Talk:Mossley

Historic Counties

 * The following discussion is an archived outcome of a survey for the proposition outlined below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made at the lower sections of this discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this survey.  

Proposal: this article should incorporate the three categories of Historic county - Lancs, Yorks and Cheshire.

Rationale: Readers might want to obtain a list of places in an historic county.


 * The result was Oppose: historic county categories should not be included due to conventions, consensus, and national Wiki consistency. Such a proposal should be made elsewhere, such as Village pump, but again is likely to be opposed for the same reasons. Jhamez84 12:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with  ~


 * Support. Arcturus 15:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Misleads people into believing its traditional/historic location is its current location. Peteb16 16:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - for consistency over the thousands of UK geography articles, change the conventions not individual articles. If you would like historical categories to be added, please suggest this at the talk page of WP:UKWNB and achieve consensus there first. However, I expect such a suggestion would be opposed. Aquilina 16:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - people need to stop living in the past. GM has been defunct for over 20 years now.  Lancsalot 16:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. people need to stop living in the past - boundaries change. No matter the outcome, the categories should not be included inline withWiki policy. Jhamez84 17:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support but the names of the categories must make clear they refer to the historic county. They could sit alongside the ceremonial county category. Bailrigg 17:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose MRSC 18:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We have enough of this POV-pushing without boosting it further. It is of no significance in current Britihs politics. Guy 23:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per most other people. --Dreaded Walrus 23:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Aquilina. Also, the categories as currently used divide the UK into disjoint regions, using the ceremonial counties as a basis.  I don't think overlapping categories are helpful here.  --RFBailey 07:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I'm quite happy for the historical counties to be mentioned in the article, in a discussion of the history of the town, but the infobox etc needs to reflect the current status. DWaterson 09:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Category:History of Cheshire etc would be appropriate, though. Morwen - Talk 13:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Peteb16, JzG and others. --Mais oui! 20:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support as they are of greater geographic and cultural significance (like when St Helens wear red roses at big rugby league finals). Yorkshire Phoenix [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|22px]] [[Image:Flag of Yorkshire (Flag Institute).svg|God's own county|22px]] 14:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made as a new disscussion at the bottom of this articles talk page.  No further edits should be made to this section.

It's looking like "Oppose" wins the day, but perhaps leave it for a week (until 8 Oct). In the mean time, and more generally, I'm wondering about creating categories such as Historic County of Lancashire etc. Any opinions? Has this previously been contemplated? Arcturus 19:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless anyone argues to the contrary, the proposal is rejected. Arcturus 21:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Given that this proposal is one which is seeking opinions and engaging in debate in a pleasant and non-offending way (which we all know has been difficult in this field), I fully respect your proposal. However, without meaning to inflame a clearly controvertial subject, my concerns are, at what point do we draw the line here? The historic counties (in addition to having a link to a lengthy main article) are mentioned in almost all UK settlement articles (the infamous line of "...and lies within the historic borders of X" is at the end every opening sentence!) and their supporting infoboxes for context.


 * Many users find the pushing and highlighting of the historic counties as objectionable, as we have the Naming conventions. Including more links and a new category to the historic counties, may further objections, and is not too disimillar (in my view) to that of say putting Belfast into a "Historic settlement of the Republic of Ireland" category. Additionally, should we have a "Historic borders of Mercia", "Historic borders of the Roman Empire" or even "Historic borders of Pangea"? - these are verifiable, and specific groups may have interests in these fields, but just wouldn't be helpful as categories to normal/casual readers.


 * This is my personal opinion on such a proposal, and nothing more, and I trust it is respected. I suspect other users would object on simillar grounds, providing links to the various Wiki policies which would discourage it. No doubt that such a proposal should be suggested at either WP:UKWNB, or Village pump.


 * Finally, we already have simillar categories, an example of which (in accordance with the conventions) is named Category:Places formerly in Berkshire. I personally disagree with such a category and believe it should be an article. Jhamez84 21:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In hindsight there was no reason to have this vote at all as it is covered by the naming convention. The categories would also fall outside the agreed naming principles. There is nothing to prevent further debate on the relevant naming convention talk page, although I would advise anyone considering it to first read over the earlier discussions (starting 2003); they appear to have already covered most points at length. MRSC 08:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * We should be slightly careful not to overextend the remit of the naming convention - it's for the naming of articles, and by logical extension, usually for the opening paragraph. But any further modifications should always remain consistent with the spirit expressed there.  As it is, I see no harm in extending the Category:Places formerly in X-shire paradigm from Berkshire to other counties - the category appears unobtrusively at the bottom of the article, does not alter the current ceremonial county based system, is verifiable and can be well-defined.  I don't see that this violates the spirit of the current naming convention, either.
 * It would be best if furhter discsussion on this happened at WP:UKWNB, though. Aquilina 10:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the Category:Places formerly in X-shire model is a good start, although it might do with elaboration (would Reddish want to be in both Category:Places formerly in Cheshire and Category:Places formerly in Lancashire? probably). And yes, we should move discussion there.  Morwen - Talk


 * I would support the creation of further Category:Places formerly in X-shire categories. MRSC 15:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would object to the creation of categories for places formerly in ...It is my contention, and that of others, that places can still be regarded as being in their relevant historic counties. Take my home town of Ulverston. It is in Cumbria, but is is also in the historic county of Lancashire. It is possibly/probably incorrect to state that it was formerly in Lancashire. Such a statement is at odds with the idea that historic counties still exist. As to whether or not they do exist will not be resolved here (Wikipedia) so we must at least defer to the possibility that they still do. Arcturus 21:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason to do anything special for this case that is not done with every other subject on Wikipedia. Editors will collect evidence and use that as the basis for articles. MRSC 22:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Fish and chip shop
I have removed the statement "One of the first recorded combined fish and chip shops was opened in Mossley 1863." from the article as it has been flagged as missing a citation since June 2007. If someone wishes to return the statement to the article a reliable source will need to be found. Road Wizard (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There's an article from the Fish Friers trade paper framed on the wall of the Mossley Chip Shop. I'll try and get a ref next time I'm in there.  They do lovely cod.  (The original chip shop site is now a chinese takeaway). -- GWO (talk) (in Mossley)