Talk:Whitefield, Greater Manchester

message: I think the description of the New Grove Inn is very unfair, this is a regular pub with real people and should be embraced not avoided.
:I can't see any description of the New Grove Inn in this article. Where do you mean? --Malleus Fatuarum 21:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys, let's not forget, that encyclopedia isn't a pub guide in the fist place. M0RD00R 22:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Grove 

message: To say that Whitefield has only ever been a residential town is to ignore its history. It has neither always been a town nor always been lacking in manufacturing industry. There were - for example - substantial textile mills on Hardmans Road, on Victoria Avenue by the railway bridge and off what is now Albert Road, for a start, and James Halstead (aka Polyflor Ltd) has long operated from Whitefield. Sitush 07:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find any sources regarding those, it would be helpful to mention them here or add them to the article. Jakew 11:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the mills etc are clearly visible on historic Ordnance Survey maps and there are references to them also in Thomas Holt's "Pilkington Park" (pub. 1963, long out of print but I have a copy). Polyflor is a plc formerly known as James Halstead - their website and/or Companies House list their address as Whitefield. I can remember going in the buildings on Hardmans Road when it was still operating as a mill, as I did also in the recently converted building on Sefton Street - and I'm nowhere near drawing a pension yet. The site of Whitefield Brewery, by the way, is the current PMB garage on Higher Lane - the garage is actually the same building. I've still not worked out how to edit the main page to Wiki standads yet. Sitush 10:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Residential town 

message: I'm almost done with Radcliffe, Greater Manchester and may start looking at this article.  The biggest problem right now is the lack of references for the information already there.  The Toponymy section has 2 references at the end of the paragraph.  To which parts of that paragraph do each refer - or is the same information in both references?  I can also supply the article with all the photographs it will need, just give me time to get over there. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was me, getting to grips with how to reference. I have the two books mentioned and will be quite drastically citing, editing, adding over the next few days. In the instance you refer to, I did originally set up seperate reference points in the para but it seemed to me to be very untidy when done that way. Neither book mentions all the variations, both mention two of them. Suggestions, hints, tips etc welcome Sitush (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One option might be, while you're building the article, to insert hidden text in the page.  The code is 
replies: text: I'm slightly confused by this because I know the facts/do not need an aide memoire/have known the info for most of my life ... and if the text is hidden then the aide memoire is not a lot of use to anyone else. Clearly, I'm missing your point - could you elaborate please. I'll be coming back to you about photos also, specifically how to deal with WP requirements for historic photos from old postcards (like, 80 year old ones), so any pointers on this would also be appreciated. I've got to start somewhere! Sitush (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Its an aid for editors.  That way if things get shuffled around (as invariably happens), and someone asks you to reference a line that's been removed from its original position.  You should also bear in mind that the article must be written so that it is accessible by anyone.  There are a load of things I'd love to put in the Radcliffe article - things that I know - but unless I can find a reference for them, I can't. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand a bit better, I think. Re: references, that is precisely what I'm trying to do, since the article was void of them and has been for a long time. I think I've covered all the citation flags you raised a couple of days ago (but not one which I raised myself and which refers to a comment which is a borderline POV issue) but feel free to add more & I'll see what I can find. Sitush (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

text: For photos/images over 70 years old you can upload them (preferably on wikipedia commons, but one step at a time) and put this template on it: . If you add info such as author, date, and a description the image will be fine. Images less than 70 years old are more problematic, you enter the realm of fair use which gets comlicated. Geograph has lots of picture, all of which can be used on wikipedia. Flickr has some, you have to do an advanced search looking for creative commons licenses which allow the image to be changed and redistributed for profit. The trick is knowing which license information on the article. Nev1 (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree it looks a bit tidier to have references at the end of the paragraph, but if they're after the facts they back up it's easier for readers to check. Nev1 (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken. Perhaps I should reinstate my original referencing for this para Sitush (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing 

message: Hello,
I noticed the great work being done here, and so thought it befitting to expand the lead somewhat beyond the two sentences that we previously had. However, that said, it's a little bit "generic", borrowing bits and pieces from other articles (like for example Royton), and so it would benefit from someone with a bit more local knowledge sifting through the content.
There is still the option of a fourth paragraph to discuss other matters too don't forget (see WP:UKCITIES).
I based my edits on this, however it isn't a reliable source, and so we'll need something better to work from.
Hope that all helps, --Jza84 |  Talk   02:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Really good work going on here of late - thanks to all, especially for guiding me in my own bits. And, boy, do I need the guidance!
The Wilson book in the bibliography has a LOT of population stats, going back wel before 1901 and as far back as hearth tax returns etc, but the source of the stats is not given and I have been concerned about including them, mainly  because of boundary changes etc. This is yet another aspect upon which I would appreciate opinion regarding inclusion/manner of doing so etc Sitush (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Back to 1801 is probably reliable as that's when the census started, before that they would be estimates. There's no harm in adding them to make a general point, eg: "between 1664 and 1801 the population of Whitefield remained the same/grew/shrank as demonstrated by the hearth returns which indicate the town had a population of xxx; this is probably beacuse..." Nev1 (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Oldham does something simillar in its Demography section; has a table for the main stats, but mentions some older figures in the prose. :) You're doing great Sitush! --Jza84 |  Talk   01:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Blimey, I'm not the only one up late. Thanks for both Nev1 and Jza84 for the above comments. FWIW, as someone who went throught t'mill of a couple of Cambridge history degrees, I think I'm on fairly safe ground to say that it is generally recognised that the first "reliable" UK census was that of 1841, and even that was a bit dodgy - 1801 was definitely a waste of space in statistical terms. However, point (and, more importantly, advice) taken and I'll try to add some of the Wilson figures over the weekend. I go with the flow. Sitush (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be able to add some 2001 figures, they're pretty bog standard and you can see the kind of thing it will be in Heywood, Greater Manchester#Demography. I didn't realise the first four censuses were quite so unreliable, although I'm not surprised. I've used census data in articles about Trafford's towns from 1801–1831 because the data seems to be in line with what happened afterwards and there don't appear to be anomalies. Nev1 (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population 

message: Probably best directed at ParrotOfDoom, would info re: the district of Stand be best included here or in the Radcliffe entry which you have put so much effort into? I'm starting to think that the Pilkington family (of the area, not more generally as a surname) should perhaps even have its own entry but to do this would be way beyond my current abilities. Sitush (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to GMCRO, Stand was an area of Whitefield Urban District rather than Radcliffe. That's usually the go-ahead to say its an area/suburb of Whitefield. Hope that helps, --Jza84 |  Talk   01:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It helps indeedy. I'll rustle something up: it can always be challenged but will probably in time end up as a separate entry (as the info may distract by dint of detail from the general tone of the Whitefield entry), if anyone is brave enough (I'm not, at the moment). Sitush (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

text: It's tricky for me - I know that part of Whitefield was absorbed into Radcliffe, which includes Stand.  The history of Stand may well deserve its own article one day as I believe that initially, along with Stand Hall here (accidentally clouted by a digger in the 50s and sadly demolished) it was the centre of power in the area.  I'm going to put a to-do list in the template on the talk page - people should add to it, that way nothing gets forgotten. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you the person to rewrite the last para of the Geography section? It doesn't look right to me - esp re: Stand - but I'm wary of how correctly to word it. Sitush (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Me, I'd delete every unreferenced line from that section and start afresh - much better to read it in a book and then write about it in the article, than to spend time chasing things you may not be able to find a reference for. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole Geography section could do with an overhall IMHO, it's currently unsourced. I'll try and help with a few bits, but because of Whitefield effectively being "born" in 1866, its absent from some of the online sources that we can usually pillage for geographical descriptions. I found this entry on Stand and this on Pilkington however. We also have these and these sources we can sift through too mind :) --Jza84 |  Talk   16:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

text:  Agreed. The entire section has always grated with me but I'm new to editing and wary of criticising the effort of others Sitush (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stand 

message: David Lee? Nick Blackman? Ok, so I do not follow football that much but are either of them truly deserving of an entry in the Notable People section? I suppose that if they played for their country at senior level then there might be some justification but, otherwise, the list is surely endless. Just a thought. Sitush (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: These sections often pose problems. The criteria for inclusion are 1) the person is notable in their own right and 2) there is a verifiable link between the settlement and the person (it's not enough that the person once played for a local team/had a pint down the local/owns a third home there). I've removed Blackman because he appears non-notable. Lee was at least born in the town so he probably counts, but since his entry is unreferenced you could remove it citing WP:V. Worst case scenario, if there are lots of footballers with a link to Whitefield, they can be mentioned in a single sentence. Nev1 (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like List of people from Bury is on the horizon??? --Jza84 |  Talk   23:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've seen a few sites which claim that Blackman was born in Whitefield, and others which state Bury - an awkward one if the criteria is defined as proof of place of birth (Nev1 allows Lee but edits out Blackman, apparently on this issue, but Bury is often taken as a generic term inclusive of Whitefield and there are too many sites about football to enable an authoritiative reference). I'm not having a go at anyone in particular but from simple maths it is soon apparent that the number of allegedly notable footballers born across the UK in the last, say, 100 years runs into the tens and probably even hundreds of thousands unless some sort of more specific criteria is defined. There were at least two in my own family, for example, who played in the professional era for the senior team of their clubs (one for York and for Stoke, the other I forget), so should I be adding their names to the relevant birthplaces and, still further, the associated photos of them etc. My relatives were, I would contend, minor players even though they played at the same level as Stanley Matthews etc - Stan played for his country and had a longevity that cannot be matched by Blackman's 20 years of age (or that of Lee, for that matter). Again, this is just a discussion point - I am not claiming any moral highground or, indeed, any form of highground at all Sitush (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like we will have to start a List of people from Bury. I actually removed Blackman because he was a redlink (the link wasn't linking to his article); football is covered very well on wikipedia and as such if there's a footballer (at least a modern one) who is a redlink, they're probably not notable. There's also a trend towards recentism, historic players won't get a mention but current ones are often inserted at will. I like your way of raising the bar of inclusion to international level. I'm not sure how widespread this would be adopted, but I think it makes sense and will prevent articles becoming swamped. Nev1 (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footballers as notable people 

message: I don't have time to include it myself, but I thought that this may be of interest to this article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  M62 relief road 

message: Mellor (specifically the occupations of its residents) puts in a single and unexplained appearance in the Economy section - what is its relevance to Whitefield? Is it a suburb, and if so why is it the only suburb to be mentioned in this context? -- Timberframe (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out, it was my mistake, it should have been Whitefield not Mellor that was mentioned (I was working on similar statistics for the Mellor article at the same time). I double checked the figures and the only mistake was the name, which I've now corrected. Nev1 (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mellor 

message: Were the "power stations" built in connection with the Vic-Bury line power stations in the sense of generating electrical power from an alternative fuel source, or electrical substations transforming incoming electricity to a different voltage / frequency? -- Timberframe (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Power for the line was most likely taken from the substation at Radcliffe, alongside the canal. Parrot of Doom 17:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  power station 

message: There are a lot of missed opportunities to link to related articles - perhaps this is intentional to avoid overlinking, but can we consider linking at least some of the following on their first occurence to aid understanding (especially for non-Britons, non-Christians and younger readers):
*Transport - Salford (linked several occurrences later under Culture), turnpike, tram, steam engine, letterbox - for consistency with other articles this should be postbox; letterbox is used for receiving mail.
*Religion - transportation , nonconformist, parson, Puritan, Unitarianism, Battle of Waterloo, Roman Catholic, Liberal, New Jerusalem Church, Methodist, United Reformed Church, synagogue, spiritualist church.
*Economy - Halls links to a dab page, suggest linking to Halls (cough drop) - if this is indeed the same company.
-- Timberframe (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  short on wikilinks? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Whitefield, Greater Manchester. 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/20121026091937/http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/data_cube_table_page.jsp?data_theme=T_POP to http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/data_cube_table_page.jsp?data_theme=T_POP&data_cube=N_TPop&u_id=10095025&c_id=10001043&add=N
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 14:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Whitefield, Greater Manchester. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20081118122418/http://www.gmpte.com/pdfmaps/network/manchester_north.pdf to http://www.gmpte.com/pdfmaps/network/manchester_north.pdf
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 14:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified