Talk:Radcliffe, Greater Manchester

message: "The town also had its own electricity power station, Radcliffe Power Station."
::It was actually quite common in 1905 for each town to have its own power station.  Radcliffe Power Station was privately owned by Lancashire Electric  Power Company which supplied an area North East of Manchester whereas many of the surrounding towns had power stations operated by the local authority - Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale etc.  --jmb 08:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there were also small stations in Kearsley, Agecroft, Barton, Carrington, etc.  Not many people currently resident in Radcliffe would have known that a power station existed, or where it was, as the location is now accessible only by foot or off-road vehicle.  BTW, if you have any more info, please do add to the power station page.  I see you've already added, which is great!  I've been trying to find a picture of the station for ages without success. Parrot of Doom 19:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend that book if you can find a copy, there is a lot on the history of electricity generation around Manchester, I will see if i can add a few more details from it.  I don't think there was a picture of Radcliffe Power Station and would near to clear copyright anyway before it could be used.  It might be worth asking a local paper if they have one you can use, they will often allow use for non-profit purposes.  --jmb 21:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem would be that you can't specify 'non-profit' when putting an image on Wiki, it has to be available for anyone to use for any reason...  I bet someone somewhere has a pic though.  They always do.  In a loft somewhere, or a mouldy old suitcase Parrot of Doom 23:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And most of the commercial encyclopaedia type sites seem to just mirror Wikipedia and add adverts.   --jmb 00:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found a good site to look at is Geograph - most of the images are under a CC licence, and you can copy the images directly across to Wiki, not forgetting attribution though. Parrot of Doom 10:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have noticed that a lot of images from GEOGRAPH are being used on Wikipedia but I always understood that the copyright of images posted to GEOGRAPH was held by the photographer and permission would be sought for use?  I have seen several of mine appear on Wikipedia without any permission being requested.--jmb 10:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you see an image on Geograph, look at the licence - most say that you may use or reproduce the image for whatever purpose, so long as you attribute the author and show the source.  Heres an example I've used for the Wet Earth Colliery page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wet_Earth_Colliery_Wheel_Pit.jpg if you click the source link, then click the licence link under the image on the Geograph page, you can see that such use is allowed.  WikiMedia even has a little utility to simplify copying images across IIRC.  Geograph and licences are a good way of sourcing images for articles without any images.  You can do the same with Flickr, most people don't licence their images (which means you can't use them) but if you ask the photographer nicely, they'll usually change the image licence on Flickr to allow useage on Wiki.  Parrot of Doom 17:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Radcliffe Power Station

message: On the 1850 OS map, turnpikes are clearly visible - one at the top of Black Lane (Ainsworth Road) called Starling Turnpike', another south of that, Oxhey Turnpike (Oxhey Lane) at the junction of Black Lane and Turks Lane (Turks Road).  What is now called Stand Lane is, on the 1850 map, marked Bury and Prestwich Turnpike Trust.  Anyone know any online sources that may help with this? Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turnpike 

message: I've changed the town's population to about 34,000 although this source puts it about 32,000. The 34,000 figure is sourced from the same website. I'm not sure why there's a discrepency, but it's happened for other settlements too. I think for consistency 34,000 should be used as it comes from the dataset we're using for most of the demography data. Nev1 (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding governance, there is an interesting image here (bigger version here) that shows the layout of the district, however I'm not sure there is room in the article for it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a map of Prestwich-cum-Oldham, as well as Radcliffe. So perhaps it's worth putting in that article as an alternative? --Jza84 |  Talk   00:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

text: (ec) Hmm, I think once the history section has been expanded so the images aren't creeping into the next section there may be enough room. It's interesting, but I think we sohuld wait for some free space before we put it in. Ideally it could be redrawn too, but it's not important right now. Nev1 (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, feel free to add to that article.  I have about 20 pages of paper mills to read (god bless camera phones in libraries!)  I have an image of the manor house at the back of radcliffe tower too, just needs cleaning up on my desktop. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 2001 census

message: All the information I have to hand is historical - if someone could enter who supplies leccy, gas, telephones, etc - in modern times - this would be much appreciated :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  utilities and stuff 

message: This is interesting.  Its presumably tied up with Radcliffe Tower, anyone any input on how best to include a line or two on this family? Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You were right about a connection with the Tower, the family (although based in Yorkshire when granted the title) originated from the family who owned Radcliffe Tower , although I don't think they had a claim to it. It's interesting, but I don't think deserves more than a throw away line as "by the early 19th century the family was almost extinct in Lancashire". How about "Descendants of the original Radcliffe family spread throughout Lancashire, and in 1813 Sir Joseph Radcliffe was made 1st Baronet Radcliffe although he did not live in the town" and connect it with the Radcliffe family somehow. Nev1 (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's information that's probably more at home in the Tower article, but I reckon a throwaway line in the history section would do it.  Even something as simple as "The Radcliffe family draws its name from the town." with a reference? Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, sounds fair enough to me. Nev1 (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Radcliffe Baronets]] 

message: How do we feel about going for GA status with this article? It's looking mighty fine! --Jza84 |  Talk   00:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a few things to resolve.  One is the education section, which is lacking information on the former technical college, and the background history of the two secondary schools.  The other is the economy section which doesn't really give much detail to the decline of the town's industry, and the types of job now available.  The other would be the town's function as a commuter town along the Metrolink line.  I'd also like to include information on the Whit walks which used to pass through the town, and a bit more on the current status of the regeneration of the town.  Oh and I also need to put a line or two in about the A665 bypass, how it changed the town, and how they're now planning to bypass that now!  Other than those points, I think its good enough for GA. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think iron out the two  tags and it's ready for GA now and what you suggest needs to be added is FA standard for comprehensiveness rather than GA (covers the main points). It's completely your call though, and the article's coming along very nicely. Nev1 (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unsure how to get references for those two.  The Pioneer Mill comes up in searches for local businesses, I've been there myself many times and seen the small plaques for this and that, so I know there are quite a few units in there.  Heres a pic unfortunately its not very illustrative, but there aren't any good shots that would do that.  The decline of the town's shopping - again, that's personal knowledge, I remember the shops that used to be there (Tandy, Timpson, several banks, newsagents, and the many many pubs) and how lots are now cafes, second hand clothes, etc.  Difficult to find references for those.  Any suggestions? Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had the same problem with Sale for the town centre, in the end I think the MEN had some stuff on regeneration being needed (I think the source was slightly stretched). A local paper might do the trick. Nev1 (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Google may have come to the rescue regarding Pioneer Mills - 15 units, page 61 - 1995.  Would that do? Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I'm not sure, couldn't one company own more than one unit? Nev1 (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

text: But, I think if we use that source with this one (page 5) we can demonstrate that there are several companies in the mill. Nev1 (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Call this the easy way out but I'm wondering if its actually necessary to provide proof.  Anyone can just google the name of the mill and find plenty of businesses in there. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, it's not an important point anyway. I'd be fine with that, and I think it would be a very tough reviewer who makes an issue of it. Nev1 (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAC? 

message: I think Swedenborgian Church College at Radcliffe New Road is worth mentioning. Also there is a Muslim mosque in Radcliffe. M0RD00R (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide any details?  I have none. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

text: One more . M0RD00R (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I'll include a couple of sentences about alternative faiths, using the links above. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Other faiths

message: Can anyone recommend a good source for parish history?  this demonstrates that Radcliffe Parish expanded at some point to include part of Pilkington (the rest was absorbed by others), and I'd like to add a line or two about it. Parrot of Doom (talk)
:It's got to be British History Online! :) --Jza84 |  Talk   14:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that :)  I must be suffering from brain-fade! Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pilkington 

message: Well I think its fairly comprehensive now.  Any thoughts for FAC? Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC? 

message: I would suggest that this is a weaving shed. I have never worked in a spinning mill- but I did do a month in a weaving shed as a trainee night shift pirner- and the machines in question are producing woven fabric, The test is weaving sheds need overhead light- while spinning mills don't. :- ClemRutter (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of cotton mill. 

message: Just a tad bit worried about this change. That style of wording and linking was agreed upon (albeit somewhat informally - we weren't as organised back then) a couple of years ago for various parts of the region, so as to avoid edit warring about the county system(s). WP:UKCITIES recommends they be mentioned too. Was there a reason to delink? I'd be very inclined to pop it back to futureproof the lead. :S --Jza84 |  Talk   19:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason is epicAdam queried the reason to link during the FAC. FWIW, I think it should be linked, and it can be easily justified if it ever comes up at FAC again. Nev1 (talk) 06:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was OK as it was. Mr Stephen (talk) 10:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say I didn't really understand the link (other than informing the reader that Radcliffe wasn't always in Greater Manchester), so just removed it as one less obstacle for FAC.  Sorry if that's ruffled any feathers, but I didn't know where the edit had come from in the first place :)  I have no problem with it being in the article and now can answer the question regarding its existence anyway :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, just had visions of going back to the good old days! --Jza84 |  Talk   13:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so good, and not so old, unfortunately. It led to a crazy situation where Jza and I were criticized for warning a newly-registered, yet clearly old-hand editor, for telling a newly registered editor that it was quite acceptable to go against guidelines in inserting incorrect information into articles so long as it maintained the claimed continued existence of the historical counties based divisions at the expense of the ones in place since 1974.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the wording was intended to be something of a compromise. By saying "Historically part of X" it placed importance on the counties geographic/cultural/whatever value to the area without the tense issues of "is" or "was". It was the only semi-acceptable style that endured any length of time on WP really for Greater Manchester. --Jza84 |  Talk   13:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Crazy situation" doesn't do it justice. Jza went completely over the top and abused his position as an admin in a big way. He was lucky to escape being de-sysoped. I've looked into this issue and it seems to me that the historic counties still exist, but there's a kind of pressure group here at Wikipedia that keeps them subdued, so to speak. Mister Flash (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I can promise you I have no such supposed bias, but issues such as this are best resolved by consensus.  If you don't agree with the consensus, get more people involved who agree with you.  Wikipedia needs as many good editors and educated people on these matters as are available to contribute. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Of course, and you're not a sock puppet watching my edits. Carry on you're good work ;) --Jza84 |  Talk   15:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, not a sock. Wrong, not watching your edits, just glancing at what Dd was doing. I do, from time to time, look at your edits as well. Nothing wrong with that, is there? Mister Flash (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course not. Enjoy our good work ;) --Jza84 |  Talk   15:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 'spies on Jza' Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I didn't realise I had more than one account who followed me round, but since it is one who advises others to go against consensus and guidelines, the account doesn't really count, I think. "He was lucky to escape being de-sysoped." guffaw - don't overestimate your importance at all. It didn't even come close to that.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historic counties 

message: I wanted to add some percentages of population covering religious belief, but all I can find is the original ward structure from the 2001 census, which no longer exists - example.  Is it ok to simply add the figures from each of those wards together and derive figures covering all Radcliffe? Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Best not to use the wards, the spreadsheet here will have what you're looking for. Nev1 (talk) 13:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I hate the statistics websites, they're about as user-friendly as Hitler. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: I think I've sorted this section out now, but I can find no reliable date for Thomas Pilkington's death.  I know he was attainted (virtually all sources mention this) and other sources say he was beheaded (well you'd expect that for treason), but no dates, and I don't want to get confused with any spouses or relatives he may have had.  It gets rather confusing as some sources say he was killed in 1485, others say that a Thomas Pilkington fought at the Battle of Stoke Field in 1487.  I've left it a little ambiguous, as I'd rather say nothing than say something that's plainly wrong.
Could someone also check the grammar I've used in the 'lord of the manors' line, to make sure it reads correctly?
:"Thomas Pilkington was at this time Lord of the Manors of many estates in Lancashire" doesn't quite sound right, I think Lord of the Manors should be singular. How about "At this time, Thomas Pilkington was at the lord of many estates in Lancashire"? Nev1 (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's confusion between a manor, and an estate.  I must admit I don't know the difference - are they in law the same thing?  If that's the case, then perhaps 'lord of several manors in lancashire' or 'lord of many estates in lancashire' or similar. Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the summary, "cm" means "comment/commenting" (from me at least!), "ce" means "copyedit"! It's not an obscene word I assure you! I use it because I have forced edit summaries turned on, and writing "commenting" is labourious! --Jza84 |  Talk   02:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to 'lord of many estates' with a wikilink to lord of the manor. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thomas Pilkington 

message: Being a bit cheeky, would it be possible to get a better picture of Radcliffe Tower than this one. It's ok, but the colours seem a bit off, the resolution is a bit low because it comes from geograph, and the pole to the left doesn't need to be in the picture. Could something be taken with a bit more light on the side currently in shadow while ensuring the other side isn't in darkness? Nev1 (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try and get something this weekend if the weather is nice.  The problem at this time of year is the weather - I live a few miles from Radcliffe now so have to time things to coincide with my cycling around the area. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the weather's ... interesting at this time of year. I wouldn't like to be out and about on Sunday, there's heavy snow forecast. Nev1 (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's me stuffed, I'm cycling in the Lakes on Saturday and working miles away on Sunday :)  If the sun is out on Saturday I'll try and grab a pic then, my mate lives literally 500 yards from it.  Depends which side the sun is on, I think it'll be on the wrong side in the morning.Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

text: By happy coincidence I've got a few photos sitting on my hard disk.  They're not all that good, and most are close-ups of interesting detail, but anyway I've uploaded :Image:Radcliffe Tower 1311.jpg. Jakew (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Best I can do for now, until the sun is higher in the sky.  Let me know which you like, if any.  I was going to get a shot of the Parish Church while I was there, but as you can see in the background of the landscape shot its almost completely enveloped by scaffolding. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 'radcliffe tower hdr' I think.  Well done. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Nice, spoilt for choice really. I think this one is very good for comparison with the old black and white image. Thanks PoD, and thanks Jakew (btw, have you considered joinging WP:GM?). Nev1 (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go back and check when convenient but I don't think they're the same sides of the building.  Unfortunately the opposite side was in the shade so I didn't bother taking a picture which I could use to compare. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Radcliffe Tower]]

message: I believe Radcliffe Library to be a Carnegie Library.  I've only read mention of Andrew Carnegie in relation to the library insomuch as "funded by Mr Carnegie" or "paid for by Andrew Carnegie", but nothing saying "paid for by that massively rich bloke Carnegie who paid for loads of other libraries...".  Before I link him, can anyone tell me for certain if he is the correct person to link to?  I'd be astounded if it wasn't him, its the right time in history after all. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a quick look around.  I think the issue is not whether or not you have the right Andrew Carnegie, but whether you have the right Radcliffe Library.  Mr Stephen (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm certain that it's the correct library, I pulled the information from local history books inside Radcliffe Library.  I've seen two references to Carnegie and the library but only one is in the article.  I'll have a hunt through my notes and see.  It wouldn't be unusual, Eccles library is a Carnegie building, built in the same year. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ... and Stockport in 1913.  It's just that there's also a Carnegie-funded Radcliffe Library in Boston (the one over the pond), see here, and a Radcliffe Libary in Oxford (but nothing to do with Carnegie).  If our Radcliffe library was funded by a Andrew Carnegie, I think it's safe to assume it was funded by the Andrew Carnegie.  Mr Stephen (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see why Radcliffe Library in Radcliffe would have a book on local history discussing a library in Boston, so I'll agree and link him. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Library 

message: Possible competition for .... David Dixon's photos of Radcliffe (and Bury and Rochdale) are pretty good for geograph. Possibly worth adding to this article (Town Hall photo? Or maybe that's good for a Municipal Borough of Radcliffe page?), but certainly worth adding to Wikimedia Commons. --Jza84 |  Talk   00:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No disrespect but they're all quite amateur.  If you like the Town Hall image I can get a much better one.  This probably sounds very snobbish, and you'd be right :) Parrot of Doom 00:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha! I like it! The competition bit was a bit of banter, but they're still good images for geograph - that bit's true! --Jza84 |  Talk   00:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Mind you, this one is pretty good, although I'd have used a wider lens, and a cleaner lens too. Parrot of Doom 01:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New images 

message: I've spotted a couple of things:
# the article says that de-pedestrianising the precinct area was being considered - I think that this may have actually happened now but am unsure whether or not there are any traffic restrictions in place
# if Outwood is considered to be a part of Radcliffe (& it has a somewhat chequered boundary history) then one curiosity was the Outwood Iron Company. I do not know its precise location but, logically, it was at Outwood! It is referred to as one of the businesses that installed blast furnaces some time between the late 1850s & 1880s at a time when the number of furnaces in Lancashire rose dramatically (coincided not just with increased demand for iron generally but also with the devt of the Bessemer process for steel). I know nothing more than what is said in my single reference (Made in Lancashire, Geoffrey Timmins - full cite currently in my userspace at User:Sitush/Draft-article_on_The_Lancashire_Steel_Company). I can do some more digging, of course. - Sitush (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential updates 

message: I am currently writing up Thomas Thorp (scientific instrument manufacturer). He was also an architect & was for many years the appointed engineer for Whitefield council. I am intrigued by a reference to a Thomas Thorp of Whitefield designing a chapel (possibly Swedenborgian) on Stand Lane. Built in 1879, in replaced earlier examples of 1803 and 1841, per page 9 of The Archaeological journal, Volume 144, 1988 - but other than describing it as "more flamboyant" than one in Bolton, it says no more. Another source (snippet view only) says that it had two turrets and was of yellow stone. Does anyone know any more? Can a connection be made? - Sitush (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a church in Chapelfield that was knocked down in the 1980s, here.  Perhaps that was it, although I recall it was black by then.  The only other yellow stone building I'm aware of is behind the Library on Milltown Street. Parrot of Doom 13:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

text: There's this church, also in Chapelfield.  Every time I pass it I can't help but notice the asymmetry - it looks as though one tower might have been removed.  The stone is very soot-stained, so it's hard to tell the original colour.  I took a close look once - there is an inscription saying when it was built, and I remember it was the 2nd half of the 1800s, but I can't remember any more detail.  I can take another look if you like. Jakew (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: PoD, yes, I remember that one. The new building is pretty much sat on the site of the old but is less than half the height. They did the same at Besses (Victoria Square area), although they vacated the replacement building a few years ago. Thinking about it, it is also the correct religious denomination. Jakew, the one you mark is by the row of shops, I think - I'll stop when next passing & check the foundation stone + leave a note here. Stand was one of those areas that moved between local authorities but, in any event, in his architectural capacity he would most likely not have been limited by any bureaucratic allegiances. I have never, ever been  in Radcliffe library but perhaps now is the time, although probably all the juicy stuff has been moved to Bury. I am curious about the impact of this guy & there may be some nuggets worthy of inclusion either here or in his own article. - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some good books in Radcliffe Library, there's a huge cabinet with a shelf full of interesting stuff.  I used much of it for this article, and there's plenty I did not. Parrot of Doom 18:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  refers to the event, although I had to use a GBooks proxy to get the PDF. There is roughly a full page of small print relating to the opening but it consists mostly of notes regarding the numerous speeches of local church big wigs. It is the New Jerusalem place that PoD mentions. Dedicated 28 July 1880,  And after all that, it is still not 100% certain that the Thorp referred to is Thomas Thorp (scientific instrument manufacturer). Argh, although with some more digging there may be enough for an article just about churches that have stood on this site. - Sitush (talk) 08:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See this link or this for an image of the church.  Although oddly enough this isn't the building I remember (maybe my memory is going, as there were no more churches up there). Parrot of Doom 09:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember it, but sans the turrets. Bet they became unstable and were removed. Is it worth me trying to do an article? Sorry, folks, I realise that this is drifting off the TP purpose, and will desist hereafter.- Sitush (talk) 10:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be right there, I seem to recall a blackened building with a bell, through which the sky could be seen.  I don't recall the turrets.  But that might just be my memory playing tricks.  I also just remember the church at the bottom of Radcliffe New Road.  The graveyard is still there.  A question I've sometimes wished answered is what happened to this lovely lamp, which I recall from reading a history book was a monument from a widowed woman. Parrot of Doom 10:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stand Lane chapel 

message: Perhaps some mention of East Lancashire Crematorium, built in the grounds of Radcliffe Cemetery, which opened about 2007, might be appropriate.  It serves the whole of the Metropolitan Borough of Bury, as well as providing facilities for "outsize" coffins from a wider area.  It's also noteworthy as, unlike most crematoria in Greater Manchester, it's privately operated by Memoria, though I suspect under contract to the council (could be wrong on that!).  The company's website is linked from the council's site, both of which contain a little information.  Skinsmoke (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public services update 

message: Hi all, there's a free-to-use aerial photograph of Radcliffe available at geograph. I was thinking that it may be more suitable for the infobox than the current church image, as it captures all of Radcliffe as a town. Any views? --Jza84 |  Talk   10:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good idea but the image shows housing to the north, not the town centre.  The church is visible for miles around but I'm not particularly attached to the image. Parrot of Doom 10:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aerial photo