Talk:Saddleworth Moor

M62
I removed the following information from the article as the M62 does not pass over the moor:

The M62's pass over Saddleworth Moor includes the highest point on the UK motorway network at 1,442 feet (440 metres) above sea level.

Richard ( T 13:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's odd - the source suggests it does, and I'm also confident the moorland I've driven over on the M62 is Saddleworth Moor. --Jza84 | Talk  19:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Referring to a reprint of the 1844 OS map, I can't find any reference to Saddleworth Moor at all. Saddleworth as a small settlement is shown 1km north east of Uppermill and the moor associated with it would appear to be a more recent geographical concept. From my days growing up in the Colne Valley (under the cloud cast by Brady and Hindley) and as a current resident of Holmfirth, my understanding of the area now described as Saddleworth Moor extends north/south only as far as Standedge and Holme Moss respectively. "Moors" tend to be much smaller areas than one might imagine, often only a few square miles at most. What is clear however, is that the M62 at its closest is over 5 miles (and numerous "moors") from Saddleworth Moor. Also, the "Saddleworth and Saddleworth Moor" reference on www.bronte-country.com is hopelessly inaccurate as it not only associates the moor with an area at least 25 miles away, but it also describes it as "just to the south west of where the M62 (Britain's highest motorway) crosses the Pennines".It is not - it's actually exactly south-east of the M62's highest Pennine crossing point.JohnB57 (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).--Harkey (talk) 09:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Now edited - you may wish to tidy a little but this now agrees with all map refs I can find. Misunderstandings like these can tend to do the rounds on Wikipedia, sometimes entering the realm of fact!JohnB57 (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You're already aware that I agree with you on this point. When I read what JohnB57 said that moors tend to be only a few miles big I immediately questioned this to myself, but, as I pondered on it for while, is realised you're right, aren't you!? Also being a resident of Holmfirth, I only know of the few around here but it's the situation for most of these. Getting back to the article, north of Saddleworth, there's Wessendenhead, Marsden Moor and then going on for Buckstones Moor before you get to the M62. However, without a map in front of my I am sure that I've missed one of two, especially on the Saddleworth side.
 * Richard ( T 19:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Treatment of Moors murders section
Copied from User talk:J3Mrs. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I see you reverted my edit to Saddleworth Moor. My reasoning was that (given the perennial media interest in the Moors murderers, particularly at the moment) well-meaning editors will continue to expand this section, and my subheading and template were an attempt to forestall that (I understand the use of summaries with a link to a main article; not everyone does). I was trying to help; without something like this I fear that you will be fighting a losing battle trying to stem the tide. If you feel strongly, I think you should at least add something about it to the talk page, otherwise this will continue happening. Like it or not, I think it's undeniable that Saddleworth Moor's main notability is for the Moors murders, so (a) I'm not surprised that there's a tendency for this section to grow, even though I understand why you and others might wish it otherwise; (b) with nothing on the talk page, even careful editors are likely to edit as they see fit (most people won't look at edit summaries in the article history, they'll just dive in and edit); (c) personally I think my edit was beneficial to the article and a subheading is justified. I was essentially following the guidance at WP:SUMMARY which seems highly relevant to this situation. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a link, it does not need more. I am willing to remove information as WP:UNDUE. Who reads the talk page before editing? I don't and neither does anyone adding this stuff. It would be more useful to add relevant material about geology, flora and fauna but subheadings in such a short article can only inspire editors to expand it. J3Mrs (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Copied to Talk:Saddleworth Moor, which I think is the best place for this discussion. For what it's worth, I read talk pages. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Unnecessary headers will inspire those who wish to add trivia. Perhaps people visit this page for other reasons, ie to find out about geology flora and fauna. I looked back at the Moors murders additions, I don't think the editor who added them read talk pages either. J3Mrs (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Totally agree that the article could benefit from more on Saddleworth Moor itself (geology, etc.), and that it doesn't need more on the Moors murders (which are rightly covered in detail elsewhere). But I disagree that adding a subheading encourages expansion (I wouldn't consider it trivia, incidentally). As I understand WP:SUMMARY, adding (which seems to assume a subheading, which is why I added one) draws attention to the fact that the section following it is a summary, and that those wanting more detail on that particular facet should follow the link to the more detailed article. If anything, I'd expect it to reduce the expansion of the section. This seems a tailor-made case for that approach. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not consider a less invasive See also section so it is not stuck in the middle of the article.J3Mrs (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I prefer my solution (I find the "Main article" links useful, rather than obtrusive), but a "See also" section would be better than nothing. Let's see what others think? Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course you prefer your solution but I cannot see the point of having such an obtrusive heading in the middle of this article. J3Mrs (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 05:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Mystery man
Adding here as removed from article. Here are more sources for the mystery man, from The Guardian and Sky News: snd  Police suggested that he might have been making a pilgrimage to the scene of the 1949 plane crash possibly because he was related to a victim of the disaster:. Note that The Guardian source says that the man had no scars, but this is incorrect. BBC Radio 4's World at One has revealed that he had a scar on his left leg and had a metal plate holding his femur together. The manufacture's mark on the plate has narrowed the man down to being one of 7,000 possible plate recipients, in Pakistan, after 2001. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 12:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This article is about Saddleworth Moor, what extra information about the moor does the above tell the reader? This is a news story not content suitable for adding to an encyclopedia. J3Mrs (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You could argue that the fact it contained murdered children doesn't tell the reader "extra information about the moor". That was likewise "a news story", but a much bigger one. I don't think it gets in the national press very often. This is quite an unusual occurrence. The possible link to the aircrash may prove significant in establishing this man's identity. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The article is linked, so is the crash, I don't see your problem. J3Mrs (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Which article do you mean? The Moors Murders topic has five sentences, including one for poor little Keith Bennett, whose body has never been found – we only have Ian Brady’s word that he’s connected to the moor at all. I was just thinking the mystery man might deserved more. But the plane crash has only one sentence, so maybe it should get a bit more instead? Perhaps the mystery man belongs at the plane crash article, but probably only if the link is proven. I think you have done a very good job of tidying up this article, by the way. It has a better structure like this. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The mystery man is mentioned and referenced to an interesting BBC article but the encyclopedia deals in facts not speculation. I've been interested in this area for some time, I sometimes walk there and appreciate that you think I've improved its structure. J3Mrs (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The details of the police enquiries and the leg plate are in this Guardian source 14th May 2016: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/14/mystery-saddleworth-moor-who-was-neil-dovestone. There is so much information here he could have his own article. 217.38.87.89 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not relevant here. You'd better write the article. J3Mrs (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to hear that. I wonder would you help me to write an article? I have never written an article before and it looks very daunting. Or do you know someone who might be able to help me? Thank you. 217.38.84.185 (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)