Jump to content

Talk:Anglezarke

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References

[edit]

Please use citations when referencing this article. Please be aware that Ref 9 "Anglezarke walks", from the local newspaper starts with a factual error, the reservoirs did NOT serve Bolton so while its information is interesting it may not be entirely accurate. A page number is required for Ref 8.--J3Mrs (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No chance of a GA for this as original research seems to be creeping in and other editors refuse to learn how to cite. Pity.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War

[edit]

Local metal detectors have found shot from the civil war period near the farm remains, the shot has been verified as from the 17th century, however no records are known of the fights here. --PL.-Snr (talk) 10:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tenants

[edit]

Why is this article turning into a yet another boring list of manor tenants? (nb spelling) (By the way a tenant holds a lease) The article requires a summary of the history, not a list of documents held in archives. The lord of the manor doesn't have to own every scrap of land in the township, he owns the manor, not the township. I'd like to be able to say thanks for taking the trouble to cite, but hey that would be collaboration.--J3Mrs (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I always do. Refer to 'A History Of A Lancashire Family, Shaw, 1940'. Willoughby, Shaws and Pilkingtons all held shares in the manor. The latter is detailed in the book 'Pilkington Wills'. The Standishes held Lead mines clearly for one life, sworn on oath in 1694, this only leaves 6 years of that century for the statement that claims the Standishes bought the Earl of Derbys manor rights in the 17th century. The statement as it appears would lead anyone to think the Standishes had bought the entire manor, they had not, neither did they buy all land. I can see they held rights of the commons and later mining rights, that was the extent of their holding. As with many other manors Anglezarke was split into shares, much is detailed in the books mentioned above. Regards Lord of the Manor, there can be more than one, all manors are split into three elements (better to refer to wikipedia article about that). With the wealth of information we have today I think this article can do better than repeat the errors in the VCH. There are more recent sources that give a correct and accurate account. The statement '17th century' is glib, which element did they buy, the Five_Ws. --PL.-Snr (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You, as usual, miss the point and you appear to think I know what sources you refer to even though they are not cited. You seem intent on turning the section into an interminable list. Nowhere as far as I can see says the Anglezarke manor was divided. The VCH usually mentions it if this is the case. In a short paragraph an article can only provide the barest of outlines. The VCH did this and I attempted to summarise the VCH. Not every landowner in a township was Lord of the manor. You provided no page number for the Smith book and you have cited nothing in this article or any other you have edited as far as I can see. Please learn to summarise, this is not an exhaustive history.--J3Mrs (talk) 08:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I had more time to put to this response, but its that time of year - near Christmas and EOY accounts. I think you may have misunderstood, the problem here is the VCH conflicts with a multitude of other sources in its account of this particular manor, in my note above I have drawn your attention to two of them. Hence I suggested we avoid repeating errors in the VCH. I am sure we can work around that by giving specifics about the Standish extent of ownership with some explanation using the five W's. Leave it open for the future edits correcting the torrent of errors and omissions stemming from reliance on material available online. Otherwise you may as well reword the VCH claiming it as your own and stand by whilst researchers point the figure at you for its errors. The article is much improved with collaboration, except the glib sentence containing '17th century'.
Now to your inflammatory comment that I have 'cited nothing in this article or any other.' behave, some other editors who have not come across you before may be provoked - but honestly - we have been down this path before, just please behave and avoid adding utter rubbish like that. I repeat the offer to make available to you copies from their original format from my own private library of the cited works I have used as it is clear you have not read them. You could otherwise pay a visit to the local library archive where I am sure they will find the books for you. Can you not obtain a copy of the works I have cited, I am genuine in my offer to help. --PL.-Snr (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do as Nev1 suggested [1] and look at how I cite, just to give you a clue it uses the word citation. Same goes for books. I will continue to use VCH it is available for all to see and read. Your opinion of it is your business. I am trying to stop this article becoming a boring list of landowners. As to claims I don't collaborate, I spend ages summarising repetition, putting info in the right place, correcting grammar, finding reliable citations and citing some of your bare urls. What you want me to do is not collaborate, but share your obsession with land ownership, not the same thing. I am doing what is good for the article in exactly the same way HLE and I sorted out the Rivington article otherwise it would be like Anderton. I learn when somebody helps me and try not to make work for others, you just carry on regardless, inserting poor spelling and badly phrased sentences. Remember wikipedia doesn't claim to be correct, just verifiable like the VCH. And remember this Rovington I haven't reopened any Roman mines or made anything else up and don't patronise me by telling me where or how to research and my behaviour in the circumstances is as good as it gets, after all I'm right.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having moved, edited, and disambiguated your last edits I rest my case. Back to Primary sources and raw urls Rovington. I don't suppose you could cite it so others could see it, or is that too much bother? I will remind you yet again long time contributors should show the courtesy of citing in the manner adopted by the rest of the article:-)--J3Mrs (talk) 11:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you either have no idea what I have been talking about or that you are deliberately continuing to use your own method of providing references. Transcripts?--J3Mrs (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it out

[edit]

You are giving a summary of a primary source undue weight, making it read badly, and adding your own original interpretation to something trivial as usual.--J3Mrs (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Anglezarke. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anglezarke. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anglezarke. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anglezarke&oldid=1204867207"