're discussing another article, my fault!). ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I know what you mean now, but could you point to an example article for reference? I presume we now mean changing the main List of Shaw and Crompton Mills article? --Jza84 |  Talk   22:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that is indeed the article I am (shouldn't be) talking about here. I'm afraid I can't find an example now, although I know I've seen that format somewhere... or maybe I dreamt it, I don't know. It's likely what's really happened is that someone, without an eye for creativity, has come along saying "That doesn't conform to the Super duper telly Project guidelines" and removed it. Anyway, I'll try and do a sandbox version as soon as I can to show what I mean. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating 

message: I've just spotted something strange about the (cited) information about the height of the present day Big Lamp. It says it's 'about 6 feet (2m) high. Now I'm 5 feet 9 inches, three inches shorter than 6 feet, but I swear I'm not 3 inches shorter than that lamp, 3 feet maybe. Do we have anything to cite that sounds more accurate? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll double check this. Do you still have your S&C books? I'll look in the Frances Stott ones. I think it might be right though by way of the Big Lamp lying on that hill. --Jza84 |  Talk   22:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right! Found the referenced book... or at least I think I have - Frances Sott, Changing Face of Crompton, printed in December 1996, page 14 - Problem is, it mentions nothing about the new lamp or how high it is. It just mentions that the old one was 'extra big'. So the 'about 6 foot' bit has come from somewhere else I'm afraid. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  <u>Big</u> lamp 

message: Although we can't use them for another 40-50 years, I thought it only fair to share these photographs of Shaw in 1947. --Jza84 |  Talk   03:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photographs 

message: Quick note, ref 41 (GMP link to the area) is now dead. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced the link with one from internet archive. Nev1 (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ref 41 

message: Roger the Poitevin (Roger Pictavensis) was not, to the best of my knowledge a "maternal nephew" of William the Conqueror.  The relationship to William, through Roger's father Roger II of Montgomery, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury, was much more distant.  Nor was he more closely related through his mother, Mabel of Belleme. Zoetropo (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roger the Poitevin 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Shaw and Crompton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060511190505/http://www.gmpte.com/content.cfm?subcategory_id=3367920 to http://www.gmpte.com/content.cfm?subcategory_id=3367920
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070109141715/http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/census2001/ks_urban_north_part_5.pdf to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/census2001/ks_urban_north_part_5.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928030325/http://www.oldham.gov.uk/crompton-moor-history-trail.pdf to http://www.oldham.gov.uk/crompton-moor-history-trail.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928030554/http://www.oldham.gov.uk/crompton-moor-walking-trails.pdf to http://www.oldham.gov.uk/crompton-moor-walking-trails.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928030325/http://www.oldham.gov.uk/crompton-moor-history-trail.pdf to http://www.oldham.gov.uk/crompton-moor-history-trail.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060725160239/http://www.oldham.gov.uk/shaw___royton_area_plan_-_april_04b.pdf to http://www.oldham.gov.uk/shaw___royton_area_plan_-_april_04b.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080422200621/http://www.oldham.gov.uk:80/minerals-waste.htm to http://www.oldham.gov.uk/minerals-waste.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Shaw and Crompton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060725160239/http://www.oldham.gov.uk/shaw___royton_area_plan_-_april_04b.pdf to http://www.oldham.gov.uk/shaw___royton_area_plan_-_april_04b.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928030221/http://www.oldham.gov.uk/shaw_and_crompton_tc_masterplan_oct06.pdf to http://www.oldham.gov.uk/shaw_and_crompton_tc_masterplan_oct06.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070818144641/http://www.nbrown.co.uk/contact/pdf/shawmap.pdf to http://www.nbrown.co.uk/contact/pdf/shawmap.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081116115640/http://www.gmpte.com/content.cfm?subcategory_id=6029065 to http://www.gmpte.com/content.cfm?subcategory_id=6029065
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061209213153/http://www.oldham.gov.uk:80/community/libraries/libraries-in-oldham/crompton-library.htm to http://www.oldham.gov.uk/community/libraries/libraries-in-oldham/crompton-library.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Shaw and Crompton. 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/20131203033524/http://www.lgbce.org.uk/__documents/records-and-resources/bulletins-published-by-dclg/change---bulletin-1987-1988.pdf to http://www.lgbce.org.uk/__documents/records-and-resources/bulletins-published-by-dclg/change---bulletin-1987-1988.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080308095128/http://geoplanning.oldham.gov.uk:80/gis/map.aspx?ACTION=PLANNING to http://geoplanning.oldham.gov.uk/gis/map.aspx?ACTION=PLANNING
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Shaw and Crompton. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://geoplanning.oldham.gov.uk/gis/map.aspx?ACTION=PLANNING
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6BqYKLTfO?url=http://archive.defra.gov.uk/rural/documents/protected/common-land/biosurvey-gmanchester.pdf to http://archive.defra.gov.uk/rural/documents/protected/common-land/biosurvey-gmanchester.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121215171525/http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1595998_shaw-and-crompton-metrolink-trams-start-this-sunday to http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1595998_shaw-and-crompton-metrolink-trams-start-this-sunday
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121024201556/http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/find-inspection-report/provider/ELS/105740 to http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/find-inspection-report/provider/ELS/105740
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930181543/http://www.genuki.org.uk:8080/big/eng/LAN/Crompton/ to http://www.genuki.org.uk:8080/big/eng/LAN/Crompton/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060517232521/http://web.onetel.com/~rgcrompton/origins/1200info1.html to http://web.onetel.com/~rgcrompton/origins/1200info1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Shaw and Crompton. 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/20061120093532/http://www.british-publishing.com/Pages/OldhamOG/districts.html to http://www.british-publishing.com/Pages/OldhamOG/districts.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203032837/http://www.lgbce.org.uk/__documents/lgbce/research/parish-orders-from-x-drive/oldham-parish-of-crompton-order-1986.pdf to http://www.lgbce.org.uk/__documents/lgbce/research/parish-orders-from-x-drive/oldham-parish-of-crompton-order-1986.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://archive.defra.gov.uk/rural/documents/protected/common-land/biosurvey-gmanchester.pdf
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130415031221/http://www.stgeorgesprimarysch.ik.org/ to http://www.stgeorgesprimarysch.ik.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Shaw and Crompton. 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/20140222095305/http://www.pmsa.org.uk/pmsa-database/4353/ to http://www.pmsa.org.uk/pmsa-database/4353/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Shaw and Crompton. 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/20140222154719/http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news-headlines/53539/chronicle-helps-our-suranne-crack-crime to http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news-headlines/53539/chronicle-helps-our-suranne-crack-crime
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160113145959/http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news/65675/crimewatch to http://oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news/65675/crimewatch
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121014201309/http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news-headlines/74196/six-businesses-to-earn-a-crust-at-former-bakery-site to http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news-headlines/74196/six-businesses-to-earn-a-crust-at-former-bakery-site
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070428052839/http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/NEWSM03.html to http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/NEWSM03.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160113145958/http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news/64313/45-new-jobs-as-pub-opens-doors to http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news/64313/45-new-jobs-as-pub-opens-doors
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160311074211/http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news-headlines/96714/deep-end-of-an-era to http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news-headlines/96714/deep-end-of-an-era
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Shaw and Crompton. 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/20150221233023/http://www.tfgm.com/journey_planning/RouteMaps/403.pdf to http://www.tfgm.com/journey_planning/RouteMaps/403.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Shaw and Crompton. 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/20160113145958/http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadKeyFigures.do?a=7&b=11128366&c=Shaw+and+Crompton&d=16&e=62&g=6343559&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1452089205593&enc=1 to http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadKeyFigures.do?a=7&b=11128366&c=Shaw+and+Crompton&d=16&e=62&g=6343559&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1452089205593&enc=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080305011638/http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=5941609&c=shaw&d=14&e=15&g=352796&i=1001x1003x1004&o=1&m=0&enc=1&dsFamilyId=49 to http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=5941609&c=shaw&d=14&e=15&g=352796&i=1001x1003x1004&o=1&m=0&enc=1&dsFamilyId=49
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080305011654/http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=5941621&c=crompton&d=14&e=15&g=352364&i=1001x1003x1004&o=1&m=0&enc=1&dsFamilyId=49 to http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=5941621&c=crompton&d=14&e=15&g=352364&i=1001x1003x1004&o=1&m=0&enc=1&dsFamilyId=49
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080305011625/http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadAreaSearch.do?a=7&c=Shaw+and+Crompton&d=141&i=1001&m=0&enc=1&areaSearchText=Shaw+and+Crompton&areaSearchType=16&extendedList=true&searchAreas=Search to http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadAreaSearch.do?a=7&c=Shaw+and+Crompton&d=141&i=1001&m=0&enc=1&areaSearchText=Shaw+and+Crompton&areaSearchType=16&extendedList=true&searchAreas=Search
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080305011632/http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=5941609&c=Shaw&d=14&e=16&g=352796&i=1001x1003x1004&o=1&m=0&enc=1&dsFamilyId=789 to http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=5941609&c=Shaw&d=14&e=16&g=352796&i=1001x1003x1004&o=1&m=0&enc=1&dsFamilyId=789
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080305011642/http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=5941621&c=Crompton&d=14&e=16&g=352364&i=1001x1003x1004&m=0&enc=1&dsFamilyId=789 to http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=5941621&c=Crompton&d=14&e=16&g=352364&i=1001x1003x1004&m=0&enc=1&dsFamilyId=789
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: This older FA promotion needs some maintenance.  There is uncited text in the demography and public services sections, as well as others.  The table of all churches may be WP:UNDUE.  Several sections also look out of date, such as Demography, economy, and education.  If this article is not improved, it will likely need to undergo WP:FAR. Hog Farm  Talk 22:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020]] 

message: Should Shaw, Greater Manchester be split back again for the BUA and ward or is the overlap with the parish too great? Although being an ONS BUA might not qualify it as a legally recognized place per WP:GEOLAND it is still likely a strong indicator of being notable. A ward likely counts as being legally recognized but they change a lot and often have separate articles to settlements. Shaw is on 4 of my missing article lists namely User:Crouch, Swale/A-Z Mini, User:Crouch, Swale/A-Z bold places, User:Crouch, Swale/Bot settlements and User:Crouch, Swale/BUAs as well as 1 of its subpages, User:Crouch, Swale/BUAs/Revised. Crouch, Swale (talk)  17:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats not the BUA but just a subdivision of the BUA i.e. a BUASD. I do however support a split, we just need good sources on both Shaw and Crompton singular as opposed to treating them together. Eopsid (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created the "Shaw" article as the split has been unopposed but more content may need moving from this article to the Shaw article. BUA and data for the "Shaw" ward are now in the Shaw article. This now deals with the parish but still has content for both places as it covers the history of both. Crouch, Swale (talk)  19:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shaw