Talk:Gisburn

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

disagreement about a mention of Gisburn Forest

There were a couple of reverts, so to avoid misunderstandings let's discuss.

User:Mhockey deleted a sentence about Gisburn Forest, with the edit comment "material on Gisburn Forest moved to Tosside": [1].
I reverted saying "no need to remove it from here though?"
My reversion was reversed with a new explanation for the removal: "Gisburn Forest is not in, or adjacent to, Gisburn - it's about 4 miles away"
I reverted again (perhaps I should have already started discussion here, but I still presumed this was just a basic misunderstanding) "4 miles is fairly adjacent and it is within historical Gisburn which is also a subject of this article, at least in passing?"
On my talk page, Mhockey has raised this sequence of edits, answering only the first point about being adjacent, pointing out that there is a modern civil parish between Gisburn and Gisburn Forest.

To explain my concern: the article is about Gisburn, and covers this area both in its modern senses and in older senses. The modern civil parish of Gisburn historically covered not only Gisburn Forest, but also the parish between Gisburn Forest and Gisburn. The boundaries of this older parish largely correspond to the modern ward of Gisburn. A

In terms of WP policies see for example WP:SPLIT. The subject does not seem being enough to justify splitting the article into many articles, one for the modern civil parish, one for the ancient parish, and so on? Therefore it seems reasonable to leave at least basic information about the smaller parishes where it fits? Indeed Gisburn Forest is mentioned in other places in the article, where it seems to cause no concern.

Possibly the specific sentence removed was just going one step too far, but if so let's get that rationale on record. The rationales in the edit summaries did not explain it this way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lancaster Although I don't have strong feelings about it, I'm afraid I'm on Mhockey's side of this one. While it is appropriate to mention Gisburn Forest here, I feel that the population info was included because this is where the redirect then pointed. I would welcome more info in this article about the relationship between the two places. Was Gisburn Forest a hunting preserve attached to a lordship I wonder, like Bowland and Blackburn (Pendle, Rossendale, Trawden)? Trappedinburnley (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually wondering if that was the argument against the removed text. What you are saying about population figures makes sense. I would say that concerning the population figures we can include all or none of the other Gisburn parishes apart from modern Gisburn. Does that agree with what you are saying? One reason for posting here was that the edit summaries did not explain it this way. Concerning the history of the place, I understand it was, as I think you are suggesting, "legally" a "forest" in the medieval sense of the term, but belonging to the ancient parish of Gisburn.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From Visions of Britain: "In 1870-72, John Marius Wilson's Imperial Gazetteer of England and Wales described Gisburn Forest like this:

GISBURN-FOREST, a township in Gisburn parish, W. R. Yorkshire; 8 miles S of Settle. It contains the hamlets of Haughton-Chapel and Owlshaw. Acres, 4, 756. Real property, £2, 491. Pop., 301. Houses, 62. http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/place/12720

Ancient Gisburn boundaries: http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/place/12720

Gisburn Forest in isolation: http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/unit/10427990/boundary

Perhaps the Gisburn Forest population could be replaced with a figure for the ward?

http://data.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/doc/7000000000004720

http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadKeyFigures.do?a=7&b=13693077&c=Gisburn&d=14&e=62&g=6442393&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1458406147266&enc=1

And although it is old, this looks promising on the history side:

http://www.skiptoncastle.co.uk/craven-history/05_Parish-of-Gisburne.pdf

I'll try to find time to put a little work into the article soon.Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guy of Gisbourne

The Guy of Gisbourne page links to Gisburn but apparently the (fictional) Guy in the ballad is from some other location. Should I break the link? Gilgamesh4 (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]