Talk:Maple Mill, Oldham
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
DYK?
editThe article's long enough, I think it would be worth nominating this at T:TDYK. Nev1 (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Mv from page-can anyone source this
edit3 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)
Infoboxes
editThe 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I went with your third suggestion. What do you think? @Mike Peel ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- That's true, it probably is best to leave 'Maple' in there then. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- I went with your third suggestion. What do you think? @Mike Peel ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
External links modified
editHello 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:
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://oneguyfrombarlick.co.uk/forum_topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7926&FORUM_ID=99&CAT_ID=3&Forum_Title=Rare%20Text%20%28Book%20Transcriptions%29&Topic_Title=ARTHUR%20ROBERTS%20ENGINE%20LIST&whichpage=1&tmp=1 - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928030803/http://www.oldham.gov.uk/view_press_release.htm?refno=JB%2FPR%2FES%2F43%2F07 to http://www.oldham.gov.uk/view_press_release.htm?refno=JB%2FPR%2FES%2F43%2F07
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)