Talk:Rivington/Archive 1

Rivington in World War Two
Rivington was not heavily used in World War Two, and there was no POW camp there. There may be another Rivington in England that was, but it was not the one in Lancashire. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.60.223.139 17:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC).


 * According to the book Leverhulme's Rivington, The Bungalow was used as a billet for troops during WWII. The barns were used for the storage of sugar and a series of nissen huts were erected on either side of the driveway leading to Rivington Hall, which was also used for storage purposes.  There is no mention of the use by PoWs but many army camps were used for PoWs later in WWII and after the war.  --jmb 21:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Restoration work
'Work has been undertaken recently to restore the gardens to their former glory, clearing many of the rhododendron bushes that had overgrown the site.' I wonder when this project started and whether it is complete: in 2008 it may not really be 'recent'--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

A structure for this article
Rovington asked for some help to improve the structure of this article. There is a lot of information in the article at present, too much and far too much repetition and overlinking. This is a possible structure to use for this settlement based on WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements It is really important to focus on the heading or sub heading and not become side tracked. I suggest looking at some of these Good Articles, WikiProject_UK_geography

1.1 Infobox

1.2 Lead: Summarises the main article points, can be written last

1.3 History:  Remember it's not only about the manor, paragraphs with blue wikilinks to related articles, eg the Manor of Rivington, industry, Lever Park. Schools and churches have their own sections so only need the briefest of mentions.

1.4 Governance: probably a single paragraph

1.5 Geography:  a paragraph blue wikilinks to Pike, reservoirs etc

1.6 Demography: table and explanation  population table

1.7 Economy: paragraph on tourism (not advertising)

1.8 Culture and community: I don't know what might go in here as I am not local,  societies, clubs

1.9 Landmarks: listed buildings (couple of sentences each +blue wikilinks to those with individual articles, but not a list

1.10 Transport 	:roads, proximity to M61, rail link, bus services

1.11 Education 	:wikilinked to local schools

1.12 Religion	:church paragraph chapel paragraph

1.13 Sport 	:maybe fell race, hiking, etc.

1.14 Notable people I hate these sections, a sentence and link to really notable people not everyone who has lived at Rivington Hall. eg the Bishop, Lord Lever

2.8 Public services	 :Health service providers, Police, fire waste disposal, water electricity suppliers

Information about blue wikilinks articles should not repeat the linked article, just refer or summarise it. Articles should be linked only once in the whole article

Consider putting detailed info into the Manor of Rivington, create an article with one wikilink from Rivington History. When writing for an encyclopedia it is essential to chose only the most relevant information and write in as few words as possible.--J3Mrs (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The suggested article about the manor would be better titled as Manor of Rivington since very few Wikipedia article titles start with the word "The" – examples Manor of Northstead, Manor of Rensselaerswyck, Manor of Scrivelsby, etc. HLE (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I hadn't realised that:-( I've changed it. Apart from that does it seem ok?--J3Mrs (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Have copied the sections Manor of Rivington, Lever Park and Rivington Village across to new articles. The method for the structure does look to be good. On notables I think it is important to also mention Barons Willoughby of Parham and the heirs, the Shaws and the Roscoes they are all not living persons so no risk of breach of privacy. I shall look forward to seeing the new version.  Culture and community: there is a local club, kept quiet so not to attract tourists.  On religion a mention of the Catholic Lady Hall Private Chapel and the Andertons would be good as there are no catholic or other places of worship other than Chapel and Church. On economy there are still active farms, not many, but on ecomony those could also be added.  On demography that may be suprising to some I did start to gather that info from 1830 but have gaps in 20th century. (Rovington (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC))


 * I don't mind the Manor of Rivington and Lever Park articles being created, but feel the creation of the Rivington village article is too much and should be deleted or moved to the creator's own user sub-page. The Rivington article covers both the village and the civil parish. It is not neccesary to have one article for the village and another for the civil parish. Nearby Horwich, Blackrod and Adlington are both "towns" and "civil parishes", but we don't see separate town and civil parish articles for those places. Looking at the "Revision history of Rivington" I noticed that at 13:41 on 18 May 2010 IP address 80.47.227.16 edited the first paragraph from "Rivington is a small village and civil parish..." to "Rivington is a civil parish...". I don't see why part of it was deleted and so have reinstated it again. I agree with J3Mrs that the article should follow with How to write about settlements. HLE (talk) 05:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with HLE there is no need whatsoever for a Rivington village article and I also think the Manor of Rivington and Rivington Hall articles should be merged. I suggested a "manor" article without realising the extent to which the Rivington Hall article covered the manor.--J3Mrs (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The Rivington village article I was not sure about myself I created it as I was wondering how much information would be lost in the edits today. The manor and hall articles cannot be merged as the two are seperate topics, the Hall estate was only 5/8th of the entire manor now its lever park and the other 3/8ths are private. The Hall article could instead be cut back to concentrate on the building and leave the detail of the Manor where it is. (Rovington (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC))

Hill Summits
Would the Rivington Pike page be a better place for this, it seems out of place.--J3Mrs (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Rewriting
I have pruned some of the repetition and overlinking, though I have not finished. I have added some section headings but not yet finished that.--J3Mrs (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It has more structure now but not all its sections. A nice photograph of the village instead of the gloomy one of the Pike would be an improvement. I've got rid of some pictures, too many reservoirs. The school pic was used in the school article so that went too.--J3Mrs (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Where is link to Manor article
Just tried to find the link to the Manor of Rivington, surely it should be under Governance, where is it?. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rovington (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC).


 * It is linked in the Manor subsection. You ought to merge it with Rivington Hall.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to make it is clear the settlement article is a general article about lots of aspects of Rivington. It is necessary not to overload any of the sections with too much detail especially as there are lots of links and perhaps in time it could be a Good Article.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Without overload I have corrected a small section, in Manor, the informatio was wrong. Again where is the link to the article Manor of Rivington? The truth must out in history.


 * It is at the end of the first line in the Manor subsection! Please explain what was wrong, it was all referenced.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * United Utilities are not a reliable reference for land ownership. The village is private land, Bradleys is also private and as far as you can go toward Anglezarke where the United Utilities land starts at the resi. Please stick to independant references. United Utilities own Lever Park (Rovington (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC))


 * I have changed it.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks (Rovington (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC))
 * Parham is just the name of the title, it was not inherited as a place just a part of the title. To keep it simple and accurate have just changed to 15th Baron (Rovington (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC))

Manor section corrections
Good the Lever park is now correct. However there is a section in here thats wrong, as follows,

Andertons, was a 300 year lease, maybe but not sure if this is now what we call Anderton? Needs original research to establish this (I know its wp:not)

Breres, Andertons,

The Breres were the inlaws to Pilkingtons and the Lever in their bloodline - connected to Hall.

Lathoms, Shaws and Levers owned land in the manor at different times. In the eighteenth century disputes over rights to lead mines at Anglezarke resulted in the Shaws selling their estate to Hugh, 12th Lord Willoughby of Parham.[5]

Above needs to change to Lathoms sold to Bradley now Bradleys Farm.

Shaws changed ownership lots of times, but the final result was death of 15th Baron in 1765 so can skip 12th Baron, its irrelevant in short intro. The Willoughby heirs were Shaw and Roscoes, estates are still held by their heirs near Upper Rivi resi.

Is there no where else to mention Pike Tower and Hall?

(Rovington (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC))


 * Added to sentence 'on the death of the 15th Baron 1765 the Shaws and Roscoes inherited the Barons estates. '

Done to clarify that paragraph, but still think the 12th Baron is not needed in that paragraph (Rovington (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC))
 * For the scope of this article it's simply too detailed. If people are interested they click the link it's as simple as that. You have two articles containing all this and more, I don't understand your need to keep putting it in, it's confusing to the uninitiated. I can't understand what you mean by this "Above needs to change to Lathoms sold to Bradley now Bradleys Farm", it doesn't make sense to me. The statement was referenced. The Pike tower and Hall are mentioned what do you mean by no where else.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this reference [History of a Lancashire Family, Shaw, 1940] a book? If it is could you look at the bibliography and cite it as such. It needs a page number too. I usually copy the citation and add my own details. --J3Mrs (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes it is, will post that ref shortly, tea gone cold here.

I have added back the most common names used of Rovington or Rivyngton occured from the 14th to 19th century.[6 History of Pilkington Family 3rd ed] please leave this in, copy of the original charter is displayed on the wall at the School. Three authors Hampson, Pilkington, and Irvine all state this and its backed up by records at National Archives. (Rovington (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)).
 * And I have undone it as there are more than enough names referenced to a source anybody can access. Please don't continue this point of view pushing.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not a POV its has many refereneces and far more than the the one you have used in the topic there, there are also records to back up that statement up at the national archives aswell as at least four publications, there is no reason to exclude it - the VCH is not accurate on the name. Would you please put the factual information back in. I can see no reason for you to exclude it (Rovington (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC))


 * Please add the names back. Its inaccurate otherwise and the short sentence is hardly wordy.

Rovington is in Court rolls in the time of Henry VIII http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATLN=6&CATID=3793392&SearchInit=4&SearchType=6&CATREF=DL+30%2F79%2F1032|Court rolls DL 30/79/1032 a variation being Rovyngton was used by some between 1371 and 1521 http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search/search_results.aspx?st=q&queryText=rovyngton&aqgQueryText=rovyngton&queryType=ALL

Two variations occur in 1566 of the place name these are Rovington and Rivyngton and are used in the 1566 Patent of Queen Elizabeth I http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/A2A/records.aspx?cat=055-ddx94&cid=-1&Gsm=2008-06-18#-1|DDX94/100 for the foundation of Rivington Grammar School and Church. Both names are also used in deeds relating to the Pilkington family of Rivington upto 1605 and http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records.aspx?cat=055-ddx94&cid=3-17-2#3-17-2 DDX94/194,1587

History of Rivington, Thomas Hampson, 1893, availalbe from Bolton Library. History of Pilkington Family of Lancashire, 1066 -1600, Pilkington, 1904 History of Rivington, Wm Fergusson Irvine, 1904

Both of the above are online at the Amercican archives so anhyone can access them.

The next is also available to buy its in print and recent.

History of Rivington and Blackrod Grammar School Publisher: Manchester University Press; New edition edition (Dec 1966) ISBN-10: 0719012244 ISBN-13: 978-0719012242

Rivington, Revington and Rovington are used in a settlement in 1661 http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records.aspx?cat=055-dx&cid=8-67#8-67 DX 725.

I see no reason still for you to exclude the names Rovington and Rivyngton from the article. (Rovington (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC))
 * Follow up, the VCH your reference is titled Rivington or Rovington.

(Rovington (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC))

Governance
Wonderig if manor section is not better under Governance as that is what the Manor was.
 * I think it's fine and easy to find just where it is.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Village and Civil Parish
The lead section of this article should include both "small village" and "civil parish". However, Rovington seems to think that "small village" should be removed from the lead section because the article is about the whole area not the just village on its own. The Horwich, Blackrod and Adlington articles are about not just those towns but their civil parish areas, but we don't remove the word "town" because those areas about more than the towns. Think about it Rovington, the countryside north of the Wilderswood area or Red Moss are part of the civil parish of Horwich if not the actual town, but the Horwich article includes both "town" and "civil parish" in the lead section. – HLE (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Its currently reads, Rivington is a small village and a civil parish of the Borough of Chorley, Lancashire, England. I read the paragraph earlier and I am sure it missed the second part out entirely and was certainly missing the word and. I read it a couple of times first as I could not beleive my eyes. Yes I agree with you in full, the article lead looked good as it is now. The layout is much better to. Maybe there was something dropped out of one of the edits between your last viewing and my small edit. --Rovington (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Geo grid Links dead
All the links from the SD grids are broken, HLE you I think are more experienced that I with those. --Rovington (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've checked the grid references and they worked ok for me. I can only assume the website went down at the time or you had a problem with your computer. Sorry can't be anymore help than that. – HLE (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * They work for me. What do you think about the one for the castle? I think it looks odd in the middle of the text.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe list the geo reference data under listed buildings? May look better. Geo links aare now working, must have been a glitch.--Rovington (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Images
Was about to reload images with modification to protect the CC-by-SA-3.0 license, (on advice from my IP attorney) however the modern images now on the page I think look better in this article, any thoughts?.--Rovington (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Looked a bit bare but I must admit to liking the Rivington Lakeland image. I think the Pigeon Tower one is fantastic. I wish I'd taken it!--J3Mrs (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi new version is here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rivington_Little_Lake_Distr.jpg

Not sure if it can be worked in, let you decide that I really do like the layout now, the photos on there now look pretty good, very impressed with the one of the hall:-) Pigeon Tower looks surreal --Rovington (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Page View stats show big drop
Since recent edits, not mine, the page currrent edition view stats in history have dropped from a peak of almost 900 a day down to less than 50, thats one big drop. ---Rovington (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure what you're getting at here. There was indeed a very exceptional peak (so I think we can discount the nearly 900) at a time when the article was being heavily edited by more than one editor, remember every edit also counts as a view. Don't forget there are now numerous other related articles most of which are in an improved state. By the way have you looked at any other page view stats? I think you'll find articles like Peak District or Manchester United are down too. I think it's called "The World Cup". I don't think it's anything personal.--J3Mrs (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You may be right you know I was looking at the other pages and they are down to. Grr, football! I do like the look of the page. How do I deal with a very annoying bot that goes about removing links that need to be in an article for creative commons attribution 3.0, some help on that would be greatly appreciated.--Rovington (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My advice would be stop adding your own personal website as it doesn't "need" to be in the article. I'm not sure what you mean by "Creative Commons", but I have not used it on any pages I have edited. I paraphrase text from the references I've found and do not "cut and paste" from any other sites. That is what editors are expected to do and what you should do too.--J3Mrs (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead Mines Clough
The old lead mines are in Anglezarke. --88.104.36.243 (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Industries
I have reverted an edit to re include the that a mill is mentioned in deeds of 1544, its verifiable and is relevant to where article mentions a mill. --PL.-Snr (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And I have copyedited it, added book to bibliography and used a citation consistent with the rest of the article.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I had added :

One of the oldest buildings in Rivington built 811AD is the Hall Barn and was part of the early agricultural industry. Rivington is mentioned in 1166 in the records of the Barony of Manchester in a grant of calves of land, again indicating agricultural use. The adjacent area was the Kings chase. Alexander de Pilkington living between 1262 and 1278 is mentioned within the Knights Fees as owning six oxgangs of land at Rivington in thanage. The use of the measure 'Oxgang' shows the land was ploughed.

This was deleted, yet it seems appropriate to have this in place.--PL.-Snr (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"One of the oldest buildings in Rivington built 811AD is the Hall Barn and was part of the early agricultural industry."
 * Reply Well if you really want to know, I will explain.
 * Date of barn disputed, not about industry.

"Rivington is mentioned in 1166 in the records of the Barony of Manchester in a grant of calves of land, again indicating agricultural use."
 * What is a "calves of land" and why is it industrial?

"The adjacent area was the Kings chase."
 * Adjacent to what? Is it even in Rivington? Isn't a chase hunting land? So what's it got to do with industry?

"Alexander de Pilkington living between 1262 and 1278 is mentioned within the Knights Fees as owning six oxgangs of land at Rivington in thanage. The use of the measure 'Oxgang' shows the land was ploughed."
 * Industry???

"yet it seems appropriate to have this in place" I have no idea why you added this to the Industry section, rather odd. Would you like to explain why you did? There is room in any article for relevant, correctly cited and grammatically written content. I don't think this met any of the criteria.--J3Mrs (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * May I suggest instead for this to go in a summary into early history. Who disputes the sources for the date of the Hall Barn ? --88.109.52.111 (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Chorley Council Political Makeup
I earlier edited out the political makeup of Chorley borough council from the article. Such a level of detail seemed appropriate in the Chorley Borough article rather than here. I have not seen such detail of the borough council makeup on other town articles. Is it appropriate to repeat the detail on each towns pages for the makeup of the borough council rather than instead wiki link to the main article about the borough. The high level of detail about Chorley Council appears to be information that is about Chorley, not specific to Rivington. I think the extent of the detail of the political makeup of Chorley borough council should be removed and instead concentrate on the representation of this town --PL.-Snr (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The information is appropriate to Rivington, unlike the large section on medieval agriculture you added to Industry?? and which I removed. There are few decent articles on settlements the size of Rivington so it is difficult to compare it, I know I have looked around and tried. I was hoping to nominate this article at GAN but Rovington's little edit wars make sure it won't pass, Rivington's loss, not mine.--J3Mrs (talk) 08:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I will only make corrections where there are errors and am editing in good faith.--PL.-Snr (talk) 03:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Article content for discussion here - see WP:NPA --PL.-Snr (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Be very careful when editing, if this edit was deliberate it is unacceptable. Now what's this nonsense about personal attacks? Nev1 (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This discusion is not appropriate on an article talk page, the page here is about the article not WP:NPA and has nothing to do with Nev1. --PL.-Snr (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have reverted Rovington's edits as they altered mine and removed comments which as Nev1 stated is unacceptable.--J3Mrs (talk) 08:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hall Barn
There is a sentence in the article that reads - Sources dispute whether Rivington Hall Barn is of Saxon origin or was built in the 16th century.

I have read both the other two articles and United Utilities says dates to ninth century, cannot see any dispute between them and English heritage as the English Heritage site recites the alterations over the years, they are not in dispute as far as I can see. Could editor please clarify. --PL.-Snr (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * English Heritage states "Probably 16C", Clearer now?--J3Mrs (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * may be better to say that in article, dispute seems the wrong choice of word.--PL.-Snr (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is typical of Rovington, he adds disputed info, ie Saxon barn, then says two refs say the same thing, which they obviously don't, then after it's been made clear in a two word phrase, "Probably 16C", tries to make out it should be changed because he doesn't like a word. If he hadn't added disputed info nobody would be wasting their time as I clearly am. I'm glad he's doing it here though as it will remain as a record.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reponded later on this page, you have advanced a POV in the article neither of the sources say they are in dispute. I can admit when I am wrong maybe you can to. --PL.-Snr (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hall
article states: Robert Pilkington built the original Rivington Hall in the 15th century.

Would editor please clarify as the source I have says in the late fifteenth century the hall was extended. --PL.-Snr (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well maybe it was.--J3Mrs (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It being extended 1478 then a hall must have already been there, unlikely built by this early Robert. Have you a source stating built in 15th century otherwise the statement in the article is likely wrong. --PL.-Snr (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I refer you to a diff from before I edited, your words. "There is then little detail of the occupancy at Rivington Hall until 1478 when we find Robert Pilkington arranging to build a more spacious house." This is where the information came from.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I just took the liberty of visiting your personal site which says exactly the same thing as I quoted above. I really must check what I contribute.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Bishop James Pilkington dates
The article about James Pilkington reads - James Pilkington (1520–1576), was born in Rivington, Lancashire, England. He became the first Protestant Bishop of Durham from 1561 until his death in 1576.

The Rivington article reads he became Bishop 1560.--PL.-Snr (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He was nominated as bishop of Durham on 26 December 1560 but wasn't consecrated until 2 March 1561, see Handbook of British Chronology page 242. --HLE (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

End of Pilkington era
The date given does not appear correct in manor section:

and on Robert's death in 1605, the Pilkingtons possession of the ancient manor ended,

Yet the estate was still with the heirs until sale in 1611, then there is also the matter of James who leased the estate in 1604 for 300 years and as an editor mentioned sold the rents off in 1620; I cannot see how the date 1605 is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rovington (talk • contribs) 14:18, 7 August 2010


 * However James agreed to the sale of the estate in 1611 in exchange for an annual payment (rent charge) his lifetime. He sold this payment (rent charge) and any claim to the property to Robert Lever and Thomas Breres' widow in 1620. --J3Mrs (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * So which date 1605, 1611 or 1620 did the Pilkington era end ?  1611 seems about right, but then theres the 1620 --PL.-Snr (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to follow up on this, re: James and 1611 sale, surely that is the date the Pilkingtons ended their ownership of the manor - no others owned the Pilkington share between 1605 and 1611. The manor seems to have been sold with reservations as James did not release the rent charge until 1620. The article is currently wrong and should state the date as 1611 as it was the date of the sale agreement. --PL.-Snr (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Read P.120 of your much quoted book by James Pilkington. 1605


 * Made good faith edit and have seen you undit the edit. Rather than undo my edits would you aim to improve the edit in order to move forward with the article and allow collaboration. I have edited sentence (fullstop) followed by 'and'. I have replaced with word 'After' with capital letter to start sentence, maybe that was a typo on your edit. With my minor edit it is now more consistent with the transcripts and overall particulars detailed in the work cited. I request you do not undo this minor revision --PL.-Snr (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Manor
I consider this to be a misleading edit summary, "Rephrased the sentence to read correctly, corrected the . before 'and..' and shortened a little while retaining its context" in relation to this diff, and the whole thing to be Rovington's synthesis to his own pov. James Pilkington was a heir, as were other people, but he was not Lord of the manor and he sold his rights to rents or income in 1620, and that's all they were, rents. The author of the book appears better qualified to summarise the situation and therefore the text of the book, not the appendices should be used then there can be no question of synthestis.--J3Mrs (talk) 08:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no introduction of POV or SYNTH on my part, if you read the books pages cited in my edit, in regard to the one you undid earlier today you will see the author does summarise the documents later in the book. A SYNTH suggests an article direction forwards a new abstract view from various works rather than staying with the source in original research. The VCH is an important source on these articles and draws the same conclusions as now appear on wikipedia. You do seem to have introduced a POV regarding an alledged dispute between United Utilities and English Heritage in relation to the date of the Hall Barn, the parties are not in dispute, they simply have different opinions. In the sentence you have stated 'sources' however have not stated which sources you mean and again I ask you to consider rewording the article in that section, there are a number of sources in this article. I would also suggest checking sources against secondary evidence from the national archives online to avoid use of unreliable sources, in some cases for example Irvives work much of it cannot be substantiated. The key is to check the sources used in the publications cited to ensure reliability. Pilkingtons work editions 1 and 2 are wrong, a later book by Williams-Ellis, The Pilkington Story has also shown errors in both Irvives and Pilkingtons 1912 edtitions. Further there is doubt expressed by various historians involved in the history of Rivington in regard to the authenticity of the Rivington Deed Book which forms the very basis of older works I have mentioned PL.-Snr]] (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)--PL.-Snr (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No I think YOU misunderstand, there is no dispute between EH and UU, just that you & I dispute it, hence the edit. The sources are the refs at the end of the sentence!!! Please don't lecture me on sources, I only quote from them You are the one who quotes them if it suits you and dispute them when I do, hence the pov.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

unmarried
How relevant to this article is it whether or not Katerine Pilkington was married, this article is not about family history, so why is this pushed in the article. I fail to see why it is included, in no other articles have I seen a persons marital status even noted unless there is relevance to the article. Is this statement judgemental, what of Elizabeth who died at New Hall in 1633, will at Preston. Yes, we know who the mother was, but what does it matter that Katherine was unmarried. --PL.-Snr (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I merely pointed out, and wasn't aware I had "pushed", that she was unmarried as she remained at New Hall which might be considered unusual at the time and as it is referenced it should stay. I was unaware of any marriage or children they don't appear in the Pilkington History. I think it is just as relevant as you insisting on calling New Hall an "estate" as I am still unsure as to your agenda with this article.


 * In response to unsigned comment, a singular mention of 'unmarried' is enough, it becomes pushed when repeated especially in the lead as it is not of great significance to the article. In the source the freeholder 'estates' are mentioned as 'estates' so it seemed adequate to refer to the New Hall estate. I had no intention of implying that New Hall was bigger than it was. From other sources I can say here that in the period it was not such a big deal if a women who was provided for by her own family and unmarried, even if her children were illegitimate. I do not think it is our place to judge - I doubt either of us would consider using the old term for illegitimate issue - I really hope you agree. --PL.-Snr (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Again you read far more into my edits than whatever was intended. I made no big deal, if you chose to interpret it as such that is entirely up to you.--J3Mrs (talk) 07:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Grid
Any reason for the shirty edit summary Rovington? I had undone 2 IPs who provided no rationale which seemed reasonable to me.--J3Mrs (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Good faith edit that linked to a wikipedia article was added, why remove the wikipedia internal link, Anderton is on the Rivington boundary, its daft to block that edit, there is no article about Grimeford Village except in the Anderton artricle. I suggest you leave it be --PL.-Snr (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Bye the way has Belmont vanished without trace or is it not included for other reasons? Theres is an article on wikipedia about Belmont, its significant enough, have added it. Here's a challenge for you, find Foulds, is on the 1566 charter ;-)Belmont,_Lancashire --PL.-Snr (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't feel the need to link all the articles I have improved or created in these grids. I do however try to find decent links rather than those that are badly written.--J3Mrs (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The spirit of wikipedia as I understand it is the collaborative working of everyone, an article is not an individual legacy, articles are not 'owned', editors may hold a degree in English or be a young person with poor English. With the latter another editor can help by improving the English without reverting that editors input in the process. To quote “It is easy to see the faults of others, but difficult to see one’s own faults...” Udanavarga 27.1, collaborative working is important. Improving articles is the essence of the wikipedia so please let other editors input to articles rather than revert other users good faith edits just for the sake of it.--PL.-Snr (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Some editors learn, how to write, cite, be neutral, some don't. I have enjoyed collaborating on here, but not all editors are good collaborators. My greatest fault is.... oh I'd better not say. Your quotation of course works both ways.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Transport and routes
I cannot see the need in this article to state Bolton people travelled to Rivington via Chorely New Rd on trams then onto Riivngton on foot, its to specific, there were other routes including Chorley Old Rd, via Belmont from Blackrod and Horwich railway stations. The statement seems to miss off horses and carts on Chorley New Rd heading to Horwich. Suggest a read of Rawlinsons 'About Rivington' printed 1966, he goes into some detail about the problems on trains at Easter when the railway had to increase trains from Bolton to Horwich to every 10 minutes each full to the brim and the railway hardly coping with the demand. (PL.-Snr (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)).


 * The trams went along Chorley New Road, a new quick way of getting there. Ridiculous argument.--J3Mrs (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You blocking edits is Ridiculous. I am trying to do a good faith edit to correct my own words from the volumes of information I added last year. Please take the opportunity to read up on the subject, see 'About Rivington', John Rawlinson, 1966, Nelson Brothers, he states the Tram service from Bolton could not meet the demands, page 93 5th paragragh - the crushing and jostling was unpleasant for women and children. He goes on to say that passengers had difficulty securing seats and after waiting gave up and went home, many trying to get home went to Horwich railway station. Are you just reverting for the sake of it? Assume good faith, no need to be so impolite. (PL.-Snr (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)).


 * I always AGF, and you know all about impolite. What was good enough for a GA review is good enough for me. Do not tell me what I should and shouldn't do. I am making sure Rivington remains a Good Article. You have just illustrated just how popular the tram was so why remove it?. What you don't appear to understand is that it is an illustration of how the tourist economy developed. It doesn't have to be a complete rewrite of Rawlinson's book. It is encyclopedic. --J3Mrs (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep to the article please, the biggest impact was the arrival of the railway. When you get chance I hope you read the books cited. (PL.-Snr (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)).
 * Settled, with good edit adding trains and keeping it short. (PL.-Snr (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)).

Lever Park
I have restored the reference to the folly in Lever Park as Lever Castle. See Lever Castle for a reference. It is indeed a folly, but there are many follies in England whose name includes the word 'castle'. It is desirable to have a name by which to refer to this building, so that it can be linked from other pages and distinguished from the original Liverpool Castle. Other comparable cases include Stowe Castle in Stowe Park. Googling reveals that this building is certainly not known as 'Lever's folly'.-Paravane (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I never said it was called Lever's folly but that indeed is what it is. It is listed as Rivington Castle by English Heritage, a more reliable source.--J3Mrs (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, I have tweaked it to 'Lever Castle or Rivington Castle', so that a search for Lever Castle will find this.-Paravane (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Three Castles in a sentence is very poor for a Good Article, I wasn't aware this was written to be found in a Google search.
 * The folly is known as 'Lever Castle', not 'Lever'. A possible alternative: "At Coblowe Hillock near the Lower Rivington Reservoir is a folly known as Lever Castle or Rivington Castle.  This was built as a scale replica of Liverpool Castle: it was begun in 1912 but never completed.[58]" - Paravane (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever but I don't think it's needed at all.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)