Talk:Haslingden

message: As the person who created the Haslingden_Halo Wiki page in the first place,
however 'unsuitable' by the above submitters standards, it would seem like
only good manners to not 'hijack' the page and redirect it without at least
mentioning the site as a reference page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haslingdenhalo (talk • contribs) 16:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manners 

message: The page on Haslingden discribes the town as being in the Rossendale Valley.It is in fact on top of a hill,any map will clearly show this.However Haslingden is in the Rossendale Borough I have therefore amended the page so it is more factual.The Rossendale Valley is the Valley of the River Irwell.In this area the towns that have the River Irwell clearly running through them are Bacup,Haslingden and Ramsbottom.Verified on any map.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Thompson02 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haslingden Amendment 

message: In the section on St James's Church there's a rather dubious statement that "The church is considered to be the highest parish church above sea level in England". Firstly, "considered to be" sounds a bit wooly. Either it is or it isn't. The reference cited, the church's own website, states "St James' Church is the highest church above sea level in the country", so the qualification as highest parish church seems to be Wikipedia's interpretation. The claim by the church is demonstrably untrue. The OS map shows it at about 255m, whereas within Rossendale there's a church in Bacup at 285m, and further afield there are churches in Nenthead, Cumbria, at 450m and in Flash, Staffordshire, at 460m and 465m. There is no indication from the map if these are parish churches. What does seem clear is that the cited source doesn't support the claim made, and that the church website cannot be taken as reliable. Is there a better source we can cite? Or should this claim be removed from the article? --Helmshore (talk) 09:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Addendum: the church at 460m in Flash appears to be St Paul's Church, Quarnford, which is a parish church, so the claim made for Haslingden does appear to be incorrect. --Helmshore (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'm maybe just having a conversation with myself here, but since nobody else has replied I'm going to remove the claim. I'll also try to do something about the inconsistent use of the possessive. MOS:POSS seems to favour "St James's Church", but cautions against changing away from official forms. In this case, since the church website itself is inconsistent, I will assume there is no officially preferred form. --Helmshore (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been off-line for a few weeks but coming back to the page I agree with Helmshore about the claim with regard to St. James's. I always had my doubts about it when making edits recently, but never got round to double-checking beyond the fact that it was a claim made on the church website. Bob (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  St James's Church 

message: I have reverted all the edits that were made in September. At first I just reverted the one that was an obvious grammatical error, but on looking closer I have doubts about the others too, because they are changing the facts without changing the reference supporting them, and have no explanatory edit summaries. I have no access to "local libraries" to check the reference, so I am assuming the previous text was a reasonable representation of what it says about the ancestry of the communities of South Asian heritage, in which case the changed version probably isn't. Any additional thoughts on this would be welcome, particularly if anyone has access to the source. --188.28.144.140 (talk) 10:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  September edits reverted