Jump to content

Talk:Warrington/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Borough and Town

We have Warrington and Warrington, England -- why? I could understand if one was the town and the other the borough containing the town, but they both seem to cover both the borough and the town. Marnanel 06:45, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good point. Ideally we would have a hierarchy as follows:-

Top level - Warrington (Borough)

2nd level - the old "Civil Parishes" that make up the borough - including Warrington (the old County Borough)

3rd level - districts within the Civil Parishes

However I wonder how much detail we can have for a borough of 200,000 population!

Is Warrington the 3rd largest town in the UK ? The figure of 193,000 surely relates to the Borough which is much bigger than the town. Figures of less the 100000 are usually given for the town.

I don't know who made the immediately preceding comment, but I think it makes a good suggestion in so much as at the moment, the Borough and the actual town are merged together into one article. It would be more consistent to have separate entries dealing with the Borough and then the town, and, at the same level in the hierarchy as the town, the civil parishes. This has been done with the other unitary authority within Ceremonial Cheshire: Halton, and it is also evident in the distinction between the borough of Chester (district) and Chester. This separation is also evident in other similar cases across the entire country.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


Not sure if this is the correct heading for me to ask this, but why is so little reference made to the impact of being designated a new town? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertdemon (talk • contribs) 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

'Warrington' is a town, of that name. Warrington 'borough' is the area covered by the local government, which includes more than Warrington. All the 'Civil Parishes' you include in the article are in Warrington 'borough', but they aren't in Warrington town.

Warrington and Warrington borough are different.

The signs as you enter Warrington borough say 'Welcome to Warrington Borough' on them. Miles further on, and as you enter Warrington, the signs say 'Warrington'.

Wikipedia editors seem to be unable to distinguish places from local government areas. 92.239.71.235 (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Parish of Bold

The last line in the section on civil parishes says something about the Parish of Bold. Makes no sense to me. I traced the page edit history and discovered that the section has always had this line in it (it was added July 2004). Any ideas?

Not a great mystery. The parish of Bold was divided in the local government reorganisation of 1973 with most of it going to St Helens and a small part going to Warrington.

Stations

Bank Quay station is here described as being of archirectural merit and being a great Victorian structure. Neither statement is true. Will edit unless someone objects.

Exile 21:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure they are not referring to Central Station (admittedly not of architectual merit but it is of Victorian Style) I live in Warrington and use this station at least once a week User: djm127920:43 14 Oct 2005

Knutsford

Where did the editor who added this get the idea that Knutsford was part of Warrington, yes admittedly it isn't far but its under the leadership of Cheshire County Council not Warrington Borough Council. Was it the fact it had a "WA" postcode? (I can possibly understand) but two digits after the prefix do not denote Warrington, but the surronding area. NB its been removed by myself, but just as a matter of intrest. Medscin 20:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Size of Warrington, and lack of professional football team

Warrington isn't the second (or even third) largest town in England. There are several larger places that do not hold city status, even if you take the entire "conurbation" figure of Warrington at 158,195, rather than the "town" figure of 80,661.

Taken from the ONS figures: Reading (232,662), Dudley (194,919), Northampton (189,474), Luton (185,543), Milton Keynes (184,506), Walsall (170,994), Bournemouth (167,527) and Southend on Sea (160,257) are all larger than the entire Warrington urban area. Of these, Dudley also does not possess a professional football team.

If measurement is taken by Local Authority, then there are many authorities that do not hold city status that have a larger population than Warrington Borough - for example, Kirklees, East Yorkshire, Stockport, Wirral, Wigan, Dudley, Doncaster, Sandwell, Bolton, Walsall, Rotherham, etc. etc. etc.

What can be said is that the population of the Local Authority called "Warrington Borough Council" is the sixth largest Local Authority that does not contain a town that holds city status, is not a Metropolitan Borough, or is not a London Borough; or the third largest Local Authority that takes its name from a town contained within the boundaries of the Local Authority, that does not contain a town that holds city status, is not a Metropolitan Borough, or is not a London Borough...

In other words - no, it's not. Sorry!

See List of English districts by population and List of English cities by population. Steven J 10:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Census Data

In case you dont know it already Go to [1]. Type in Warrington. Click Search, and choose the the link to Warrington (Unitary Authority),click on "health and care",and the first stats box shows the life expectancy. For housing click on "housing and households", abd scroll down. Ta Medscin 18:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Was I too hasty?

In the course of my RC patrol today, I reverted an edit by 195.93.21.103 that removed a couple of paragraphs of data. It's possible that this was a good faith edit and not vandalism; when on patrol, I tend to assume that removals of data without edit summaries are vandalism, and I may have assumed incorrectly in this case. If it was indeed a good faith edit, please revert my reversion and accept my apologies. --stephenw32768<talk> 21:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look like blatant vandalism, but I can't see the point in removing those paragraphs either, so I would say the reversion was justified. Guy Hatton 08:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Parish Church of St. Elphin - putative Civil War damage

Whist I feel quite confident in having refuted certain Civil War myths relating in particular to where Cromwell and the Earl of Derby lodged, the question of the supposed 'dents' in the walls of the parish church caused by munitions is more difficult for me. My suspicion is that the extensive renovation in the 1770s, and especially the almost total C19 rebuild, which is the origin of the church we see today, would make it highly unlikely that there are any such survivals from the 1640s. However, I would welcome more informed input on this before I go ahead and alter the main article. Guy Hatton 23:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Apology

I apologize for briefly "vandalizing" this page. Even though everything appeared correct in the preview, apparently my browser or myself were having some issues. Someone reverted the page already. I love Wikipedia. :-) I'll try adding my info from another browser later. --Millard73 20:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No Photos?

I think this article would benefit from a couple of photos showing present-day Warrington - does anyone have any around?

I have added a picture of the town hall gates Racklever 14:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a whole load - if you can excercise a bit of patience, I'll get round to sorting some out eventually :-) Guy Hatton 22:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Definition of a Warringtonian

Hey, I know this is a pedants point, but what would you define as a Warringtonian. I would take it to be someone born in Warrington, not just someone living there.

Allow me to use myself an example:

I was born in Warrington, I've remained here since then, however, my parents have lived here for a fair few years, but mum was born in Bolton, dad in Skem, but they don't call themselves Warringtonians.

Just a bit more than my two years.

-DannyM 19:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a little too restrictive. I was actually born in Bowdon, but to parents who were both born in Warrington, and who were resident in Warrington at the time of my birth. I also lived there for the first eighteen years of my life. I most definitely consider myself a Warringtonian :-) Guy Hatton 00:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, but Bowdon isn't that far out of Warrington (still has a Warrington postcode), if you moved from Warrington to Glasgow, would you become Glaswegian(sp??). DannyM 20:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi I was reading the 'Warringtonion' definition. I live in Australia and have done so for 10 years. I was born and bred in Warrington and consider myself a Warringtonion, having emigrated at 24. I do not consider myself an Aussie... You can take the girl out of Warrington but you can't take Warrington out of the girl! I am proud to be a Wolves supporter and still watch on Foxtel. In fact I am a bit homesick atm! aww! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andbatz (talk • contribs) 10:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Project concerning Cheshire

Myself and a group of others have just begun to set up a project which aims to improve all wikipedia articles concerned with Cheshire. Warrington, being part of the Ceremonial county of Cheshire, is part of that. The fine details of the Cheshire Wikiproject are being specified in more details now. We invite anyone who is reading this and interested in it to join. Our overall aim is get all articles that are relevant to Cheshire into Featured Articles, as well as expanding the coverage wikipedia has of all aspects of Cheshire. Please feel free to add your name to the list of participants to the project where indicated, and, especially, to join in in specifying the developing the specific delatils of the project on its talk page. Please also consider adding both the project page and its talk page to your watchlist.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC) 

—Preceding unsigned

Warrington map... wrong?

The OTRS received a note complaining that the map was 30 miles off. The message says it is shown about 30 miles too far north. Can someone look into this? Thanks! ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the map on the article whose talk page this is, then I don't see any problem with it. It is a unitary authority abutting the northern boundary of the shire county of Cheshire, and that is where it is shown on the map. However, if one could see the actual message in which the complaint was made, perhaps my own lingering bewilderment over the nature of this complaint could be clarified.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The email was only two lines and I gave you all the information it contained. Unfortunately I can't reprint the email here verbatim due to OTRS regulations. Sorry I don't have any more information to clarify the request. Thank you for verifying the accuracy. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There's definitely something wrong with the map. Warrington is located (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=53.38732,-2.60288&spn=0.3,0.3&q=53.38732,-2.60288) south of the northermost point of the Wirral. Perhaps the fault in the map is that it doesn't correctly depict the Wirral peninsula. It seems to be missing the portion which is part of Merseyside. In fact the Merseyside article map makes the same mistake - although later in the Merseyside article 'district 5' is apparently shown properly.

You can see that the map correctly positions Warrington in relation to Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside, and Derbyshire, but they themselves are all incorrectly shown in relation to the Irish Sea coast. It looks as though Warrington is on a level with Southport or thereabouts. The entire map of Lancashire seems to have been truncated, and the Fylde peninsula appears nowhere! This map is very poorly drawn, and should be replaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.20.70.197 (talk) 08:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I was born in Warrington, Lancashire - but left in 1969. At that time 'Merseyside' was used to describe the area where the Beatles came from, not as the name of a county. I learned a few years ago that Warrington is now in Cheshire. Maybe these fluid boundaries have created uncertainty. Pavium 23:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation of what you see to be wrong. I can see exactly what you mean. If one looks at the more recent, local maps of the ceremonial county of Cheshire (see Lymm, for example), I think the positioning is correct. The problem is that a comparatively old map has been used in the Warrington article that none of us in the Cheshire WikiProject have had any involvement with. This old map, as far as I can tell, has ignored the substantial water that forms part of the Mersey estuary, and has thus run Wirral penisular together with the land on the other side of the Mersey. If that was corrected, then the positioning of the town of Warrington would probably be correct if it could be pinpointed within the red area that shows the entire borough, given the scale of the map and the limits of calibration. The position of the entire borough would seem to be less of an issue once the problem of how wirral has been joined to the northern bank of the Mersey estuary were solved. In fact, I suspect that the entire problem has, as its root, the badly depicted position and shape of wirral. However, another issue is relevant here that needs solving: the fact that it would probably be better to split the article, so as to have separate articles for the borough and for the town of Watrrington. That way, the town map could use the same map as shown in Lymm, and not risk causing confusion of the area of the twon and the area of the borough on this old map (in this article.) Does that make sense at all?  DDStretch  (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

THE MAP IS DEFINITELY WRONG: it shows a district on the Fylde Coast 30 miles north - you can see the Mersey estuary and Merseyside area is below the area highlighted. Just edit the LA map that is common to these entries and paste it in. 79.75.16.86 (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Tony S

Looking specifically at the split topic - I'd be for a split of the article to form seperate "Warrington" (town proper) and "Warrington (borough)" articles, but only on the grounds that we could find adequate and ample material to support both articles independantly. My first questions on the split would be, 1. Where does the town of Warrington end (unofficially if need be) and the borough of Warrington begin? 2. What advantages would we gain for the article? -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Pete McCarthy?

Surely Pete McCarthy should be included in the notable residents lists?

Borough article

Re: discussion above, todo list, and my talk page: having an article about the borough is a reasonable idea. There are several ways to do it:

  • Treat it like an area that the town is within, like Winchester being a city in the City of Winchester district -- City of Winchester is about the area, not just the administration (it's a bad example, because the city of Winchester article is a stub, but still)
  • Treat it like a subarticle of Warrington dealing with administrative issues, like Bournemouth (borough) is a subarticle of Bournemouth -- the Bournemouth (borough) article is about the town's administration
  • Similar to the above, many settlements use "Politics of ..." articles, e.g. Politics of Bristol, which are equivalent to the "Bournemouth (borough)" article, but with a slightly wider scope

I don't know anything about this particular town and borough, so I can't pick which one is more appropriate. Joe D (t) 21:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think your first option is the best. I've read through the article, and it does seem quite confused at times about what is being referred to: for example, in the geography section, apart from errors (such as stating that Warrington is bordered to the south-west by Congleton0, the placesthat border Warrington seem to be a mixture of places that border the borough and places that border the town. I think this needs addressing with some urgency, and so unless people fdeel moved to object, I will make the first moves soon.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Weather

How old is the weather data? I really can't believe that Penketh's January temperature is now as low as that (42/33F).

Compare with (also from Weatherbase) Liverpool 44/36 and Manchester 44/35. Weatherbase doesn't seem to give the actual years used.

Exile 16:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Too many lists

There are too many lists in this article (see Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Dos and Don'ts and WP:LISTS for guidelines.) The sections that need most attention are the ones listi8ng the civil parishes and the suburbs. I've done some minor editing of the civil parishes list (changed the entries to the official names, all of which have articles on here, even if they are stubs), and I've removed all the redlinks in the list of suburbs and parts of Warrington. However, they need to be replaced with text if at all possible. The list of parishes is a bit redundant, given the template at the end, and so might possibly be removed, but more needs to be done. Any suggestions on how to do this?  DDStretch  (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Is there anybody out these willing and able to convert the pink table into an infobox? WP:UKCITIES now recommends Template:Infobox settlement for places coterminate with local government districts. This would bring Warrington more inline with Manchester and Liverpool. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Once the above is actioned, it might be suitable to put this image into the infobox. Cheers, --Jza84 |  Talk  19:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Or this image? --Jza84 |  Talk  12:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Notable residents

THis section is of quite poor quality at the moment, as most entries have no citations which verify the claim that the people are notable residents of Warrington. The advice given in WP:BLP applies here, as well as past discussions on WP:RS (see Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Wikipedia as a source?.) Furthermore, if any any point Warrington is nominated as a Good Article or Featured Article, citations in this article will be required from reliable sources verifying the entries. Consequently, I've removed all unreferenced entries from the section and placed them here in accordance with advice I received. When the entries have appropriate citations and verification (see WP:CITE, and WP:V), they can be re-added to the section which, at some point, needs to be rewritten as text and not as a list (see WP:UKCITIES as a guide). Note that a wikilink to an article which may or may not contain appropriate verification and citation is not sufficient: the actual verification and citation must occur in this article for the entry to be retained in this article. Finally, I think we should be alert to requiring new entries to have the appropriate verificatioon at the point of entry, or else suffer from removal here or deletion immediately they are seen.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Inadequate references

  1. ^ William Beamont Diaries in Warrington Library
  2. ^ Warrington Borough Council burial records
I have removed two items today from the list in the main article and placed them here because they are inadequately referenced. The references should specify the material in much more detail, as outlined in WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:References, and WP:RS.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Ian brown I believe is on the list twice, didn't want to delete so just informing --Chaosdruid (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Governance =

As part of proposed local government reforms of England, in 1969 the Redcliffe-Maud Report suggested merging Warrington with either Merseyside or Greater Manchester metropolitan counties. Lobbying by the borough council averted this.

Any references for this concerning the lobbying of the council? Seems quite interesting. Cheers. An index of metals (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


Warrington Academy

A section on thismost learned institution is needed. 79.75.16.86 (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Tony S

Alterations in the lead paragraph deleting reference to Cheshire

A persistent IP editor, whose only edits seem to be concerned with removing mention of Cheshire from the article, seems to be active at the moment. I intend to block or semi-protect the article unless there is some discussion about whether to change the opening paragraph away from a form that is well-accepted in other articles, and which has been agreed-upon for many years (bar the occasional person who wishes to deny the boundary changes of 1974).  DDStretch  (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the opening paragraph should stay as it is. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Peter. I ought to point out that the editor returned and I have blocked them for one month. Let us see if any other attempt is made to change the opening paragraph. I should also point out that there is a persistent "drive by" editor who often returns to Cheshire articles (and other articles), and drastically removes content using deceptive edit summaries like "tightening up a bit". He or she is often taken to task by others for this, and he or she will often edit-war if you revert the changes quickly. Indeed, I and others have blocked them for a while for edit-warring, and they never seem to discuss anything. We should be alert for this kind of disruption, too, on all Cheshire articles.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The issue could easily be resolved by a slight adjustment of tone, if editors were minded to be non-confrontational over this point. It's undoubtedly true that the town is in North West England. The town was within Lancashire until 1974. It was administratively within Cheshire from then until 1998. Since then, in local government terms it has not been "in Cheshire", while it remains within the ceremonial county. In my view, saying that the town is "in Cheshire" is an unnecessary oversimplification for the opening sentence. My suggestion is that it says something along the lines of: "...a town in North West England, historically part of Lancashire but, since 1974, within the ceremonial county of Cheshire." I'm aware of the forceful arguments made several years ago on both sides over matters like this, but can't we now attempt to be more conciliatory on these matters - while, obviously, reporting the facts clearly? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC).
I appreciate the point, but we still have the problem of people just editing things out and not discussing things (unlike yourself) when they see something they don't like. Your suggestion would be perfectly fine for me, but I know that if we did that, the "drive by editor" I mentioned would then go and "tighten it up a bit" by omitting all kinds of content, refuse to discuss any of the changes he or she would make, and then potentially edit-war about it. We need to be a bit diligent about this. However, I am hapy about your suggestion.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, Ghmyrtle. I've amended the first sentence in line with this. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
There is a longstanding consensus against this form, covering places that have changed countries as well as the case here where the county has changed. Mr Stephen (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Consensus can change. Please address the points raised. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
The article should state clearly that the town is in Cheshire and given it historical status later in the article. That has been normal praticle as can be seen in Liverpool & Manchester.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand why some editors insist that the town is in Cheshire, when administratively it is not, because Cheshire does not exist administratively. The existence of Lieutenancies can reasonably be assumed to be somewhat peripheral to the concerns of most readers of this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
The Police and Fire are Warrington. The local tourists infor say's it is in Cheshire Welcome to Warrington, the council describes it self as a Borough council. WHich accroding to Wikipedia makes it a sub division of a county. It is in the Lieutenancy of Cheshire. So in order for it to all be consistant it must be in a county and the current county is Cheshire.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I know that some people describe it as being in Cheshire for some (limited) purposes, and I'm certainly not suggesting that we should refer to it as being (now) in any other county. My involvement in this was simply to question this edit, which was wrongly described as "reverting vandalism" when it was nothing of the sort - it was replacing an accurate statement with a debatable one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
The reason I classed it as Vandalism is that the user had made the edit on 3 previous occasions and been reverted by 2 people, me once, then wait 24hrs to avoid 3RR.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Kitchen Knife has it. I wrote at my talk page earlier today Briefly. At the country level, I think we were aiming to avoid what became known as the Britannia construction to describe a location. X is a town in A, formerly in B (year-year), C (year-year) etc. At the county level, the position is that the first paragraph contains the current county. The second paragraph contains the 'historic' county if there is only one. Complex histories go in the main body. The definition of 'historic' seems fluid. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 08:55, 9 September 2015 I would have responded here earlier if I were more adept with a tablet. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

But what is the basis for your definition of the "current county", and why do you think it is so important that it should override all other considerations regarding the primary identification of the location of a place with a history of being in more than one county? "Warrington is in North West England" is undeniably accurate. "Warrington is in Cheshire" is debatable, at best. Why confuse readers? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
This has been gone through,several times. Have you read the guidelines? Do they answer the questions? Mr Stephen (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I know what "the usual convention" is. My point is that the circumstances here are somewhat unusual, and we should try to help readers rather than confuse them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The circumstances aren't that unusual; they apply to any place within a unitary authority, of which there must be thousands. So surely the place to discuss a proposed change to "the usual convention" should be at an appropriate central location rather than here? -- Dr Greg  talk  19:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the point. It's not a question of it being a unitary authority, and it's not a question of it formerly being in one county and now being in a "new" (post-1974) county (like, say, Wirral being "moved" from Cheshire to Merseyside). What is unusual in this case is that the town was historically within one county, and is now (for some purposes) within a different (but equally long-established in name) county. That is what causes confusion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
It is also true of Widnes.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
The historical boundary of Lancashire in red and the ceremonial county in green

And a chunk of land in the East. Lancashire: The urban districts of Barnoldswick and Earby, Bowland Rural District and the parishes of Bracewell and Brogden and Salterforth from Skipton Rural District in the West Riding of Yorkshire became part of the new Lancashire. These places cope just fine with the guideline. Mr Stephen (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Because they are administratively in Lancashire. Warrington is, administratively, not in Cheshire. The position is different. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Warrington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Warrington. 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) 04:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Warrington/Archive_1&oldid=1137309114"