Jump to content

Talk:Wigan/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4


Notable people

I'm slowly reworking this section, adding references etc. Anyone on the list who I can't find a reference for will be listed here in case someone else can find a reliable source. Nev1 (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The following have been moved here from the articles as they are unreferenced: Nev1 (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The WIGAN Article

What is written in the Wigan article is rubbish, to say the least.

To mention that there are over 1000 mine shafts within a 5 mile radius of Wigan is simply irrelavent to an article about the town of Wigan. For instance, there has been around 10 coal mines sunk in Wigan, ever, and all of these were sunk on fault lines and took coal from under neighbouring towns. There is no accessible coal seams under the town of Wigan due to strata faults (believe British Coal geologists, not locals who haven't a clue).

Joe Gormley was born in Ashton in Makerfield, BEFORE the 1972 local government act. He worked in St.Helens Area coal mines and was the Union representative for that area until he became the north west, then the national representative.

If you wish to be accurate, Pemberton is NOT Wigan. Pemberton WAS, along with Wigan, a part of the 'County Borough of Wigan'. This was disbanded as a result of the 1972 local government act (into force 1974) and the TWO townships were included in the Metropolitan Borough OF Wigan as part of the Metropolitan County of Greater Manchester.

Even the local authority, Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (or Wigan Council for short) acknowledge the fact that Wigan and Pemberton are two separate townships, referring to them politically as the 'Former Wigan County Borough' yet Wigan and Pemberton 'townships'.

It's wrong to have an article on Wigan as a town, yet include historical information and people which are relevant to the surrounding towns BEFORE the 1972 local government act brought them all together 'for administrative purposes ONLY'!

In a nutshell, if it's not from or about Wigan, it shouldn't be on the Wigan article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.71.235 (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the number of mine shafts around Wigan is irrelevant - many people in Wigan would undoubtedly have been employed in related trades. Does your conservative estimate include bell pits? Joe Gormley does not need to have been born in the town to be included as a notable person, the section clearly states "or have had some significant connection with the town during their life". For instance, Robert Peel had a significant connection with the town of Radcliffe, Greater Manchester, but he wasn't born there, and didn't live there. That doesn't mean that he shouldn't be mentioned, and I have therefore reverted your good faith edit on that matter.
Your opinion that it is wrong to include historical information on details before the 1972 act is, at first glance, a bit of an odd assertion. Towns, or townships, do not and cannot grow or survive without some kind of trade with the surrounding areas and settlements. I don't know a lot about Wigan, but to curtail an article to exclude any details of the surrounding area, seems a bit of an over-reaction. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Parrot of Doom -
with all respect to your opinion, you state yourself 'I don't know a lot about Wigan'. However, I DO, because I live there!
Firstly, Wigan was a town full of Mills. It was a 'mill-town', the buildings still stand.
Other than that, it's a 'market town' and purely commercial.
Wigan is a small town, with a small population figure. (don't think of the regularly quoted population figures here, they aren't for Wigan alone but much larger areas) and the people employed at the coal mines lived in the surrounding coal mining towns, not in Wigan.
Re: Joe Gormley. What 'significant connection' did he have with Wigan? apart from the fact that almost everyone in Wigan had heard his name mentioned? There were no coal mines in ::Wigan in his day, so he certainly wasn't representing any 'Wigan miners'. And, why then is he not included in any other town's article, where there may have been a significant mining community?
There's no excuse for including people not directly 'from' or 'resident in' any any articled town.
I don't know if you are aware, but an article exists on 'The Metropolitan Borough OF Wigan'. That is a much larger area containing many towns, including some of the coal mining towns and many famous people, including Joe Gormley.
So, why not put information regarding 'surrounding towns' in that article, instead of in the Wigan (town) article?
This 'Wigan' article has been 'cleaned up' that many times in the past it's unbelievable!
It needs doing again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.71.235 (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Jemmy H, you need to cite your sources. Do you have some books or journals to support your perspective? You seem to be in conflict with the published domain. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't need to live in a town to know anything about it. There are a great many people who do live in towns, and conversely know little or nothing about them. Your comments about the population seem at odds with those published by the ONS. Now who would I trust — an anonymous IP on the internet, or the Office for National Statistics?
I don't know what connection Gormley has with Wigan, as I don't have a copy of the source provided. Perhaps you should ask whoever added that information, instead of just deleting what you presume to be inaccurate. Or perhaps you could visit the library and find out for yourself, when you've done that, then you should state your exact reasons. If information is unsourced I have no problem with its deletion, but where sources are provided you should assume good faith. You've ignored the example I provided about Robert Peel, so perhaps you should read the textiles section for yourself, and then try telling me why such people aren't worthy of inclusion.
If you want to 'clean it up', I suggest you a) register an account, b) provide wp:reliable sources for any additions you make, and c) provide a solid reason for the removal of material that is already sourced. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Please Jemmy, provide sources. As you've been told many times before unless something is verifiable it doesn't belong on wikipedia. I'm afraid your experience and that you "know" something to be true doesn't make it reliable. Once you provide reliable sources, the article can start to be changed. Nev1 (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


Parrot of Doom, you did say you are 'from' Radcliffe (?) How would you feel if everyone told you that you weren't from Radcliffe at all, but were from Bury? or Bolton? or Salford even, and Radcliffe didn't exist anymore?
Your Robert Peel example is fine, but who do we believe, when one site says Robert Peel was born in Ramsbottom and others say he was born in Bury? Then you classify him as a Radcliffe 'famous person' because YOU say he had connections with Radcliffe?
As for my 'comments about the population seem at odds with those published by the ONS', well no, actually, I simply said that the population figure, as given by the ONS, was NOT for Wigan but WAS for a much larger area ie: the 'Wigan Urban Area'.
The Wigan Urban Area contains several townships in the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan (including Wigan itself) PLUS a number from West Lancashire, including the large Liverpool Overspill new-town of Skelmersdale. Now, you must agree that the population figure for the 'town of' Wigan is not exactly correct if it includes Skelmersdale? Only a complete clown would agree to that, even though the Office of National Statistics are a 'reliable source'!
I notice, on the Bury article, Radcliffe has it's population figure given thus :-
Total population = Radcliffe - 34,239 Bury Borough - 180,608
However, Wigan is given as either 'Former Wigan County Borough', 'Metropolitan Borough of Wigan', or 'Wigan Urban Area'. There is no population figure available for Wigan alone. (the local authority unofficially estimate it as around the 28,000 figure).
For your information, for 'population figures' the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan consists of the Wigan Urban Area, the Greater Manchester Urban Area, along with a couple of 'standalone urban areas'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.71.235 (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
So do you have any sources to back your case up? Nev1 (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Nobody could tell me I'm not from Radcliffe, unless they actually found my birth certificate which states Fairfield Hospital, Bury. You see the point? It's irrelevant what you think you know, its only what you can demonstrate to be true with wp:reliable sources that counts.
The ONS source used gives a figure for the Wigan Urban Area of 166,840. But then again, if you'd read the source, you'd know that, and you'd also know that the figure for Wigan in that source is 81,203.
Unless you can provide a source for your claims, your posts here will be futile. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Nev1, that question is a bit rich coming from you! I edited Kym Marsh out of the Wigan article several times and she was put back in each time. I also edited all the 'Verve' band members out of the Wigan article, only to have them put back in each time. Then , along comes YOU. You totally wipe the Wigan 'famous people' list of everyone who I've already removed and, you've guessed it, they REMAIN removed. The irony of this is that YOU were one of the people who kept putting them back, after I had edited them out, claiming that I needed 'verifiable sources'. Where was YOUR 'verifiable sources' to remove them all at once? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.71.235 (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So that's a "no" then. I'm afraid I don't recall readding the information, perhaps you'd care to supply some diffs. What I do recall is that I the unsourced entries in the notable people section because they were unreferenced and left a note here in case someone else could produce a reference (see the above section). The burden of proof is with the person who adds the information. If you've got a problem with that, I strongly suggest reading wikipedia's policy on sourcing: "a reliable source [should be provided] for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed". Nev1 (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


Oh excellent, the return of JemmyH. The arguments with this individual have gone on for some years. The same tired, inaccurate and biased perspectives have been unfurled by him time after time on both Wiki and 'Wigan World'. His constant unwillingness to accept the concept of using source material to substantiate his claims and the fact that counter claims to his arguments are empirically provable, were two of the primary reasons I left Wiki. I apologise that the post is not in relation to the article, but its clear others are frustrated with the conduct of this editor. Man2 (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Pie eaters

I've removed the following because it's unsourced:

Wiganers are often jokingly known as "pie-eaters", but the origin of the nickname is debatable. Some say that it is thought to be because of their appetite for the delicacy; whilst others that the name dates from the 1926 General Strike when Wigan miners were starved back to work before their counterparts in surrounding towns and were forced to eat "humble pie". There is little credible evidence to support either stance.

A source needs to be provided before this can be readded to the article. Nev1 (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the diff is here for purposes of transparency. This was a breach of WP:POINT, and so I have given Jemmy H a final warning for distruptive editting. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I found a source and have readded information. If Jemmy had concerns about the article, he should have raised the issue here rather than vandalise the article. Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • May I put this fact forward :- Quote article / 'There is little credible evidence to support either stance'.

Seeing as there is 'No Credible Evidence' to support either stance, both should be removed! Especially the one about the 'Wigan miners going back to work before their counterparts in surrounding towns' as, in 1926, there were NO working coal mines actually IN Wigan, they were ALL in Wigan's 'surrounding towns', ie: Ince, Pemberton, Ashton, Hindley'. There were, indeed, NO Wigan miners!

Therefore, Reductio ad absurdum? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.71.235 (talk) 23:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires 'credible' evidence, not local gossip sites. 92.239.71.235 (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It requires reliable sources. The local council counts, and the MEN article is there to bolster it. Where are your sources? Nev1 (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Nev1, don't believe anything that Wigan council tell you. They constantly drummed it into their local residents that the 'Trencherfield Mill Steam Engine' was the biggest steam engine in the world. A load of codswallop, but they even believed it themselves. They also claimed that Marks and Spencers retail chain was 'born in Wigan'. Another load of rubbish, but the locals believed them, to the extent that children were writing essays about it in Wigan schools.

Take my advice. Study the 1926 general strike. Find out which miners went back to work first. Find out for yourself how all the coal mines weren't actully in Wigan. Get to know that there were no coal mines in Wigan in 1926 and not a lot of coal miners either. Then check the '1000 mine shafts in a 5 mile radius of Wigan' claim and decide for yourself if you're still in Wigan if you're 5 miles from it.

Read what areas are covered to get the 'Wigan' population figures. 'Wigan Urban Area', 'Wigan Metropolitan Borough', 'Wigan Constituency' etc., Never is a population figure for 'Wigan' given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.71.235 (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting bored of having to repeat myself. You are not a reliable source. If you cannot provide reliable sources you claims have no place in any of wikipedia's articles. Nev1 (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Nev1 - I can read. I have read all the reliable sources. I've also read the claims on the 'amateur local sites' which you seem to consider 'reliable'. For instance, re: 1000 mine shafts within 5 miles of Wigan claim, If you go 5 miles from Wigan you aren't in Wigan anymore. Neither are you in 'the Wigan Parish'. Nor in 'The Metropolitan Borough OF Wigan'. It's 'common sense'.

Re: the population figures for Wigan are given as 28,000, 81,000, 166,000 and 306,000, depending on which 'reliable' source you care to refer to. Re: the Wigan famous people list. Only about 5% of them are from Wigan, the rest being from within a large radius of Wigan and having a conection with the place that amounts to 'a bus with Wigan wrote on the front stops outside a house they once lived in'!

The Wigan article is totally screwed up and is a good example of why Wikipedia is known as the most unreliable source of correct information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.71.235 (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"For instance, re: 1000 mine shafts within 5 miles of Wigan claim, If you go 5 miles from Wigan you aren't in Wigan anymore". So what? Do you think the mills ran on fresh air?
You're about as wrong as wrong can be on the population figures, but if you think the article is 'screwed up' then you're welcome to improve it—just ensure you use reliable sources, and not 'things I know wot r true in my head cos I know best'. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


Sports section

I've removed the following from the sports section because it's unsourced:

Wigan is home to Billy Riley's Snake Pit, a prominent professional wrestling school that is reputed as one of the toughest in the world, basing itself on traditional catch as catch can wrestling to build ring-tough performers. Garage Pro Wrestling have built a huge reputation in the area as the paramount entertainment company in the Greater Manchester area and beyond and regularly run shows in Wigan.

I have been unable to find a source, but if a reliable source can be provided it can be readded to the article. Nev1 (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I seem to recall nominating a similar article (or perhaps the same) for deletion, yarns back in the WP:GM history. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Wrestling/2007/06/21/4281993.html
 There's a DVD out apparantley. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wigan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments

This looks like a "GA" so I will do a more detailed review, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. Pyrotec (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm just concentrating on the "bad" points at the moment. The good points will be picked up later in the Overall summary:

  • History -
  • Ref 6 is (was) a book and no subscription is needed to read it. However, more interestingly the 1998 (Second Edition) book of Ref 6 does not support the statement that cites ref 6; but it does support the following statement and the next but one statement, "TrefWigan", which cites ref 7. Perhaps new information has come to light?
  • I thought that reference 6, the dictionary of place names, needed a subscription, are you automatically logged into Athens? The reference isn't used to support the entire sentence, eg: dating from the 6th century, but with reference five should (I'll check again once I've got more time, I'm about to log off) it should be supported. The Mills book is probably the definitive version, but local history societies and heritage and archaeological groups are usually quite good and I don't see the harm in including the information from them, however I would be hesitant to get rid of the Mills book because although it doesn't go into much detail it's a peer reviewed publication. Nev1 (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I should clarify. Ref 6 is a subscription site so I did not use it. I have a copy of the Mills, A.D. (1998). "Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names" (Second Edition) Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-280074-4 on my bookshelf, so I'm not using precisely the same reference as the article; but there appears to be a difference. Pyrotec (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The 2003 edition says "Wigan Wigan. Wigan 1199. A Celtic name, ‘little settlement’, from a diminutive of Brittonic *wg ‘homestead, settlement’ (later Welsh gwig ‘wood’)". Nev1 (talk) 08:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • OK  Done. My 1998 version stated: Wigan Wigan 1199. Probably a shorterned form of a Welsh name Tref Wigan 'homested of a man called 'Wigan', but you are not invoking the 1998 version.
  • Ref 12 is now a broken link.
  • Governance -
    • Civic history -
  • The first two-sentance paragraph could do with a reference(s).
  • Some of that was a relic from a 2007 version of the page. I've added a source for the verifiable material and removed the second sentence. Nev1 (talk) 08:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Ref 32 is a 16-page pdf file, you really aught to state that it is(?) page 2 that you are using.
  • Is Ref 33 a full reference or should there be a matching entry in the Bibliography subsection?
  • Geography -
  • Appears to be compliant.

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Demography -
  • Refs 44 & 48 appear to be broken.
  • Economy -
  • Appears to be compliant.
  • Landmarks -
  • Three full paragraphs followed by four bullet points looks a bit odd; but perhaps I'll let this one through.
  • Sports -
  • The "speedway" paragraph is unreferenced.
  • Education -
  • Unreferenced.
  • The first para in Music is unreferenced.
  • Appears to be acceptable.

Pyrotec (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I've just come back from a break and should be able to start properly addressing the issues raised tomorrow. Nev1 (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Overall summary

The majority of the "problems" noted above hve been addressed and I'm confident that the rest will be addressed soon, so I'm closing this review. Pyrotec (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A comprehensive, wide ranging, well-referenced article.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    well referenced
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    well referenced
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well illustrated
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
Congratulations on the quality of the article, I'm awarding GA-status. Presummably another potential WP:WikiProject Greater Manchester WP:FAC ? Pyrotec (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the pass. I'm a bit hard pressed for time, but will try to make sure the remaining points are addressed. While I think the article is there and there abouts as far as GA is concerned, I just don't think it goes into enough depth for FA. Who knows though, maybe in a while, although it's not something I had contemplated. Nev1 (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Boxing Day fancy dress?

Reading this BBC story, I noticed a comment to the effect that wearing fancy dress was a Boxing Day tradition in Wigan. I've since found some other sources for this (eg this one from Wigan Today) but I haven't managed to find anything about the tradition's history. I did think I'd struck gold when Google threw up an Answers.com question asking why people did this, but the only answer was from some comedian who just said "Why not?" So, why do Wigan people do this, and where and when did the tradition start? I think it would be worth adding to this article. Loganberry (Talk) 17:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Wigan Article should be on Wigan

and not the entire Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, and beyond. Wigan itself is a small town. Let's keep this article on 'Wigan' and the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan article on the much larger local government area which is the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan.

92.239.71.235 (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Jemmy, seriously mate. Fuck Off. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Borough

Was I right to revert the most recent edit? Parrot of Doom 18:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Borough? This page is Wigan 'Town'.
Wikipedia itself lists the population of the 'County Borough of Wigan' as 81,144, as confirmed by the 1971 Census.
81,144 people couldn't possibly live comfortably in the town called Wigan.
Wigan council themselves refer to the two towns of Pemberton and Wigan as the 'former county borough of Wigan' in their statistics. The former county borough of Wigan was dissolved, by the act of 1972.
Wigan (town) is nowhere near the largest settlement in the metropolitan borough, neither in terms of population density or size of area.
The problem here is the confusion between Wigan (town of that name), Wigan (Metropolitan Borough of), Wigan (former County Borough of), Wigan (Urban Area) and Wigan (Parish). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.198.91 (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Are you "Jemmy"? Parrot of Doom 19:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I think it is, one pov edit and one that's ok. J3Mrs (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Of course it is. And we've had the Pemberton discussion before. And we've told him more than once that a township is not a town. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.foodprocessing-technology.com/projects/heinz/
    Triggered by \bfoodprocessing-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wigan/Archive_4&oldid=1257818560"