Talk:Maple Mill, Oldham

	Greater Manchester portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester 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.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mills C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mills, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mills 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.MillsWikipedia:WikiProject MillsTemplate:WikiProject MillsMills articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

DYK?

The article's long enough, I think it would be worth nominating this at T:TDYK. Nev1 (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mv from page-can anyone source this

3 april 2010 a father of 4 children falls from dangerous open lift shaft inside the mill police fear foul play and bad practices within the mill lead to the man been rushed to hospital police and health and saftey manager close down the mill --ClemRutter (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

The article now has two infoboxes. It should normally only have one. Any chance of merging them, @Peteb16? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how as we're talking about two different structures, built and demolished at different times with entirely different engines and various other statistics. The infobox doesn't currently allow us to add more than one set of information which is why I made two. Is the answer to get the code of the infobox changed so we can? @Mike Peel ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should have two separate articles, one for each building? Or at least two separate Wikidata entries, perhaps with one that collates the two together. Or maybe we could distinguish between the two in each line while covering them in the same infobox? I don't know the answer here! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went with your third suggestion. What do you think? @Mike Peel ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good, thanks for making the change! Is it worth just saying "No. 1" or "No. 2" rather than repeating "Maple" in the infobox? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I originally typed, but it seemed to me to became ambiguous as to what it was referring to. For example "Maple No.1: George Saxon & Co Maple No.2: Urmson & Thompson" clearly we're talking about an engine in a particular mill. Where as "No.1: George Saxon & Co No.2: Urmson & Thompson" may be misconstrued as two different engines (at different times) in the same building. Some mills do have records of engines being replaced. I realise it's obvious with the construction and demolition dates but I wanted the formatting to be consistent. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, it probably is best to leave 'Maple' in there then. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maple Mill, Oldham. 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) 11:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]