Talk:Haslington

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

Assessment Report[edit]

  1. Article needs to be expanded using Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements as a guide.
  2. Photos need to be added.
  3. References and Citations are crucial for wikipedia, and so these must be added as the article is expanded. (See WP:References, WP:V, and WP:CITE for guidance.)

 DDStretch  (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring[edit]

I'm in the process of restructuring the article based on the headings used in Runcorn which recently got a "Good Article" status. The headings used in that article are as follows:

  • Geography
    • Physical geography
    • Geology
    • Climate
  • Government
    • Civic history
    • Political representation
  • History
    • Etymology
    • Early history
    • Civil War
    • Industrial Revolution
    • Recent history
  • Landmarks and places of interest
  • Demographics
  • Economy
  • Culture
    • Theatre and cinema
    • Filmography
    • The Runcorn Ferry
  • Communal facilities
    • Libraries
    • Parks and nature reserves
    • Sports and leisure venues
    • Health
  • Transport
    • Rail
    • Bus
    • Roads
    • Cycling
    • Air
  • Education
  • Religion
    • History
    • Today
      • Church of England
      • Roman Catholic
      • Methodist
      • Other places of worship
  • Sport
  • Notable people
  • See also
  • Notes
  • References
  • Further reading
  • External links

Now, not all the sub-sections will be useful, but most if not all of the sections will be. Of the sub-sections, some may not be explicitly used in what I will be writing, but will be used "implicitly" to guide how the material is arranged. For Haslington, as it is a civil parish as well as a village, and the civil parish contains other villages (Winterley, Oakhanger, and part of Wheelock Heath), there needs to be some thought as to how to describe this aspect of the civic history. I am proposing to have "Civil Parish" as a sub-section of the "Civic History" section, in which a description of the civil parish, its origins and hisory, etc, will be given. If this gets too large, a separate article about the parish will be split off from this. The villages which form part of the parish will and should have articles about themselves in their own right. If people have comments about all of this, please feel free to make them.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

it seems to me that there is very little in the Winterley article that couldn't be put in the Haslington one. There don't seem to be any separate statistics for Winterley, it has no definable boundaries, nor can I find any history online. The article basically had uncited stuff about a couple of pubs and a Chinese takeaway. The bits about the churches can go into this article. Winterley apparently contains no schools, so that section is not particularly informative.Lozleader (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Having been born in Haslington (and baptised in Winterley) I know the area well: Haslington needs to be sorted out and it is on my list to do so, and the only feature that may make for a separate article for Winterley is Winterley Pool, for which there is little material in reliable sources (though there is some stuff on the information board next to it, just up from the milestone, which is also marginally a notable feature together with the one a mile away in Haslington.) So, I'd support this merger. If it goes through, I have just acquired a copy of the old parish history produced by the civil parish council back in the late 60s early 70s, and that contains information that links the two places together quite well, though it would be better to have a better reliable source.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The already resigned ddstretch agrees that there are no defineable boundaries to Winterely yet persists in vandalising my Winterley corrections - he cannot seem to grasp the fact that Winterley is served by two local authorities! I disagree with merging the small, peaceful hamlet of Winterley with the much larger and geographically separate local crime hot-spot of Haslington, they are separate entities in every way. ian-metz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian-metz (talk • contribs) 16:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was literally on the point of making the merge as it was 10 days and no comments! As it stands Winterley is a pretty thin article. The whole education section seems superfluous, as it simply talks about schools in other areas! If we take that out, it leaves not much at all.
In order to justify an article we could really do with some stuff on history, topography, demography transport: it might be possible to extract something from the 1982 Haslington Parish Council handbook about Winterley: [1] although they don't cite their sources, and is obviously very out of date
I have no idea whether a bit of Winterley is within the borough of Congleton: the borough council's website doesn't mention it. What civil parish is it in? This will become irrelevant from 1 April as both boroughs will be in Cheshire East. It's entirely possible that there was a boundary review between the two boroughs at some point in the past which might have transferred preipheral areas from one to t'other.
The problem is that we need to use some form of official (verifiable) boundaries, otherwise we are stuck with the awful statement "a population of no more than a few hundred." Says who? Of where?
The only official definition of Winterley I can find is the Winterley Parish Ward [2] [3]. It should be possible to find out some area and population statistics for that? I think if we use any other boundaries we will be making things up, as this seems to be the legal definition of the area.
I have no opinion or information on the relative merits or demerits of the localities. What we seem to have is a disagreement between locals. I reckon it's always better not to write articles about places where you live, organisations you belong to or companies you work for: at least that's my interpretation of WP:COI. We all know stuff that we know or think we know is true about a person or place with which we are familiar, but to be in Wikipedia it needs to independently verifiable.
Anyway, unless the Winterley article can actually have some verifiable content added, it still stands to reason that Haslington is the article to which it should be merged: the Pool and the two churches are in the civil parish, which are the only things in the existing article.
Anyway, just had a look at the article of the other part of Hslington CP: Oakhanger, Cheshire and it's even worse than the Winterley one, so I'm suggesting that should merge too...
Lozleader (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the Winterley page was far superior before somebody reduced it to a dull piece about schools and churches. The local amenities have been removed, as have the photographs of what is actually quite a pretty area. It comes over now as being of interest only to a teetotal hymn-singing twitcher. I suspect it was sanitised to reduce it to a state where Winterley can be wiped from Wikidom. At this rate we will just have one page called "Europe" that will swallow up all that is England. Winterley is an entity and deserves its own page. It costs nothing, does it? --Ian-metz (talk) 13:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be getting out of order (in more sense than one). I came across the Winterley article and found it be very very poor. It had stuff about pubs and Chinese takeaways, but no history, topography . It contained the statement:
"It is a quiet, pleasant village that rarely sees any trouble, is within a sensible distance of larger communities." Apart from sounding like an estate agent's brochure, surely in breach of WP:NPOV amd WP:PEACOCK. Pretty much unverifiable: it may well be possible to get some figures on crime in the area, and add then to the appropriate section; the distance from other communities, when verified, go in the geography section, but what is a "sensible distance". Awful writing.
Anyway, I tried to knock it into shape by using the WP:UKCITIES layout which has prescribed headings and so on. "Amenities" is not one of them. As Wikipedia is not a directory, and there were no citations, out went the pubs and chipper. It may be that they are interesting local landmarks, and have important historical connections, (the pubs anyway). If so, they could be incorporated into one or other section of WP:UKCITIES, but they would need to have references. Most places of any size have pubs and takeaways, not really encyclopedic. I left in Winterley Pool as it seemed to come up a bit in Google and could probably be expanded or reffed with a bit of work, and put it in the correct section per WP:UKCITIES. Not picking on Winterley, there are plenty (well hundreds!) of other bad articles on localities that need knocking into shape. It's a fact that they tend to attract a lot of unverifiable/ephemeral stuff that ought not be there. I really dislike the "Notable people" section as it just attracts graffiti.. When I happen to come across a poor article, and I have time and energy I will try to bring it (up?) to standard. That's all... Lozleader (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lozleader, whilst I approve of removing bad writing and complete trivia, I don't see the point in snuffing all life from the page. To quote back at you, most places also have churches and schools, so I don't know how you justify just removing the pubs! Things like amenities - pubs and the like - are an important feature of any village. I often use Wikipedia when choosing places to visit, and would pass Winterley by on the basis of its Wiki page, it sounds as dull as ditchwater, yet is a wonderful place to use as a base for field walking and canal walking, for example. I suspect the problem is that Wikipedia is attracting academics as editors (no personal insult intended as I know nothing about you), people who treat Wiki pages as academic papers that can only contain information which fits an artificial structue - as can be seen on the Winterley page: all the character of the place has been stripped away leaving just a skeleton of cold, dead facts (and pseudo-facts, like which schools are more popular than others etc.). I fear a generation of Wikirobots is taking over the Wikiasylum! --Ian-metz (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To Ian-Metiz: I am not disgraced. Your personal attack is noted and the relevant people informed. As for your repeated claims about Winterley, just go to the OS maps for the area (the 1:25000 ones give the civil parish boundaries). Winterley is entirely within Haslington civil parish, and it is Wheelock Heath that may be split. You cannot win an argument by merely repeating and reverting inaccurate changes, and then making untrue personal attacks on people who disagree with you.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've done a heck of a lot of apologising for someone that's done nothing wrong! --Ian-metz (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This can also be checked online on election maps website, and choosing Crewe and Nantwich as the local authority. Then, with the layers showing the civil parish and district boundaries, the situation is clear: Winterley is entirely within Crewe and Nantwich, and it is Wheelock Heath that is split. The reliable sources show this, all we have from Ian-Metz is repeated re-institution of the changes with little explanation, beyond assertions with no evidence, and untrue derogatory comments about myself. I agree with Lozleader that Winterley and Oakhanger should merge without delay with Haslington. They are represented by separate parish wards on the civil parish council (lending support to the idea that Winterley is entirely a part of the civil parish of Haslington, and hence within Crewe and Nantwich.) .  DDStretch  (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We now seem to be getting somewhere... I live to the south side of Elton Lane, comfortably INSIDE the Crewe and Nantwich border as defined on the www.election-maps.co.uk site you pointed at, and yet (as stated ad nauseum) pay my taxes to Congleton Council, as do most of my neighbours. So, the map is incorrect or inaccurate: a fine distinction. You accuse me of making "inaccurate changes" - I know where I live, what I and my neighbours and their neighbours and their neighbours call it, and who our local authority is - yet I have been waiting for yours or Nev1's definition, with sources of course, for the boundaries of Winterley (which you have already agreed do not exist). You have thus far refused to supply that information, probably because you can't, yet persist in telling me that I am wrong. As far as I and my neighbours are concerned, the place is what we call it and you have no right, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to tell us we are wrong. Over millennia, 'local' areas have become known by what the resident population has called them - with the exception of those run by dictators of course ;-) - and as areas are developed and built upon distinctions become blurred except where clearly defined political boundaries exist: in which way, half a property can be in one country, half in another, the actual location often being deemed to be where the front door to the property is. So, I await with interest your detailed map of what you assert is Winterley, but you can rest assured that I am within the Crewe and Nantwich area according to the MAP, but not in REALITY (taxes represent reality for me, as there is only one thing more certain...). --Ian-metz (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, let me ask you a related question: what parish council do you get election material for? Who is or are your local parish councillor(s)? And please try to resist better the need to get in personalised digs all the time, you are merely making your points become more capable of being dismissed. There is a distinction that may be made between the local authority area, and the arrangements in place for services. It may well be that these are handled differently, but, unless you can supply information showing that these arrangements bring about this distinction, then your claims cannot be verified by reliable sources, and so can't really be put in an article. If it can be verified, then the facts will be that (a) you are (as you claim) insider the local authority area of Crewe and Nantwich, and (b) For whatever reasons (nearness of the boundary, and ease of access) there has been an arrangement for Congleton Borough to supply the services that would normally be provided by Crewe and Nantwich. However, if this arranegement is in place, it should be capable of being documented, and, as the person wanting to say things that would be related to such a claim, the burden of evidence rests with you. One final question: Can you remind me excetly where I stated that the boundaries do not exist? I am not sure I ever made such a claim, but I perjaps have misremembered. Thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's cut through the wood and take a look at some trees. I'm going to use some simple language here:
This whole issue could be swiftly settled if you would only address the issue of which houses are/are not within a definable area named "Winterley". This will not reveal your address or other personal details to the world, which is what you are asking me to do in supplying the proof you seem to want. I await the information with my breath suitably bated.
Please don't cast unnecessary aspersions with perjorative phrases like "as you claim".
To answer your question about when you agreed there are "no defineable boundaries" to Winterley, scroll up the page to "Merger Proposal" and you will see that your contribution begins with the words "I agree". --Ian-metz (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There never was a civil parish of Winterley, but there was a civil parish of Wheelock, which was established in 1866 and abolished in 1936, whereupon it was divided into two portions, one of which was assigned to Sandbach civil parish and the other to Haslington civil parish. The reference for this is page 40 of: Youngs, F. A. (1991). Guide to the local administrative units of England. (Volume 1: Northern England). London: Royal Historical Society. ISBN 0861931270.. Although I do not have much further about this, the geography of the area strongly suggests that the account I have given of the local administrative arrangements are correct, and I have also checked with other long-term residents of the civil parish who confirm that Winterhey is part of Haslington in its entirity. It is possible that some residents of outlying houses, not in any central residential core like to think of themselves as being in Winterley, because they feel closer to it, but this is speculation, and needs to be backed up by resliable sources in any case (and that particular requirement would not be a peculiarity of just wikipedia.) If the time was spent in trying to find reliable sources rather than attempting to shout about me being in some way discredited, we may be able to improve on matters.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You say "It is possible that some residents of outlying houses, not in any central residential core like to think of themselves as being in Winterley, because they feel closer to it, but this is speculation, and needs to be backed up by resliable sources in any case" [sic]
As asked elsewhere... where is YOUR definition of which houses are/are not in Winterley, Mr Stretch? With reliable sources, of course? Without such an authoritative, detailed map, what you like to think of as facts are merely your opinions, and are thus no more valuable or correct than anybody else's. --Ian-metz (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am merely going by the reliable source of the maps. So far, we have nothing reliable from you apart from abuse, insinuations, and aggressively worded demands, such as the above. In these cases, it hardly seems worth continuing, unless you realise that you are the one making rather unusual claims (that you are in one local government area, but pay council taxes to a different local government authority), and so the burden of evidence must rest with you.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which map do you claim shows which houses are/are not in Winterley? --Ian-metz (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one [4] shows the boundaries with houses and roads (no house numbers though, but it shouldn't be too hard to figure out) C&N/Congleton boundary in green, parish boundaries in light blue (or is that cyan) and parish wards in orange. Hopefully this will settle the matter. The part north of the the green line is in Sandbach civil parish (or rather town). This is an official map, and so cannot be dismissed as inaccurate. It has force of law.
It occurs to me that the confusion may be with postal boundaries: if your mail is delivered from Winterley Post Office (which would make sense), then it will say "Winterley" on your address. But that's just a delivery instruction: like the former postal counties, the boundaries of a postal "village" and the legal boundaries per local government legislation seldom are identical. A cursory glance at a map of postcode areas and local government districts will show that they are very different. Also postal boundaries are likely to change without any publicly available notice. Local government changes are always effected by orders, which are published.
That being the case, and I'm not super-keen on it but it might stop the war, if we could find a reference, (post code atlas or something) than we could add a line that postally, Winterley includes parts of Sandbach, in the Borough of Congleton. In just two weeks it won't make any difference, anyway.
Lozleader (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is quoted verbatim from an email I have today received from the Planning Department of Crewe and Nantwich Council, and I believe it makes my point for me: "According to our records that we use here in the Planning Department the boundary for Crewe and Nantwich actually includes the properties 1-5 Hollyfields. Numbers 6-11 are actually still in Winterley but are in the Congleton Borough." There you have it, irrespective of where I actually live, the Planning Department of Crewe and Nantwich Council has made it clear that part of Winterely is in Congleton Council's area. --Ian-metz (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the map, which does confirm the maps I already referenced elsewhere (the OS Survey 1:25000 scale map, sheet 257), and its use of the election-maps website, which I also supplied. The map also confirms the existence of Wheelock Heath as a small settlement that runs into Winterley, and which does appear to be split to some extent between Haslington and Sandbach civil parishes. Elton Lane, which is where Ian-Metz he lives, does appear to have a small area close to Crewe Road that falls within Sandbach civil parish (and hence Congleton Borough), but there don't seem to be clear signs of houses in the portion within Sandbach civil parish (also as I have commented on before), and anyway, it seems to confirm that it is in Wheelock Heath and not Winterley at that point. I take Lozleader's point about postal matters. Once again, if Ian-Metz can supply the name of parish council or the parish councillor or the parish ward he is in, that would help. Also, although I really need not, I feel I ought to emphasize again that, contrary to his repeated point, neither I nor anyone else is asking him to disclose any personal information (like his council tax bill, or a specific address).  DDStretch  (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge with Haslington. I've made the article representative of both Winterley and Wheelock Heath. The Roman Candle (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect Lozleader has hit on the problem here. Royal Mail Postcode Finder suggests that all of Wheelock Heath, including the part within Sandbach Civil Parish, has a Winterley postal address. This is not unusual. Unlike other countries, where postal addresses reflect local government boundaries, the British postal service is a law unto itself when it comes to addresses, and it is not uncommon for part of one town or village to have a postal address of a neighbouring community, simply because the post is delivered from a sorting office in that community. In my hometown of Stockport, there has been a long running campaign by residents of part of Reddish to stop the Royal Mail insisting that they live in Levenshulme, Manchester M19. In their case, the postal service's shifting of the area has real financial consequences as home and car insurance in M19 is exorbitant compared to Reddish SK5. Similarly, the Royal Mail insists that about a third of Bredbury has a Romiley address (including Bredbury Cemetery, the former Bredbury High School and the former Bredbury Primary School). Strangely, the Royal Mail persists in these anomalies long after the closure and centralisation of sorting offices. If this is the case in Winterley, surely it would not be inappropriate for a comment to be included that for postal purposes Winterley is used as a postal address for neighbouring communities outside the original village. And then everyone could perhaps stop getting all hot and bothered about it. Simples! Skinsmoke (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your entry makes interesting reading! I think the real issue though, as far as I am concerned at least, is whether a village can be divided between two local authorities. DDStretch seems to believe it is impossible, yet a little research shows us that a village or town or city can be divided between two COUNTRIES - Berlin for example!
What is important in the case of Winterley is not a dotted line on an OS or any other map, it's about a community. There is a house near where I live which is divided diagonally by Crewe and Congleton councils - by some people's logic they are in Winterley when they are on their kitchen but somewhere else (Wheelock Heath?) when they are in their lounge. Ask them where they live and they will say Winterley!
However, I won't try re-correcting the entry (probably) as it will soon become irrelevant, so DDStretch can go back to his short but well-earned retirement... --Ian-metz (talk) 11:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And we have more incorrect fantasies about me here. The reason "peace has broken out", as was suggested below, can be seen on Ian-Metz's talk page, where he demanded I apologise to him whilst at the same time making a number of other personal attacks. We see another bogus extrapolation of what I am supposed to belive in here: Nothing in what I have said suggests that I believe that a sttlement cannot be divided between different administrative authorities, as the others will know from my work on UK geography. As for the email. The amount of misinformation and speculation along with incorrect assumption we have seen coming from Ian-Metz about myself and what I am supposed to have said or what I am supposed to believe in is astonishing and certainly violates WP:AGF and WP:NPA. That is why nothing was said about these latest developments until now by myself.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a couple of points, then I propose folding my tent: firstly, I resent DDStretch's assertion (above) that I have fantasies about him; secondly, if only DDStretch had used common sense instead of forensic examination techniques and actually LOOKED at the Crewe and Nantwich borders on a map, he could have seen quite easily that parts of Winterley are outside it - unfortunately he demanded quite unnecessary and hard to come by proof from me of what was blindingly obvious. Over and out on this one - I hope! --Ian-metz (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peace may have broken out[edit]

Right well, I'm climbing out of the trenches now... It would seem that the issue has been resolved, because:

  1. The article is now at Winterley and Wheelock Heath. There is no dispute that this area is divided between two different parishes. (Although we need a ref)
  2. The two boroughs will be merging on 1 April, so the whole kit and caboodle will be in one local authority. No dispute there.

Now it's time to start adding some content. I suggest a "Governance" section per WP:UKCITIES, which will lay out the parish and borough stuff, without it dominating the lead. And then perhaps a bit of stuff extracted from that 1982 guide, some stuff on transport and distances from places, is there a bus service....? We can't add population/demographics unfortunately as nobody is compiling figures at this level. A picture would be nice, too.... Lozleader (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all your suggestions. As for demography, for small places would it be worth adding a see also link to the demography section of the civil parish? It would give the reader an idea of what the local demography may be like, but perhaps add a caveat that figures for the village are unavailable. Nev1 (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have information about this, and will add it shortly. I think that the merger of Winterley and Wheelock Heath, and Oakhanger with tis article should go ahead, by the way, unless some extra content beefing up both articles is added which is both verified and reliably sourced. In the midst of all the above, that seems to have got lost.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


May I ever-so humbly point out that DDStretch somehow neglected to mention an email I obtained from Crewe and Nantwich Council (see above) confirming my assertion that parts of Winterley are in Congleton. ;-)
Hey ho! --Ian-metz (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Haslington. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Haslington. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Haslington&oldid=1207583560"