Talk:Shaw and Crompton/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Good Article Status

The page may be going through some small changes over the next few days/weeks in an effort to bring the article inline with Wikipedia:Good articles criteria. The changes will be positive ones, including better referencing section, an increase in information and related links, and more photographs.

For Shaw and Crompton to reach this would be a first of its kind given its small size and location, and probably a first for a town/civil parish to meet on Wikipedia.

Please refer to Wikipedia:Good articles for the criteria which we must together meet. We must also bring the article inline with Wikipedia:Manual of Style, Wikipedia:Inline Citation, but also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) and all Greater Manchester related articles. This means (quite rightly) puting the traditional/ancient county bounday information after the current one, as any British administrator will tear our hard work apart on this basis and not grant the Good Article stamp!

I will be providing a solid reference for the opening paragraph. This is the 100% bonifide legal status in short of where Shaw and Crompton is and more importantly was to stop any conflict with any individual (although given the justification made both here and with a reference I should expect there shall be no such problems).

I trust everyone will appreciate the hard work put in. I give particular thanks to User:peteb16 and User:Aquilina for their sources and contributions. Jhamez84 10:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Photographs

Further to the above, the article would benefit from an increase in photographs - particularly historic ones. If anyone feels they can provide any please do so, or even better discuss your reasons why you may have an appropriate photograph for the article, here. Jhamez84 09:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Geographies

"I will be providing a solid reference for the opening paragraph. This is the 100% bonifide legal status in short of where Shaw and Crompton is and more importantly was to stop any conflict with any individual (although given the justification made both here and with a reference I should expect there shall be no such problems)."

Since you are arguing for the legal location for Shaw in OMB rather than Lancashire, then the only acceptable proof is the 1972 Local Government Act itself. Until then I think we both agree that Lancashire was legal geography, so I want to see the parts of the act that abolish Lancashire's geographic boundaries and replace them with another set of geographic boundaries. If this act provides explicit wording that alters Lancashire's geographic boundaries then I will concede and you can word the paragraph as you want. I think this is fair, because we are arguing about legality here which all hinges on the boundary reform act. 81.131.31.184 17:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you have misunderstood how editing decisions on Wikipedia are made. It's well worth any editor having a regular reread of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOT; content is based on the consensus of the general editing population at Wikipedia.

The consensus of the editors at Wikipedia on this particular issue was established and codified here, and this is the framework in which we shall all edit.

In particular, we use the dual approach of using the current administrative geography as a primary reference, followed by the historic geography. All relevant legislation, evidence and current usage was taken into account in making this decision. It has been shown to satisfy more editors more of the time than any alternative, so we have chosen to use it all of the time.

Hope that explains things, Aquilina 17:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. This is just leading us into a fruitless confrontation time and time again.

"I want to see the parts of the act that abolish Lancashire's geographic boundaries"

Acts of parliament don't abolish laws, acts or boundaries. In the United Kingdom, we use what's called Constitutional reform; Acts of parliament simply over-ride previous acts. Now you are more learned about how an Act works, you will understand that it is very much acceptable proof, as it is the most recent local government act and so is in effect. This is one of the reasons why the conventions are set up in such a way. Crown law repeats this, as Greater Manchester has it's very own Lord-Lieutenant.

This discussion page is not the right place to debate these issues - and we can't keep being held to ransom about them either - if you want to take your case any further you should to do so at Wikipedia:Village pump - you'll probably have much more success there. That's some free advise to help. Jhamez84 19:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If Acts of Parliament simple over-ride previous acts, then we can say that the Local Government Act 1972 over-rode the Local Government Act 1888. However the LGA 1888 merely established county councils, and LGA 1972 changed the boundaries of these councils. Neither Act had any effect on the existing geographic county boundaries, which were not created by an Act of Parliament and therefore cannot be over-ridden by one. Lancsalot 19:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

They show a fundamental misunderstanding of UK legislation. Previous legislation is added to. To be 'overridden' it has to be effectively repealed through amendment. The 1888 Local Government act explicitly created 'administration counties', separate to the historic counties. They can verify that here on Wikipedia. The 1972 LGA explicitly abolishes the administration counties and created new local government areas knowns as metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties for administration of local government. The 1888 LGA made it clear that the administrative counties were distinct entities, and the 1972 act only effected change to the administration counties. It never references the historic or geographic counties and certainly doesn't abolish them. 213.122.98.232 20:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd take this to an administrator or Wikipedia:Village pump. Jhamez84 20:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

Can all editors please note that inline with the formulation dictated in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places). The opening paragraph should state:

"Shaw and Crompton is a civil parish of the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham, in Greater Manchester, England. It is ten miles to the north-east of Manchester, and lies within the traditional borders of Lancashire."

This is the only acceptable version of the paragraph to be used, as it is the one backed up by the conventions, and is the one which (by consensus) is most likely to not cause edit wars. Any alteration to this paragraph would be considered vandalism, and at time of this message, has led to the main article being placed under special protection status. Thanks guys, Jhamez84 18:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

== Shaw and Crompton == vandalism - assistance required.

I have just try to clean up this overlong article by removing DUPLICATED information (info that is included in the infobox) and some irrelvant trivia. I have also reorganized by the info box by breaking it down into admin and geography. I believe all these are reasonable edits and within Wiki guidelines but have all bene reverted by what can only be described as a possessive editor. I wholeheartedly believe my edits improve the article and would welcome intervention. I have been accused of being a "sock puppet" by a person who seemingly reverts every single edit not made by him user:Jhamez84. Assitance would be appreciated. Thankyou. Filmfan1971 16:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello. In accordance with Wiki conventions, box data should not be repeated in the main text so I have removed it. This article is too long and will never be granted 'good article status' while it exceeds 30kb. Filmfan1971 14:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Assistance required

I made edits to Shaw and Crompton which were subsequently all reverted by a possessive editor user:Jhamez84 who will not allow any changes other than those by himself. I requested help and most of my edits were upheld by an administrator who restroed them. These edits were immediately reverted by user:Jhamez84. Please can someone sort this editor out and restore my edits. Thanks. Filmfan1971 21:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Justification for reverts

1.- Your removal of infomation did not affect the article size in the slightest.

2.- Article size is a guide, merely recommending 32kb of solid text. So the article is permitted in this instance because the article has lists, tables and pictures - (the true article size is much smaller) - read Wikipedia:Article size.

3.- The infobox -regardless of duplicate info- follows a strict content consensus; The infomation mimics that on say the Oldham article's infobox, and so should be inline with all other articles for consistency.

4.- Removal of the info in the triva section was not required as it was inline with Wikipedia:Verifiable.

5.- You are clearly a sockpuppet of a banned user, the fifth one in a few days. You are trying to assert otherwise, and get me in trouble by saying I'm committing vandalism, please don't - I add content rather than remove it.

6.- Your accounts are being blocked on a case-by-case basis, by administrators for a reason! If you reach a certain threshold of rule breaking (vandalism, conventions breaking, personal attacks) you can be blocked on a much larger basis (all edits hailing from your computer CAN be blocked indefinitely if I compile the data together). You'd be wise to stop this behaviour and start contributing to other articles elsewhere and stop provoking other users into taking this action on a daily basis.

Jhamez84 18:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

While this issue is being resolved I think it would be proper to revert to the last edit approved by an administrator. I am not the only person that has had problems with user:Jhamez84. He has also vandalised Lancsalot's user page and personally abused him. I storngly urge admin to check this person's page to see the full extent of his behaviour. Filmfan1971 22:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

--I did not vandalise his page or abuse User:Lancsalot. I sent him a warning thinking it was you (due to your multiple accounts). I apologised for this, and we have since worked in unison about county status. An admin is welcome to check my history as half of my edits are fantastic encyclopedic contributions, the other half are wasted trying to stop you. Jhamez 00:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The last edit approved by an administrator was this one Since then the reference to Anna Friel has been put back and a typo has been corrected. These alterations are valid unless you can prove Anna Friel did not go to school in Shaw and Crompton and have a citation from the Oxford English dictionary that 'comparative' is spelt 'comparitive'. Personally I believe it should be left as it is, by all means disagree. ~~ Peteb16 22:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No...every single edit was reverted. The point against Anna Friel was thta it is more Crompton House trivia. Do we start to list every single person that attended Cambridge university on the Cambridge page? She was not born in Shaw, and never lived there. Also, the split in the info box into geography and administration was completely undone. Your little friend has been banned and hopefully when the admins see the threats he has left on other user pages of editors it will become permanent. Filmfan1971 22:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, let me start out by saying that I'm not an administrator. Now, looking at this diff, I see a reorganization of the infobox, deletion of some crufty trivia, and a misguided attempt to shorten the article by removing the intro. The introduction is a summary of the entire article, so of course it will have some duplicate information. Deleting it is counterproductive, and only shortens the article by half a kilobyte. Now, if there's some sort of standard for parish infoboxes, we should continue using it. Finally, I'd say it's up to the main editors here if the reference to Friel is relevant (I think it isn't). To Filmfan1971, be aware that you are violating Wikipedia's blocking policy by editing while indefinitely blocked. — TheKMan^talk 23:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

My case for including it in the first place is that Anna chose to go to a school in the area, but never felt it was important enough to escalate beyond trivia and didn't think it would ever be taken this seriously by anyone. Of course if it is a problem, When the article becomes unprotected again we will of course put it to a vote. ~~ Peteb16 23:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Petty Vendetta

This is all part of a petty vendetta, and I've been documenting EVERY quote, edit, account and IP that this offending guy has done for the last three months - I WILL be presenting this to a committee shortly (on the relevant page which I won't disclose here) who can perform a much larger IP and account block (thankfully) so that all edits hailing from this guys computer will be instantly blocked.

I only reverted the (elaborate and cleverly conceived) changes by the banned user (reverting changes by a banned user is totally fine). These were changes trying to entrap me (the earlier edits were much more offensive).

I justified my editing in the summary and in the talk page - I trust that (in accordance with Assuming Good Faith) User:TheKMan was not fully aware of the back story behind these edits, and since understands them. I re-inserted all the info as per my justification above (which each have the backing of a Wiki rule).

I urge the user (whatever account he may be using now or next) to stop this petty vendetta. Your accounts are being blocked on a case-by-case basis due to your constant (3months now) trolling and vandalism and refusing to accept the consensus and conventions of this article. I don't block you - a single, or group of administrators find it totally appropriate to block you indefinately time-and-time again. I know (from the evidence I have) that your edits are simply racially and politically motivated - and I've collated your IP addresses and can now see the threshold in which you can log in with.

Please stop here and consider reforming yourself before it's too late. I offer this as a firm but fair chance for us to work together. You know that I have the full backing of the rules conventions (and have read them and linked them), and you are merely being awkward to assert your vendetta and cause. If you are unwilling/unable to comply with me and Wikipedia, I will take my evidence to the highest level possible. Jhamez 23:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

--Additionally, you may be interested to know that I am aware of your attempts to assert pornographic links onto Wikipedia, which have been repeatedly reverted by admin. I've added this to my evidence. Jhamez 01:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

'Metropolitan County' vs 'County'

In line with trying to make this article conform to the status of a 'good article' it is in the best interests of everyone that we conform to Wikipedia's rules, not necessarily because we agree with them but simply because they are the rules.

In the Wikipedia guideline 'Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)' it is clearly stated,

"Metropolitan counties should be treated as counties - the fact that they no longer have councils has no relevance on their legal status."

Therefore the field header in the table cannot say 'Metropolitan County'. It has to say 'County'. Reverting efforts to obey this rule is not helping the article maintain the desired high standard. In fact the constant reverts, without discussion, may be seen as yet another edit war.

If you feel the rule is incorrect please discuss it on the discussion page for the guideline. If, as a result, the rule is changed then feel free to change the header in the table. Thanks for everyone's cooperation on this subject, the table has now been reverted, hopefully for the last time. ~~ Peteb16 22:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That may well be the Wiki convention, but it does not mean your interpretation of it is correct:

Therefore the field header in the table cannot say 'Metropolitan County'. It has to say 'County'.

It does not naturally follow that 'treating' something the same as something else precludes proper and legal identification. The link directs to 'metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties' not just 'counties'. If their identical treatment should extend to identification as you argue it should do, then the 'counties' link itself should not distinguish between metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties - the link itself violates your interpretation of the wiki conventions! The link directs to 'metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties', so this should be the name of the attribute, or sensibly shortened to whichever type Greater Manchester is. 68.5.182.198 00:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Duly noted. The link has been changed to Counties of England. ~~ Peteb16 09:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, if you have a look at Counties of England (the majority of which I freely admit writing), "county" on its own is an incredibly ambiguous term, with multiple overlapping meanings and purposes throughout the ages. As such, I don't see the harm in using "metropolitan" as ann adjective, which pins down both its function and its date of origin. As long as it links to a relevant article such as Metropolitan county which explains their current use and standing, I don't see that it is contrary to guidelines. The guideline was put in place primarily to stop people putting "former" before every instance of "metropolitan county", just because the central councils were abolished. Aquilina 12:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Aquilina, although I think we need someone official to specifically explain the reasons enforcing a guideline on this issue. As it is, I'm very concerned that at some point we will end up being forced to change it to 'County'. If there is a problem with it then we need to tackle it as source and not keep reverting this article. Although I appreciate people here have taken the time to discuss it, there are still people who will change it without discussion and as far as I'm concerned I am not participating in any more edit wars. ~~ Peteb16 17:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to propose a compromise: If the header said "County" and links to Counties of England, and the entry for it said "Greater Manchester" and in brackets, within the same box, directly underneath it "((Metropolitan county))", would this be satisfactory to everyone? ~~ Peteb16 20:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the infobox follows a strict content consensus. Every other place name article uses this style of presentation (see Oldham for example). And it is dictated in the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places), that Metropolitan Counties should be treated as counties- it is under the title of administration for reasons of consensus. Metropolitan simply means urban- coming from the greek word Metropolis. Not every location is found within a Metropolitan county, so this is why we use the title 'County'. Whilst it is true that Shaw and Crompton belongs to a Metropolitan County, it was deemed too specific for content purposes. The article should stay as it is- using 'County' as a title. Any deviation from this will be reported immediately: This is not open to debate on this article. Dhould it be turned into an edit war, I'll request admin intervention again and document all the evidence. This is backed up by rules, and so I'm merely editing within the guidelines, not intending to challenge any user into bringing evidence here. My sympathies to those who disagree; I'd urge them to take their arguement to Wikipedia:Village pump. Jhamez84 20:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The England 'nation'

This is an incorrect usage of the term 'nation'. England is not a 'nation'. A nation is a group of people belonging to a country. England is a country, and its occupants are the 'nation of England'. The nation is 'The English' (in the plural sense) not 'England'. So either this entry should be: Country - England, or Nation - The English. Filmfan1971 17:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking yes, but in there is a lot of overlap of terms such as nation, country, state, &c. In Britain even more so than elsewhere because the four constituent parts don't have a definitive descriptive name unlike say, the 50 states of the US. Owain (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Most reputable encyclopaedia's stick to strict usage - you won't find many that refer to England as a 'nation'. They tend to refer to it as a 'division' or 'region' of the UK, or they refer to England, Scotland etc as countries and the UK as the 'sovereign state'. I suppose it comes down to how you want Wikipedia to be presented - as a cyber-encyclopaedia where the correct terms are used and can be referenced as an authority on the subject or a college project where the correct usage isn't essential because it has no real purpose. It doesn't bug me enough to get into an edit war over it, but I thought I would bring it to the attention of those who want the article to be as accurate as possible. Filmfan1971 19:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

'Nation' is often used wrongly (by yours and generally the dictionary's definition) to denote a country rather than the people in it. So, to some people, correcting this wouldn't make any difference. To others it would be exercising correct use of the English language which is a perfectly valid reason to me. So as far as I'm aware there really is no harm in changing it to 'country'. ~~ Peteb16 20:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't actually have a problem with general everyday mis-usage of the term since in conversations or news articles the context makes it clear what is meant. The context makes it clear here too so there isn't a confusion issue to be resolved - it's just a pedantic point and that is why I am willing to leave it alone, but I do think correct usage of phrases and words always look better in encyclopaedic entries. I'm in favour of changing it to 'country' too, or perhaps 'kingdom'. Filmfan1971 20:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait a second, you are willing to patronise me by merely suggesting that as there is overlap in usage that I am somehow relegating Wikipedia to be a college project, and at the same time suggesting that England is a kingdom? It is not. As far as no-one referring to England as a nation, perhaps you should take a look at Home Nations. Owain (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree with this. Country is a better title. I'll take a look at the infobox source, and any guidelines on this and suggest a change, not only for this article, but others which use a non-editable table, like on the Rochdale article for example. Jhamez84 20:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

--I've since liased with a couple of "senior" wikipedians, and found that Constituent country was a better term to use. All articles which use a England Place infobox have since been automatically updated. As this article doesn't use the automatic infobox, I've manually edited it inline with this. It was an excellent suggestion. Jhamez84 23:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Anglo-saxon translations

The name Shaw may be Anglo-Saxon in origin, coming from the word "sceaga" meaning wood. Equally, due to the situation of the town, it could be from Old English hoh (hough, hillspur).

This has had to be reverted to its original wording that stated that "Shaw" is from the Anglo-Saxon word "sceaga". The book this information comes from (Frances Stott (1996). The Changing Face of Crompton, Oldham Education & Leisure. ISBN 0902809385) states it does mean "sceaga" so unless there is similar literature that contests this it shouldn't be placed the context of any doubt. Additionally we can't say it 'could be from Old English hoh' unless, again, there is literature that states this as fact. Additionally to say Shaw means Hillspur doesn't make logical sense as the original village of Shaw was in the valley. If you have a book that states it is from the word “hoh”, by all means revert this but please add a citation for it at the end of the sentence. Thanks. ~~ Peteb16 21:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the user in question is applying generic Old-English formulations to various English place name articles throughout Wikipedia. In this instance you were quite right to revert it as the article already referenced a specific (and very reliable) etymology.

I own a copy of the same book (Changing Face of Crompton) and it does indeed state clearly that Our Shaw comes from the word "sceaga"..... This is also backed up in another book I own, "Shaw Church in By-gone Days" (although this book says "sceaga" may mean Wood and Grove).

Additionally, it's also backed up by the history section found within theShaw and Royton Area Plan (Jan 2004), should anyone want to check this who may not have access to these books.

That's three sources that back up this origin. I think the use of the word "Shaw" as a pre- or -suffix (like in Shawclough, or Castleshaw), may use the generic translation which may be from a different century and/or language (Celtic/Old English/Proto Norse/Norman/Old Scandinavian etc). Jhamez84 23:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Metropolitan Borough of Oldham

I was talking to someone earlier today and they were quite adamant that the name of the borough is actually "Oldham Metropolitan Borough" and that "Metropolitan Borough of Oldham" is actually a misnomer. I do not if this is true but they seemed pretty sure of themselves. Does anyone know what the official name actually is? Filmfan1971 19:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The official name of the council is "Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council", this is used formerly as the council name (sort of like a trade name), so this is probably where the person you were talking to got that from. I don't believe saying "Metropolitan Borough of Oldham" is a misnomer, it's just descriptive term. ~~ Peteb16 20:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Metropolitan Borough of Oldham is indeed the official name. It's presented in this way on the welcome sign of my current place of employment. It's the 1970s borough "logo" (as seen on the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham article) which is designed/worded in the alternate way, as well as the Council company name. Jhamez84 19:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Sainsbury's

After a period of waiting for a citation for this information, I've removed the following sentence from the 'Future Developments' section.

Sainsbury's have since bought the houses in front of Dawn Mill and refuse to either sell or demolish them, thus preventing ASDA from building on the area.

I cannot find any evidence to prove Sainsbury's have bought the row of derelict houses on Eastway if the person who added this can cite a source then by all means it can be resubmitted (with appropriate reference). However, as the demolition of Dawn Mill is going ahead without any indication that anyone other than ASDA has bought the land, I believe it's safe to assume ASDA's plans haven't changed and the building of the new store will go ahead. ~~ Peteb16 11:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to add to this - I've been told, albeit in passing, that at somepoint a rival supermarket chain (maybe Sainsburys but possibly Tesco) did indeed own the Eastway properties for a time as they originally wanted the site. When the site was later sold to ASDA it is alledged that the rival would not sell these properties.... this is anecdotal of course and again needs a solid reference, but at least this story seems to have some mythical status in the area. It would probably have been in the local papers at some point if this was true, but I certainly don't feel strong enought about its inclusion to find the source! Jhamez84 01:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

If there was, then it must've been sorted by now as the properties appear to have been prepped for demolition. Does anyone know if the demolition of the warehouse on the opposite side of these properties is any way connected to ASDA? It wasn't part of their original plans, yet coincidentally it's been demolished at the same time. What confuses the issue however, is that new bricks have already appeared on this site. ~~ Peteb16 09:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC) - UPDATE: Just rechecked the old plans, the site is supposed to be part of the car park. ~~ Peteb16 22:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)