Talk:Milnrow

History section
The first few sentences of the first paragraph (ie: before mention of the Roman statue) need to be referenced. I think reference 5 (March, Henry Colley (1880). East Lancashire Nomenclature and Rochdale Names. London: Simpkin & Co.) might be the one the relevant source, but it needs to be added after practically every sentence. Nev1 (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. I think you're right about this. I'm struggling for source material, but think I can crack this challenge!.... There's only one book about Milnrow (according to Amazon), which I happen to own, and it's just a few paragraphs put together by a local!


 * Every source I have seen suggests that "the Norman conquest saw the birth of what is now Milnrow". However, it doesn't elaborate what this means! Did they found a settlement? From what I've seen, Milnrow was in Hundersfield, not Butterworth at the time of the conquest. Confusing and challenging. --Jza84 | Talk  14:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * According to pastscape, as well as the Roman artefact, there was a Stone Age axe found in Milnrow so there was some activity in the area. That's what prompted me to ask about "thousands of flint tools" found on the moorland; it sounds a bit much. Nev1 (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It does seem alot, but I "borrowed" the text from Rochdale Boroughwide Cultural Trust. The site provides its own sources, so it seems reliable. --Jza84 | Talk  16:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems good enough then. I think that should be put in as a reference twice, once after the mention of thousands of artefacts and again after the cinerary urn. Nev1 (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Kingsway Business Park
"It is one of the largest developments of its kind, and is expected to employ 7,250 people directly and 1,750 people indirectly by around 2020." The largest developments of its kind where - in Rochdale, The UK, Europe, the World? This seems to be just a bit of advertising hyperbole from the website of the company that's building the park, and the reference for it preceeds the sentence anyway. Richerman (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point. I hadn't considered this. Can you suggest an alternative? --Jza84 | Talk  00:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the source is a problem - its probably the only one there is, but I would take out the bit about it being the largest of its kind and either move the reference to the end or else use it twice. Richerman (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a bit of stuff on the net about the development - I might be able to tighten this paragraph up using some alternative material. :) --Jza84 | Talk  00:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I was able to fix that area... made it a tad more neutral and less aggrandizing. The only thing is one little fact tag about the mill. If there's just a source that says something about that last mill, that would be perfect. Best, Epicadam (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a lot better now, I've changed the text on the image to match the main text. Just one other thing, shouldn't the title on the image of the council's emblem be a sheep being weighed? I would have thought you can only weigh the fleece once it's been taken off the sheep. Richerman (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, technically you're right, but 1) just exactly what would "fleece" look like? It'd be some odd emblem of cloud, I would imagine. And 2) perhaps they're not selling the fleece but rather the sheep itself? Really, I have no idea. Epicadam (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I did think the same thing about sheep/fleece, but I used "fleece" as it is used in the reference given. Perhaps in heraldry, this icon is known as a fleece? --Jza84 | Talk  11:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought you must have got it from the reference, that's why I didn't change it. Actually you're absolutely right about it being a term used used in heraldry. A search on google for "fleece heraldry" came up with this link which explains it. It's actually know as a "banded fleece" and is used on the Rochdale Coat of Arms see http://www.civicheraldry.co.uk/great_man.html Richerman (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A "banded fleece" eh? Sounds like that was a great bit of research Richerman! Perhaps we ought to rephrase the clumsy "a fleece being weighed" for the more accurate "a banded fleece"?


 * From there, we just need to crack the "Butterworth Hall Mill" demolition date. --Jza84 | Talk  16:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Your too kind, just a bit of googling really. Do you know if the Milnrow councillor took it from the Rochdale COA or vice versa? Unfortunately the link I've given above for the COA doesn't say when it was granted. Richerman (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Aha, | this link says 1857. Richerman (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1857 was the date for the COA of the County Borough of Rochdale, rather than the Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale, although both include the fleece. I'm afraid the info provided in the article is a paraphrase of the source material - there isn't any additional detail about the icon. It's certainly used locally though, as evidenced by the welcome signage --Jza84 | Talk  17:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Butterworth Hall Mill
I'm struggling finding a demolition date for this mill. Apparently, it was demolished in 1996, but I want to verify it. I have some images at this site too. --Jza84 | Talk  00:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if there's no info, then there's no info. It might be best just to find another source that describes the overall downtown in the town's post-WWII economy and just leave specific information about the mill out. It's also possible that the municipality may have construction/demolition permit records, etc. but I'm not sure it's worth going that far to go searching through public record! Best, Epicadam (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think I've found something near the bottom of this page (which is probably where I got the info from). I'm concerned that it may not be considered a reliable source, but I think in the circumstances, it would be adequate for verification. Thoughts anyone? --Jza84 | Talk  20:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it might just be acceptable, the page does mention a book as its source at the end. I think it's worth a try for now. Nev1 (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, we are talking about the demolition of a mill that is verified in a couple of forums and open-source content (e.g. here). The "amature" website provided above shares the same demolition date. Ultimately this isn't a very controversial thing we're aiming to verify (I mean we can even keep the demolition date ambiguous to the decade), so I think it might be a slight dash of WP:IAR. --Jza84 | Talk  20:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the Geograph.org.uk source is okay. I mean, I added the tag thinking that the info might be easy to find. Seeing as it is not, keeping the present ambiguous date is probably fine. My main issue was not really with the destruction date, which, really, is not all that notable, but rather that the Butterworth was the last mill... I mean, for a city whose symbol is a sheep and whose history is defined by the textile industry not to have a single mill left is quite something. -Epicadam (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Tell me about it! The whole region is probably still recovering from the transition.


 * So, where does that leave us for GA? Can you advise Epicadam? Don't feel obliged to grant it if you have outstanding concerns - I'd rather see a proper good article than obtain a badge that says it is so. :) --Jza84 | Talk  21:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd sayjust use the Geograph source in there as well as this bit from the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4928844.stm which describes Manchester's mill industry in decline. WP:PROVEIT only requires cited sources for challenged information or information likely to be challenged, which no one has done (and I doubt will). So put those pieces in there and I'll do the final GA review. Best, Epicadam (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)