Talk:Nico Ditch

Contentious Issues
Local History in the Dark Ages is scarce and when sources are found about it, they often come from local historians who have researched the area as a "Labour of love".

Please comment on some of the following:


 * The Nico ditch is not mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Manchester is only referred to once. Its reference is to do with Edward the Elder's building of 'Burh's'... fortified settlements... and sadly not in connection with the Nico ditch.


 * In actual fact if the ditch was defensive ot was more likely constructed by the Mercians and thus built to protect Mercia from incursions. Manchester had a 'burh' and it was indeed 'repaired' by Edward the Elder. Therefore Manchester was protected.

Mike33 02:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Stats on the ditch
I've gone over the article adding sources and information from those sources and changing the structure structure. There was some stuff that I was unable to find a reference for such as "Nico comes from Noecan the Anglo-Saxon verb to kill". Also the date given in the introduction (890-910) for the construction of the ditch is unreferenced.

More straight foreward is the description of the ditch as being "5 ft (1.5 m) wide and 16 ft (4.8 m) [high]". This seems to be the wrong way round as the information I have is that the ditch is the other way rounf. Furthermore, since the ditch survives in similar dimensions today, I think the reference to Victorian interest is superfluous. I've tagged that sentence as needing a source, but will remove it unless one can be provided.

I don't think the see also section is necessary either. Nev1 23:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The statement "The ditch is on the southern side and the bank on the northern side, thus protecting Manigcestre (Manchester) from incursion from the south Both Stockport and Oldham were Danish settlements" seems wrong. Oldham is to the north of the ditch for starters, and secondly I'm unable to find a reference to Stockport being Danish. Etymological evidence suggests that Stockport was Anglo-Saxon in origin, "stoc" meaning a stockaded place or castle and "port" a wood in Anglo-Saxon. Nev1 23:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Broken link
broken link to manchester city council antiquities —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.68.141 (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice, the link has been replaced. Nev1 (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

GAC?
This is a nice article. I think it's well worthy of a GA. Anyone agree? Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've never really thought about it, but the sources are pretty much exhausted. I'll go over them again, tidy it up a bit, and then if any one else thinks it might be worth a shot it can be taken to GAN. Nev1 (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it looks good, so if Nev1 thinks that it's sufficiently broad, given the available sources, then I'd say go for it! --Malleus Fatuorum 15:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I was able to add a bit of context and a bit more about investigations on the ditch, and I've split the pages numbers. I think that's about all that can be done so I've nominated it at GAN. Nev1 (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is right around the corner from me, and a mate lives in Levenshulme. If you can identify any images you'd like, I'd be happy to pop over and get them. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW - is this any use? I can crop it if you like. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Since you got that map from old maps, does the website show the full length? If not, I'll try and draw something up showing the general route. A good photo would be nice, but the only good spot I know of is somewhere on Denton golf course as that's the only photo used in the sources; it's a 300m stretch so the club might know where it is. Nev1 (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, we've now got a map in the article, showing approximately the known course of the ditch, I think it's broadly correct and it looks like the map in the book. Although I'm not sure whether it should be the lead image or not. Nev1 (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes the map shows the length. The ditch I presume is this.  By the way, old-maps.co.uk put a right-click copyright message on their website, but if you look carefully its only the logo which is copyrighted.  If you have Firefox and adblock, you can block '...watermark.gif' and the watermark disappears, leaving hte maps free for screencaps :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah no, that's Dodgeleach Brook, not the ditch. Hang on. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll have to contact the golf course - the ditch curves around to the northeast as it heads through their land, but isn't marked on the map. It hits the reservoir and continues through it, I think it very likely it's the feature here running bottom left to top right. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

depicts the ditch marker in Platt Fields Park (which I'm going to have to go search for sometime), which says that the ditch is "Described fully in Vol. XXIII of Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society", which might be worth taking a look at. There were also a couple of refs in the article a while ago which have since been removed, namely: Did these not contain anything of use? Mike Peel (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society – Transactions III (1885) p190
 * Speake, R – The Story of Hazel Grove and Bramhall – 1964 p13
 * David Hall, Colin Wells and Elizabeth Huckerby - The Wetlands of Greater Manchester - Lancaster University 1995 ISBN 0-901800-80-5 p163(Hough Moss)


 * They were removed because they seemed outdated, volume 26 is from 1906 (apart from the Hall Well and Huckerby one which I couldn't get hold of, but even then only one page is mentioned). I've added a myth I'd forgotten about the towns of Reddish and Gorton getting their names from the ditch and a supposed battle fought there (cannibalised from the History of Reddish). Nev1 (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

FAC?
I think it's worth a punt. It's a short article but well written. Given its short length I think we'd get a lot of input from the reviewers at FAC. My only (minor) gripe is I think the Etymology section might be better at the start of the article, but it isn't a big issue. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's worth a punt too. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting suggestion, and I think it's worth a try. I think it's considered "bad form" to have two FACs open at a time, and I've got an FLC open on Scheduled Monuments in Greater Manchester so I'm not sure if I should really be the one to nominate. Parrot of Doom, I know you've got an FAC open on Radcliffe, so Malleus would you be prepared to make the nomination? Or am I being a bit fussy? Nev1 (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to take the credit for your nice piece of work by making the nomination Nev. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Malleus Fatuorum 21:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Do we know which part of the ditch is scheduled? Apparently its in "Ordnance Survey Linear Archive File LINEAR 22 in National Monuments Record Centre" there, but I don't know where those records are kept.  It would be nice to locate this section and write a line about it, I'm guessing its most likely somewhere in the region of the main image. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a bit in Platt Fields. If you mean grid refs, I'm not sure; pastscape gives several, it could be SJ 734 952, SJ 9030 9593, or SJ 8493 9443. Nev1 (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking good so far, touch wood, six supports and no opposes. Youre getting an easier ride at FA than I'm getting at bloody GA with ! I'll tear the liver out of the next person who tries to tell me that GA is all about the opinion of one reviewer. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I admit I was expecting at least one oppose due to its size. With a bit of luck, we might be able to tell Iridescent of at least one FA shorter than Hellingly Hospital Railway. Gimmebot next runs tomorrow, but at the moment it doesn't look like there'll be any promotions or closures as SandyGeorgia and Raul are both busy . Depending on how this turns out, I might consider taking Buckton Castle to FAC. It's a similar size although it might need an update as I just found a new article about it. Nev1 (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hilarious
My award for the lowest-importance fa EVER :) Res Mar 23:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a Scheduled Monument, officially nationally important! If you want something really unimportant, I reckon WP:FA would be a good place to go. Nev1 (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Stretford/Urmston
While looking at the OS's spiffy new map viewer, I happened to spot the line of Nico Ditch (or so the OS thinks), here (joining Haworth and Derbyshire Lane W). Do the sources make much of this? Its right around the corner and simple for me to get a picture, if there is anything visible (discolouration of the grass and such). Parrot of Doom 18:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Question
"Although no date was established for the ditch's construction, the investigations revealed that the bank to the north of the ditch is of 20th-century origin. Together with the ditch's profile, which is U-shaped rather than the V-shape typically used in military ditches and defences, this suggests that the purpose of the earthwork was to mark a territorial boundary." I don't follow this -- how does the 20th-century origin of the bank help indicate the purpose of the earthwork? Mike Christie (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Because when it was built there was no bank to the north of the ditch, suggesting that it wasn't a defensive structure. Malleus Fatuorum 12:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. I think I wasn't reading it properly; the information is there.  Mike Christie (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The source is wrong
Please do not undo my corrections. "Hough Moss" no longer exists. It's Ryebank Fields. Look at a map of Manchester. The course of the ditch goes nowhere near Burnage. Again, consult a map. Go out and look, you'll see parts of the ditch in the places I specify(Gorton, Chorlton). The source Vol 23 of the Lancs/Cheshire Antiquarian Society is wrong or out of date. Until you actually go out and look for remnants of the ditch, with respect I don't see how you can correct me. And Carr Ditch is on exactly the same line as the Melland/Platt Fields sections of the Nico Ditch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unclegray (talk • contribs) 20:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Verifiability is the order of the day here, not the truth. Unless you present a reliable source for your changes, they will be removed without discussion. Parrot of Doom 20:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The sources are contemporary maps, and the work I've put in, walking around south Manchester and using my eyes. You're not bothering with the truth? OK, then I'm wasting my time. You have my sympathy. Go out and have a look, you'll see I'm right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unclegray (talk • contribs) 21:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I might be missing something, but I don't see the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society given as a source in the article. As for Carr Ditch, it is omitted from the article on the basis of the following extract from page 37 of


 * "The most likely origin for Carr Ditch, and the associated north-south alignments, is that they were dug specifically to delineate local boundaries. From the medieval period onwards, mosslands became an increasingly important resource, serving as pasture for cattle and providing peat for fuel. Disputes over their ownership were common, and within otherwise featureless landscapes, ditches provided the easiest means of defining the portions of mosslands held by neighbouring townships of manors. There is no evidence to indicate that Carr Ditch was related to the Nico Ditch system, an enigmatic earthwork of probably early medieval origin that ran from Ashton Moss in the east to Hough Moss in the west."


 * So that above quote deals with the issue of the termini and Carr Ditch. The coordinates come from page 40 of


 * "The continuity of landscape boundaries within the Manchester area, both natural and artificial, was very high. One of the longest-lived boundaries was Nico Ditch, a large earthwork comprising a ditch and possibly a bank that runs from Ashton Moss in the east (SJ 90998) to Hough Moss in Manchester in the west (SJ 8281 9419), and studied fitfully by scholars since the late nineteenth century."


 * From page 81 of the same book:


 * "This alignment seems to finish in Urmston at SJ 7829 9504, a point which possibly marks the eastern edge of the moss known as Moorside. A further length of ditch, known as Carr Ditch, runs on a similar alignment west of this point across the main body of the moss but is offset by 60m to the north, suggesting that it is a later extension."


 * Now having looked again at those two books, I can't see a mention of Burnage, however there is another source which mentions it. The BBC website says:


 * "The Nico or Mickle Ditch ran from Ashton under Lyne to Urmston, passing in a curve through Denton, Reddish, Gorton, Levenshulme, Burnage, Rusholme, Fallowfield, Withington, Chorlton-cum-Hardy and Stretford."


 * I understand that for new editors Wikipedia's policy of verifiability over truth can seem absurd. But when you think about where Wikiopdeia's article's derive their authority from, it makes some sense. All information must be sourced, meaning it must appear somewhere other than Wikipedia, somewhere reliable. Readers can check the sources for themselves if they want to. If editors add information based on their own experience, readers can't double check it. Nev1 (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are some things readers can check: (1) The grid reference/coordinates are way out. Get an OS map of Manchester and see. (2) The use of "Hough Moss" is a giveaway that your source used the Lancs/Cheshire Antiquarian Society as his own source (probably without checking his facts). Hough Moss no longer exists, and again a simple look at a map of Manchester will locate Ryebank Fields just to the east of Longford Park, Stretford. See also Manchester Evening News April 7th 2005, and Oct 1st 2007. (3) Again a look at the map of south Manchester and following the line of the ditch west from Platt Fields will prove that Nico Ditch went nowhere near Burnage. So the BBC site is wrong here. (4) I concede that the Carr Ditch connection is uncertain, but as it followed the Nico Ditch line westward from Platt Fields and Ryebank Fields, it's worth at least a mention. There's a photo from 1927 somewhere on the internet. (5) I could send my photos of the ditch in the Gorton and Chorlton areas - any use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unclegray (talk • contribs) 06:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've already pointed out, your conjecture is a waste of time. Unless you can present any of this from a reliable source, it cannot be included in this article.  Full stop. Parrot of Doom 07:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

So you're not even bothering looking at the maps or Manchester Evening News articles? OK, I won't disturb your cosy little corner of inaccuracies again. The site is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unclegray (talk • contribs) 09:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If there's an inaccuracy, present the reliable source that backs it up, and explain why you think that source is more reliable than the ones used within this article. It really is that simple.  Your personal observations aren't legitimate here. Parrot of Doom 14:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes Esdaile is one of the sources used by Landships and Lordships in Tameside, but just one so suggesting facts weren't checked seems unfounded. Neither of the MEN articles you refer to say the ditch ends in Ryebank Fields, or that Hough Moss no longer exists. It is possible that the Moss doesn't exist any more, but it existed when Nico Ditch was built. Given that "within otherwise featureless landscapes, ditches provided the easiest means of defining the portions of mosslands held by neighbouring townships of manors" it makes sense to mention the mosslands at either end of Nico Ditch. Clarifying that it's just east of Stretford, as the article does, is enough to deal with this. The bit in Lands and Lordship in Tameside would seem to represent the most up-to-date information in a reliable source on Nico Ditch. So that's what Wikipedia uses. I'm afraid Parrot of Doom is correct, we can't use your speculation. Wikipedia uses information from reliable sources, experts in the particular subject. If that means Carr Ditch is excluded as it's been dismissed as being part of Nico Ditch, then so be it. Nev1 (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarity for readers
A great deal of effort has been expended since the Victorians first noticed the feature, and more importantly took an interest in its origins. But it should be made clear that no verifiable conclusion has, or can, be reached. In the absence of any contemporaneous mention, and the lack of any extant, unmodified stretch of the Ditch, it's extremely unlikely we'll ever know. Wikipedia in any event does not allow the inclusion of original research. The only sources referred to are of low quality, or refer only to each other, or are purely speculative - as is the result of the GMAU dig. Broadly then, the theories are as follows: 1/. It's defensive. Unlikely, since the labour and time expended would have been better spent fortifying the river crossings on the Mersey. Labour may have been free, but time was often of the essence in safeguarding one's territory from imminent attack. Defending the burgh of Manchester itself would have been more easy and effective by fortifying the marsh islands to its' immediate south, such as what is now Hulme. 2/. It's a boundary marker. Really? The biggest and best marker is the nearby Mersey and its tributaries. The clues in the name, folks. 3/.It's an early attempt to gain extra agricultural value from the mosses, turf-fields and marshes it crossed. Tenuous, especially as we have no record of which land-owner constructed it.

As long as we don't know when, or why, or its' full extent, is made clear - by all means theorise away, as long as that's made clear to the reader. 194.70.181.1 (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In which reliable source does this explanation appear? Parrot of Doom 19:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for showing interest in the article, Nico Ditch isn't particularly well known and extra eyes may help shed light on the subject. Your suggestion that the ditch may have been "an early attempt to gain extra agricultural value from the mosses" is an interesting one, where is it made? The other two theories you mention are included, hopefully without giving the impression that one is definitely correct and the other is wrong. The article should make it clear that the purpose is uncertain, the opening paragraph gives two possibilities. Do you have a particular issue with how the article is presented? Nev1 (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * IIRC, Arrowsmith dismisses the idea that it's a drainage channel out of hand. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The source you quote above is weak, which sis the whole point 86.12.129.12 (talk) 11:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Which source are you talking about? Mr Stephen (talk) 11:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The drainage idea does not fit the WP criteria for inclusion, but it is interesting. The path of the ditch appears to follow the natural course of most drainage in the area. The military thesis is unlikely - the manpower needed would exceed known population levels at the time. As far as it being a property marker - the area was of no practical interest to its' major land-owners until the mid-19th century, and was sparsely populated, for obvious reasons, until that time. Therefore the purpose of the ditch is purely speculative on our parts. The phrasing 'more likely' is misleading, as it's no more or less likely - just a possibilty, not even a probability. The sources one would rely on are so weak, and effectively circular in argument, that I think the opening would profit from a clearer statement of our ignorance ! 86.12.129.12 (talk) 11:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding a KML file
see WikiProject U.S. Roads/Maps task force/Tutorial As a proof of concept exercise I have asked Flordian to add a /KML file to Deansgate and added one here. There are many issues. The Map complies with the description in Naming the Ditch, Manchester Area Psychogeographic] but could do with a site visit to finetune some of the locations. THe format of the template may be an issue. I am collecting comments on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. --ClemRutter (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

What's the point of this article ?
We know so little, and what we do know is so unverifiable, and the extant sources go round in circles, that anything other than a physical description seems pointless. There's far too much speculation and favouring of preconceptions in this article. Bastille day leads me to think that this article, like many a French aristocrat, could do with shortening. 193.63.210.2 (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm forced to ask, what is the point of this question, if not to enquire as to the purpose of an encyclopaedia? Parrot of Doom 13:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair point. 212.121.210.45 (talk) 11:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on the idiocy of your question I very much doubt that you're capable of being led to think anything. Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Stop being a dick. 212.121.210.45 (talk) 11:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Religious purpose ?
Without wishing to sound like John Michell, has anyone explored the possibility of an arcane ritual or spiritual purpose ? Our ancestors' thought processes are opaque, but if the purpose of similar structures has been divined, might they lend clues ? 212.121.210.45 (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)