Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
WOSlinkerBot (talk | contribs) m Fix misnested tag lint errors |
||
| (44 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{
== Famous people / businesses ==
Line 111 ⟶ 96:
:There is still the problem of the area. That 3.75 mi^2 only covers a small fraction of the town's area. Do we have an area for the entire town? [[User:Michaelbusch|Michaelbusch]] 23:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
::I assume that 'Wigan' is defined as being the area of the former [[County Borough]] of Wigan. You can see more about it [http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/unit_page.jsp?u_id=10109206&c_id=10001043 HERE] [[User:G-Man|<
Yes G-Man you assume correctly. Contrary to JemmyH's protest, the adding of Pemberton to 'Wigan Borough' (i.e. town) in 1904 made Pemberton a part of 'Wigan'. In 1974 'Wigan Borough'(town) joined with other areas closeby to make the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan. A map of the old 'Wigan Borough' can be found here http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/bound_map_page.jsp?first=true&u_id=10109206&c_id=10001043. The map appears to show what I have always suspected, present day Pem (local term for Pemberton) is not a 'district of the Metropolitan Borough' in the same why that Ince/Orrell or Shevy (Shevington) are but rather a part of the old 'Wigan Borough' , or 'Wigan'. The map shows the cut off point at 'Lamberhead Green' which is in the present day area of 'Orrell', which now adjoins Pemberton directly making one large residential suburb. For those of you familiar with the area, there is a roadsign on Pemberton Road which says simply 'Wigan', there are none that say 'Pemberton'. The ONS when giving the population of 'Wigan' includes the areas of Pem , as this area is in 'Wigan'. [[User:Man2|Man2]] 00:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Man2
:I also noticed the population figures for the old borough from 1971. Which show it at about 81,000. I think that more or less confirms it. [[User:G-Man|<
Line 168 ⟶ 153:
I'm looking into the above (I've contacted Wigan MBC and will ask for verifiable sources). If JemmyH is right we should amend any edits to the contrary. This should be an easy problem to solve. Thanks. [[User:Man2|Man2]] 12:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Man2
:Just a line that personal e-mails (regardless of who they are from) won't constitute as reliable sources I'm afraid, as they have not been published. Local history books, primary local government act material, gazetteers, and county borough directoraries would be the best places for sources. Does Wigan not have a library???? [[User:Jhamez84|Jhamez84]] 13:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
::[http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=8271&Pos=2&ColRank=1&Rank=224 this page] links to excel or .CSV file showing that the population of Wigan is 81,203 (line 674) with the Wigan urban area totaling 166,840 (line 668). Compare the named areas to those on [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/census2001/ks_urban_north_part_4.pdf this map], for a complete rundown of the Wigan UA. [[User:lewisskinner|'''<span style="color:red;">L.J.Skinner</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:lewisskinner|<span style="color:green;">''wot''</span>]]|[[Special:Contributions/lewisskinner|<span style="color:blue;">''I did''</span>]]</sup> 00:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
==The Latest 'Spiteful Reversions' by Jhamez==
* What a shambles. Created by an 'editor' who has called Wikipedia' his own. First he contacts my talk page, telling me this .... '
Erm.... if you have a source, then just change the content of the article........ This has nothing to do with me.' Then, when I correct the article, using verifiable information and give a description of the reasons for the different figures, he automatically reverts the entry.
Let's get this right. This article is on Wigan. The 'town' of Wigan. Not the 'Metropolitan Borough of Wigan'. Not the old 'Wigan Borough'. Not even 'Wigan Urban Area (as used by the National Statistics Office), or 'Wigan North' council ward, 'Wigan South' council ward, or anything other than 'The Town of Wigan'. Is that too hard for you all to understand? [[User:80.193.161.89|80.193.161.89]] 09:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.
* And THIS is what you get if you try to ask Jhamez any questions .............
" I suggest you work out the issues you have with Wigan with someone else. I'm not your friend, a private councillor or a cybersexual. I don't want a message off you everytime I log in". Jhamez84 21:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[[User:80.193.161.89|80.193.161.89]] 22:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.
-------------------------------
==Population of Wigans 'Surrounding' Area==
This official source ......... [[http://www.wigan.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/D5DA1AA7-B094-45EE-941D-9C11895A643B/0/agetownship23Kb.pdf]] gives the following information ....................
'Wigan North' contains Wigan, Ince in Makerfield and Aspull. 'Wigan South' (as opposed to Wigan North) contains Pemberton, Winstanley, Orrell and Billinge Higher End. Wigan North population figure = 35,932. Wigan South figure = 37,252. 35,932 + 37,252 = 73,184.
So, it stands that 'The population figure for .... Ince in Makerfield + Aspull + Wigan + Pemberton + Winstanley + Orrell + Billinge Higher End = 73,184.' .... 'OFFICIAL', 'PUBLISHED', 'VERIFIABLE' figures. How can the 'town of Wigan' (as is the subject of 'the article') alone, have a population figure of over 81,000 ? [[User:80.193.161.89|80.193.161.89]] 10:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.
:That's not a suitable source because these are populations of the Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council's so called ''Townships'' - areas that merely share a township representative/co-ordinator for purposes of representing communities on local council matters ([http://www.wigan.gov.uk/Services/CommunityLiving/Townships/] & [http://www.wigan.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/1C22AB31-B10D-4779-904D-F7CA81D9C222/0/TermsofReference_56kb.pdf]). They are not coterminous with town boundaries, hense why the eight unrelated sources cited in the article provide a different but shared, larger total. [[User:Jhamez84|Jhamez84]] 22:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
* You, Jhamez, or anyone else for that matter, cannot get away from the FACT that the sources provided show the total population figure for a 'much larger area' than 'WIGAN', the town which is the subject of the article. The population of the 'TOWN OF WIGAN' is estimated to be around the 18,000 mark. OFFICIAL! Whether Wikipedia articles say differently, or not. Wikipedia cannot be relied on for this reason!. [[User:80.193.161.89|80.193.161.89]] 19:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.
* Here's another set of figures, with verifiable links for WIGAN population figures. These figures include part of Newtown, Pemberton, outside of Wigans boundaries where the census area encroaches into Wigan. ie. Newtown (Pemberton) census area encroaches onto Poolstock(Wigan).
Beech Hill (part of Wigan) 11,485 [[http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadKeyFigures.do?a=3&b=5941500&c=beech+hill&d=14&e=16&g=356947&i=1001x1003x1004&m=0&enc=1]], Swinley (part of Wigan) 10,556 [[http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadKeyFigures.do?a=3&b=5941486&c=swinley&d=14&e=16&g=357537&i=1001x1003x1004&m=0&enc=1]] and Newtown (part of Pemberton) 10,120 [[http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadKeyFigures.do?a=3&b=5941489&c=newtown&d=14&e=16&g=357427&i=1001x1003x1004&m=0&enc=1]].
The map references for these three National Statistics 'census areas' cover the whole of 'Wigan' (the subject of this article) plus Newtown, which is in Pemberton, so the total figure will be higher than the true figure for Wigan. The total population of 'Wigan', shown by the National Statistics, is 32,161. Take Newtowns population of 10000 from that total and you get a figure which resembles the Wigan MBC's 'estimate' of 18,000. [[User:80.193.161.89|80.193.161.89]] 13:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.
Pemberton is an area of Wigan for the last time. [[User:Man2|Man2]] 16:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Man2
* Pemberton is a separate place to Wigan, as is Ince and Standish. It IS in the same borough, FOR THE LAST TIME! Is it so HARD for you to understand these figures? AND, read this carefully, twice if needbe, 'even if Pembertons total population figure was added to the above, the total would be nowhere near 81,000' !!!!!! (fact).[[User:80.193.161.89|80.193.161.89]] 18:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.
** The 'boundaries' shown on this map ... [[http://www.british-history.ac.uk/image.aspx?compid=41379&filename=fig15.gif]] have NEVER been changed. The 'council area' may have changed ie. ward boundaries/borough boundaries etc. But the 'actual place' boundaries remain UNCHANGED. If anyone has 'verifiable evidence' ie. MAP, that they have, please display that evidence! [[User:80.193.161.89|80.193.161.89]] 18:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.
::The figures provided for Beech Hill, Newtown etc are themselves for political wards. Political wards are not conterminus with town boundaries, but local authority district boundaries. They are divided according to population size only and are named for conveinience. Thus, again, the sources provided are not suitable for the town's popluation, which is already provided by seven, reliable, independant sources. [[User:Jhamez84|Jhamez84]] 19:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
:::The map you've provided there is of former parishes, and not of contemporary origin. It's probably from the Victoria County History book on the History of Lancashire from 1911. For these reasons, it does not satisfy the reliability guide on sources. [[User:Jhamez84|Jhamez84]] 19:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
*The map may be old and, yes, the parish boundaries may have changed since then. BUT, I didn't show the map with reference to 'Wigan Parish'. I displayed the map with reference to the 'boundaries of Wigan'. The 'boundaries of Wigan', as shown on that map, have 'NEVER CHANGED'. [[User:80.193.161.89|80.193.161.89]] 19:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.
* The seven 'reliable' independant sources are totally contradictive to the Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council, who should know where Wigan is, and isn't. The 'reliable' independant sources ALL quote population figures for large areas which 'contain' Wigan, but are not Wigan itself. They are, therefore NOT reliable sources! [[User:80.193.161.89|80.193.161.89]] 19:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.
::It is sometimes hard when you believe you are right but so many others disagree... so I hear. However, I must reiterate that these sources satisfy Wikipedia's guide on reliable sources, if not yours. There is nothing in that map from 1911 that states that those boundaries are unchanged; that's merely your personal interpretation of it that you've added. Several editors have expressed dissatisfaction with the editing style and sources you are providing, it would be more appropriate to now work alongside your peers and drop this issue.
::Failing to do this, I see no other option than, in collaboration with other editors, to take you up on formal mediation. Please also desist from formatting your comments in this way, using asterixes. You should use indents as outlined at [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines]]. [[User:Jhamez84|Jhamez84]] 19:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
* '..... There is nothing in that map from 1911 that states that those boundaries are unchanged...'
There is also nothing shown that states that they are! The 'only' way forward with this is to delete all other township articles and to create one article to cover Wigan and it's surrounding places. As long as there are separate articles covering Pemberton/Winstanley/Ince/Orrell/Abram etc., giving details of those places, they should not be counted in Wigans details. It seems that Jhamez has added population figures for Orrell and Winstanley to the respective articles. WHY? when their population has been added to the Wigan figure. [[User:80.193.161.89|80.193.161.89]] 22:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.
:There are articles for every [[Birmingham#Areas and suburbs of the city|every suburb of Birmingham]]. Nobody would argue that [[Aston]] or [[Longbridge]] say weren't part of Birmingham, even though they were historically independent settlements which were incorporated into Birmingham as it expanded. Pemberton was incorporated into Wigan a long time ago 'hence' it is a part of Wigan. How many times does this need explaining to you? [[User:G-Man|<span style="color:blue;">G-Man</span>]] [[User talk:G-Man|*]] 23:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
::Would you like to elevate this to formal mediation? We would have to provide evidence, involved editors, amounts of blocking a user has incurred, evidence of referencing and consensus building, as well as good faith. We'd be required to account for our material and justify our contentions in an academic manner. I, Man2, MRSC, Regan123, and G-Man have all stated that your contention is dissatisfactory and tantamount to distruption. You're exhausting me personally as a contributor, and I see that the only way to resolve this is under the eyes of administrators. We've been through the stages of Negotiation, Requests for comment and Third opinion, the next step is to present evidence to the [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee]]. The options here are to either stop this POV editting, or to request a formal hearing. [[User:Jhamez84|Jhamez84]] 23:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
* G-Man, I know that Pemberton was incorporated into Wigan 'borough' a long time ago. I also know why it was incorporated into Wigan 'borough'. I know a lot more about this area than you think. I have said, all along, that there is 'no argument' about which council area/political ward/admin.area/borough/postal area/postcode/bus route area/boys brigade region/football supporters area etc. etc. etc., that Pemberton is in. Even before Pemberton was part of the 'Wigan Borough' it was in Wigan 'Parish'. Wigan is 'in' Greater Manchester, but it's not 'in' Manchester. Wigan is 'in' the Diocese of Liverpool, but it's not 'in' Liverpool. Because Pemberton is 'in' the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, it doesn't mean it's 'in' Wigan, just the same as Leigh is not 'in' Wigan, nor is Ince or Hindley etc.. They all make up the 'borough' named Wigan, but we're not talking 'borough' here, we're talking the 'town', which is the subject of the article, and it has 'boundaries'. Take Billinge for instance. Billinge is in St.Helens Borough, Seneley Green Ward, Wigan postcode, shares 'phone dialling code with St.Helens, Wigan and Ormskirk, the church is in Wigan Parish, in the Diocese of Liverpool. But Billinge has marked boundaries, which show what's 'in' and what's 'out', just like Pemberton has! It may say 'Kellogs' on the side of a bus, but it won't sell cornflakes! [[User:80.193.161.89|80.193.161.89]] 10:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.
::Yes, the trouble here is that most of the world regards Wigan as being the area which includes Pemberton etc, as can be seen from most official sources. As an encyclopedia we have to follow official definitions which have been laid out in published sources (see [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]) not personally invented ones as that constitutes [[Wikipedia:OR|original research]] which is against wikipedia policy. [[User:G-Man|<span style="color:blue;">G-Man</span>]] [[User talk:G-Man|*]] 21:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I don't think "personally invented" is a useful description. As I understand it, the anon wishes to use the ancient definition of the township that was in use at least until the creation of the borough of Wigan in c.1835, and was the ''de facto'' definition for a while afterwards. I have some sympathy for his position, but my preference for the subject of the article named 'Wigan' would be for the county borough that was in existence pre 1974. However, the definitions of the constituent parts, other than Wigan itself, should be the ancient townships. [[User:Mr Stephen|Mr Stephen]] 08:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
::::In any event that is clearly not the definition that is used today. As has been repeatedly demonstrated. Hopefully we can now let this matter drop. [[User:G-Man|<span style="color:blue;">G-Man</span>]] [[User talk:G-Man|*]] 19:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
=== BAN JEMMYH ===
I suggest that JemmyH should be banned from this site altogether. He continuously posts on here to wind people up and cause arguments (NOT discussions) He twists facts to suit his own argument conveniently leaving out any FACT (as he likes to type) that disprove his ignorance.
JemmyH isn't even from Wigan and has no connection with the town yet he checks this site daily to cause trouble (and has done for months).
I suggest Wikipedia bans him so that he can spend his meaningless cyber-existence on some other Website, maybe even a dating site so that he can meet a nice girl (or boy) and forget all about petty discussions about things that don't even concern him in ANY way. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/195.224.113.189|195.224.113.189]] ([[User talk:195.224.113.189|talk]]) 13:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
:This talk page is for discussing the content on the Wigan article, not specific contributors. If you have evidence that the user in question is so disruptive he/her warrents an [[Wikipedia:Banning policy|indefinate ban]], please provide evidence at the administrators notice board, not here.
:I would add that the user in question has demonstrated bad-faith and distruptive editting, and has received several short-term blocks. However, using [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] against any user, good-or-bad, is likely to get you in trouble also, so please be mindful of this and take more care when contributing to Wikipedia. Please also [[WP:SIG|sign your comments]]. [[User:Jhamez84|Jhamez84]] 22:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
________
I would like to add that the population figure given there is not actually for the town of wigan as is suggested. That figure is for an urban area, which includes the town, wigan, but also other towns, many of which are densely populated. ie. skelmersdale in west lancashire, pemberton and winstanley.
I have spent time reading through jimmy's comments and, although they are aggressively presented, many are quite correct. It is true that the town of wigan is part of a large metropolitan borough of the same name, however the town and the metropolitan borough are two totally different entities, one a comparatively small part of the other. Colin. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/80.193.161.89|80.193.161.89]] ([[User talk:80.193.161.89|talk]]) 11:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: LOL, well 'colin' that's the saddest thing I've ever seen on the internet considering YOU are JemmyH <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/77.96.187.124|77.96.187.124]] ([[User talk:77.96.187.124|talk]]) 20:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Wigan ==
This article, being titled 'Wigan', should be about the town of Wigan and not include other towns, which are not Wigan but which happen to be, for the time being, within the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan (which is covered by it's own article). The Metropolitan Borough of Wigan and the town of Wigan are two clearly different places and Wigan needs an article by itself. This is it. C.Thomas (Wigan). <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/80.193.161.89|80.193.161.89]] ([[User talk:80.193.161.89|talk]]) 20:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:You are not C Thomas, you are Jemmy H. You were banned for being disruptive, arrogant and obnoxious. If any Moderators would like to check this guys history then they will see this.
:For the last 6 months there has been peace and harmony on the Wigan pages during your ban. Now unfortunately you are rearing your ugly head again.
:You are continuing from where you left off by starting the same theme over again by removing things that should be on the Wigan page. I am putting 'The Verve' back where it should be as this has been discussed to death. I would also like to point out that I think you are the biggest idiot in the history of mankind.<small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:77.96.187.124|77.96.187.124]] ([[User talk:77.96.187.124|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/77.96.187.124|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
: Why was Lawrence Isherwood removed from the famous wiganners list ? He is clearly famous and from Wigan. I have re-added.
http://www.modernbritishartists.co.uk/isherwood_biog.htm <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.33.132.231|82.33.132.231]] ([[User talk:82.33.132.231|talk]]) 21:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
AGAIN ??? Why was Lawrence Isherwood removed from the famous wiganners list ? He is clearly famous and from Wigan. I have re-added. Please give a REASON ???
http://www.modernbritishartists.co.uk/isherwood_biog.htm <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.33.132.231|82.33.132.231]] ([[User talk:82.33.132.231|talk]]) 21:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
------------------------------
The 'Metropolitan Borough of Wigan' consists of many different towns. The residents of these towns
are proud to belong to their respective town or area. 'Wigan' (not the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan) is a small town, amongst other towns and within a collective known as a 'metropolitan borough'. This Metropolitan Borough (of Wigan) has an article of it's very own. People, Businesses, Buildings etc. that are in 'the borough', but are not in Wigan (indeed, may be some 10 miles away from Wigan) should be itemised in their own article AND in the article of 'the borough'. But, a famous person from, say, Golborne, Warrington, (WA3) shouldn't be listed as being 'from' Wigan when they are not. To put them in the Golborne article and in the borough article would be quite correct.
Rather than jumping to conclusions and being personally offensive, why not use this page to put forward your views, academically and in an adult manner. Firstly, explain why you think it is right to put false information on Wikipedia. This is a factual and educational site which should contain correct information, not an individuals personal opinion.
As regards the verve pop group, I can confirm that none of the band members are from Wigan and neither was the band formed in Wigan. They may be popular in Wigan and also may have played in Wigan, but likewise in many other towns in Britain. They belong in the Metropolitan Borough article.
I would like to hear any moderators views on this. My view is that the truth should be told. Wild claims, local rumour and false facts have no place in an encyclopaedia. C.Thomas (Wigan) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/80.193.161.89|80.193.161.89]] ([[User talk:80.193.161.89|talk]]) 23:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:JemmyH AKA Tonker, I see you're beginning to bore us all to death again. It has been proved in the Wigan archives that The Verve ARE connected to Wigan and has been discussed over and over again. the only person who seems to have a problem with this is YOU! You just don't listen.
:As for being personally offensive, I have seen how you have treated other people in the past (acting academically or in an adult manner didn't seem to apply to you back then) so I honestly don't care one bit, I still think you're an idiot. You managed to upset everyone in one way or another who posted on these Wigan pages so you only have yourself to blame for anything negative aimed towards you.
:Now answer this question, why are you signing your posts with a different name? did you think we wouldn't recognize you? that's quite pathetic!
:You should not be posting here because you should be banned!
:[[Special:Contributions/77.96.187.124|77.96.187.124]] ([[User talk:77.96.187.124|talk]]) 19:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
| |||