Talk:Friends of Bank Hall

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Research

"In late 2010 reference to the Legh Keck coat of arms (found above the main entrance of the hall) was found suggesting a much different example of the arms thought to be pre marriage to Elizabeth Atherton, which has been considered a major find for the group." I cannot make sense of this addition. It needs to be clarified?--J3Mrs (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC) What do you mean? a reference? It is part of the groups research progress Bankhallbretherton (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

College plan

Hi Nev is it important to include why the Autism College pulled out or is it enough to simply state that they did? cheers JMRH6 (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a source could be provided explaining why Autism Initiatives pulled out that would be handy, but unfortunately the newspaper article didn't go quite that far, only saying "This disappointment was further compounded by the Autism Initiatives organisation, who had expressed an interest in taking over the building, pulled out at roughly the same time." Nev1 (talk) 00:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh ok thanks very much for the advice, this is one thing that frustrates me is that I know so much information and i know when it happend and that its true, but seen as its not published i cant use it on here :( It can be a bit of a pain trying to find references to the information some times... Many thanks again JMRH6 (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can quite easily imagine the reason the charity backed out was the hall not winning Restoration, and having been involved with local history groups I know this kind of information can be tricky to source but unfortunately that's just how Wikipedia works. To be fair to readers, I think they can probably put two and two together and work out why the charity pulled out when the possibility of a £3+ million prize evaporated. Nev1 (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well... the chariy pulled out due to the Hall not being restored in time for them to use it as a college as they had to move out of a property that they were leasing so they thought that the hall would be ready before then but due to it not winning the program, that delayed restoration, meaning that it wouldnt be ready for their deadline, so they pulled out and then the group searched for a new developer and Urban Splash were eventually selected. finding a reference for this is near impossible but it is documented in the Action Group Records and history and timeline maybe that could be used? JMRH6 (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As they were never there, it seems unnecessary as Nev1 pointed out most readers can work out the obvious.--J3Mrs (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bank Hall Action Group. 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) 15:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook page

To me, this is becoming ever less like an encyclopaedic article, and more like a community group Facebook page. Aside from the mass of uncited material - and many of the cited links don’t work - and the “POV” tone, there is so much trivia: the reopening of the potting shed/the requirement to keep dogs on short leads/family fun days and barbecues etc. There is also the COI issue - many (most?) of the edits are made by editors/IPs with clear links to the group. I’m proposing a severe trim of the content, but would be interested in other editors’ views. KJP1 (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]