Jump to content

Talk:Denshaw

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

Semi-protection?

[edit]

It's been in the news today and attracting lots of ip vandalism. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been proposed at WT:GM, sounds like a good idea until the view count dies down in. But even if it doesn't get protection, I think the Greater Manchester project can take care of this article. Nev1 (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's only one IP at a time. Block it and it would stop. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked. Thanks Mike. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Block one, though, and three more pop up in its place... Mike Peel (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article's just been featured on North West Tonight. Expect more vandalism... Support the protection implemented as I was typing this. J Milburn (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Protected. Utter cop-out. Where were you all on the day Steve Irwin died? What an advert for the encyclopeda anyone can edit. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. The standard is to protect when there is mass vandalism. Anyway, people are gonna be reading this article after hearing about it on the news, the last thing we need is for them to see a vandalised version. J Milburn (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or to think a new user can edit it. Dear me no. Mr Stephen (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well guys, seeing as you're all here, don't be shy adding any verifiable info :) --Jza84 |  Talk  18:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting how this has led the the article being improved. It's good to see the Greater Manchester project has pride in the articles under their scope. Maybe we need more controversy? :P Nev1 (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is good, I agree. What this probably also shows is that none of us had Denshaw on our watch lists before today. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3,103 page views yesterday; even taking into account editors adding material and the vandals, that must be a couple of thousand people who came to wikipedia either for a giggle or just out of curiosity who saw good article, an example of what we can do. Nev1 (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Views have dropped significantly (between 6 and 8 fold), perhaps we should consider unprotecting the article? --Jza84 |  Talk  17:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It expires 22:41 this evening (UK time) but I've no objection to doing it earlier. Consider it done. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll monitor the situation as and when I can. I imagine it will still be a target, but not to the same extent as on the 17th. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the article has been semi-protected again. Although there is still some vandalistic edits from anonymous editors, I don't think that we need to semi-protect the article any more, as there haven't been that many. If we find that the article is being vandalised many times per day (>10 or so), and by different IP addresses, then the article should be semi-protected. If it's only a couple per day, then it's probably unnecessary. Mike Peel (talk) 11:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I don't mind, as long as you will watchlist the article. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 11:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have it on my watchlist too, and suspect (or rather hope) a few of WP:GM have it watchlisted too. I'm inclined to think that we should try unprotection for a while to review where this vandalism is coming from and how often. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transport

[edit]

Isn't the Transport section somewhat over detailed? What's the point of a whole paragraph about a bus service that was withdrawn two years ago? Richerman (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some changes, and I think it's now shorter overall (and referenced). I suppose the paucity of bus services emphasises its relative remoteness...? Hassocks5489 (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bit about the present bus services tells you that but I cant see any point in talking about a bus route that's no longer there. We've lost plenty of bus services where I live but I wouldn't think of mentioning it in the wikipedia entry. Richerman (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point; I was ambivalent about it (and I'm a transport enthusiast :)), so I have chopped it into a brief sentence. (I still feel there's some value in mentioning that there was previously a connection to an urban area outside GM.) Hassocks5489 (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's spot on now - thanks Richerman (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ive updated the transport section to add the 356 service that has been around for a few years now and removed the 407/354 as being listed as the current transport links. I wasnt able to get any sources working so if anybody could add some sources that would be great. JamesOnWiki101 (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Potential further references

[edit]
  • [1] talks a little about an archaeological site located where the wind turbines were planned for. Reference within that is an article in the Oldham Advertiser, which doesn't seem to be available online.
  • [2] Photo of Junction Inn. There's also information about Rams Head pub at [3].
  • There's a mention of Denshaw in [4], about "The Packhorse Road Trial", which might be worth digging into.
  • [5] has a little history about a house in Old Tame
  • "Village Portrait" of Denshaw at [6].
  • Apparently used to be called "Junction": [7].

It may be worth getting in touch with the Saddleworth Historical Society, as they can probably suggest history books / documents about Denshaw.

Hope this helps. Mike Peel (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are great links thanks! I'll try to use them if nobody else does. I've also found this source, but I'm not sure about its reliability. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Done , how about Did you know? to compliment the hard work?

[edit]

DYK = "...On 17 April 2008, local and national media reported on Denshaw's entry on Wikipedia that it had been vandalised with spoof information. The village has "attracted unwelcome notoriety after it was targeted by internet wicked whispers"[1]...?"

looks ok and bigs up UK, GM - give it a try - worth the hard work -- BpEps - t@lk 01:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea but I think you'll need a shorter "hook" than that. Richerman (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Anon (2008-04-17). "Medieval village accused of having tapeworm outbreak becomes latest victim of Wikipedia entry". dailymail.co.uk. Retrieved 2008-04-17.

Denshaw in the News

[edit]

A few news articles about Denshaw & Wikipedia.

lol Wikipedia must be honoured that IP is EMAP - no late nights then? :-P BpEps - t@lk 09:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Torygraph? Wot no boozy lunches? -- BpEps - t@lk 13:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The news story has even spread to Pakistan! Mike Peel (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing, that's the power of the internet for you. I've changed the hook in the DYK nomination to "international notoriety" Richerman (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Economy

[edit]

I have a reliable source that Denshaw has only a single shop. However, I'm reluctant to start an "Economy" section at this stage. Any thoughts on how to tackle this? --Jza84 |  Talk  17:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would perhaps be the shortest complete economy section in this encyclopaedia. Perhaps stick it under culture and community? The shop serves the community so there is a link. Nev1 (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea. Thanks, --Jza84 |  Talk  17:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[8] from the 31st March 2008 says that there is one other shop in addition to the post office, and that they're considering closing the post office. It also has a little history about the shops in the village: a local is quoted as saying "I remember when Denshaw had a butchers, a co-op, a chip shop - and even a cloggers: it was a proper little village in those days." Mike Peel (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toponymy

[edit]

I've tried the online sources I know of, but I'm struggling finding anything about Denshaw's name beyond that it is of Scandinavian origin. I think it's almost certainly derived from Dene (as in the "Danes") and Skog (as in modern "Shaw", a small wooded area). It's well known that the Danes held settlements in the area; Oldham and Sholver being of Old Norse origin too. Does anybody else know of a source? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need "The Place-Names of the West Riding of Yorkshire" (8 parts, each in a separate book.) by A. H. Smith. Its a publication of the English Place Name Society. If they are arranged as the Cheshire ones are (which I do have a complete set of), they will be categorized by wapentake (hundred in the case of Cheshire) with a couple of extra volumes. The Cheshire ones are quite good on these sorts of things. A good local library may well have them. If you want to buy them, Amazon do have most of them available, mostly secondhand as I don't think they are in active publication, but they are almost all at ludicrously high prices (it took me 3 years to assemble a cheap complete set of the Cheshire ones, by using http://www.bookfinder.com and other searches.) However, the Amazon site, together with the some of the bookfinder listed stores, provide isbn numbers which may help locate a library that contains them.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Denshaw. 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) 05:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Denshaw. 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) 23:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Denshaw&oldid=1206936525"