Talk:Shaw and Crompton/Archive 3

Good Article
I've passed this article as a Good Article. Although the lead could be expanded, it seems to cover the major topics of the article, and of the topics it doesn't, they appear fairly minor. Referencing isn't perfect, but I think there's enough referencing here that the article could be safely called well-referenced. To make the article be FA worthy or something though, there will need to be more, especially if you go for FA where most every statement of fact could use an internal citation. The notable residents section though could use some citation in particular though, I think that'd be pretty easy. Other than that, the article seems NPOV, broad enough to even include local controversies which is nice, most of the images appear to be in the public domain which is fine, and most of the recent edits seem to just be adding references for the most part, so it doesn't seem entirely unstable. Homestarmy 14:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it seems a good article. Well done. Try to reference the 'Filmography' and 'Notable residents' sections -- complete sections without references is a Bad Thing. The JPS talk to me  14:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

BUT is it 'True'?
Not having lived in the area, but having acquaintance with people from the area (re. Shaw Motor Cycle Club) I am led to think that Shaw is a place on it's own. No-one who I know, from there, refers to Shaw and Crompton, they only call it Shaw. So, I looked it up and there it is, 'Shaw is a hamlet in the district of Crompton'. Where has the town of 'Shaw and Crompton' come from? Is it a 'local government term', or an 'official placename'? If it is the former, the article will only mislead. 80.193.161.89 13:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH. PS. Sorry Jhamez!


 * It's on the town boundary markers. Jhamez84 14:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ...oh, and the official civil parish boundary markers (yes they are seperate). It's also at the train station, and official literature,, and used in local media (Oldham Advertiser for example).


 * Shaw is used in preference, in a simillar way Skem is for Skelmersdale. This, coupled with the postal district being just Shaw, and some ill-informed townsfolk (some think Crompton is High Crompton), means and Crompton is often dropped. This is all explained (in encyclopedic terms) in the article however.


 * The source you speak of is from 1911(!!!!), and is wholly outdated, as Crompton meant Crompton Urban District, and Shaw is certainly no longer a hamlet. I trust this explains this. Jhamez84 15:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've said this before, Placenames never change. I feel the townsfolk aren't 'ill-informed' at all, Shaw is 'in' Crompton, like the history books say it is. As for your remark about 'Skem.' and 'Skelmersdale', well, Skem. is, clearly, just a shortened version of the same placename. People never refer to sub-sections of Skelmersdale as ie. 'Digmoor and Skelmersdale', do they? The references you give are purely Council or Local Government titles, the same as they refer to 'Wigan and Leigh' as an authority governing both areas, as a whole, but Wigan and Leigh are seperate places. You'll be changing the name of Royton to 'Royton and Oldham' next! 80.193.161.89 20:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC) JemmynoteasilyledH.
 * Noone here has changed any place names and the concept of Royton and Oldham is rediculous, as Royton isn't in Oldham. Shaw was the name of the area in the centre of the town of Crompton. It was the centre of commerce for the whole area too and the location of the post office when the Royal Mail established itself in Crompton. Shaw was a big name, but it couldn't be a town in its own right as it was in the centre of an existing town (with a lot of wealthy people in it). Changing the name to Shaw would not have gone down well with people in other areas of the town and changing Shaw to Crompton wouldn't have made good business sense. Hence the official name of Shaw and Crompton. Shaw and Crompton is not an authority, it is, without a shadow of a doubt, a town. It is shortened to Shaw for the original reason - it makes good business sense - especially as the Royal Mail have always refused to acknowledge Crompton. I predict that within my lifetime I will see the Crompton name gradually disappear altogether, as it already has done from most maps. Peteb16 21:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite right. Though some local councilors are attempting to resurrect the Crompton name.


 * That said, placenames do change (quite obviously - it is ridiculous to assert otherwise); Manchester is not Mamucium. There is an overwhelming amount of official and published reference material proving that Shaw and Crompton, are, at least now, one and the same. Jhamez84 21:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Pete, you won't see the 'place' called Crompton disappear in your lifetime, unless a 'new town' is created, called Shaw, via. the New Towns Act. Likewise, it would take the same process to create Shaw and Crompton as one town. Because the name ceases to be used doesn't mean the place doesn't exist, it's not so simple. I have found this out, to my cost, in land purchases over the years. Places and Titles crop up after many years via. residual covenants and even MP's like Ian McCartney have no influence over what is written and sealed, whether it's 'historic' or not. As for addresses, they only mean anything to the Royal Mail for delivery purposes. According to the Royal Mail, Pete, Royton IS in Oldham! Take 'Shaw and Crompton' railway station for example. It's only called that because it serves both places, Shaw 'and' Crompton. 80.193.161.89 23:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Jemmy(again)H.
 * But, Shaw and Crompton are two seperate council wards. If they were one place, called 'Shaw and Crompton' wouldn't it be just one ward?


 * You have a history of using talk pages to make unsubstantiated claims, without any backing of published material, to divide contemporary geo-administrative arrangements within borough boundaries. I can forgive you because you are not from the area (though can't forgive your association with Shaw Motor Cycle Club) - but here in the Oldham borough we are lucky enough to have clearly defined town boundaries, not strange neighbourhood township partnerships, like in Wigan. There are seven distinct and defined areas of Oldham MB, hense the seven squares of the civic logo.


 * And no, Royton is not in Oldham, just like Failsworth is not in Manchester, not per Royal Mail at all - postal towns are the location of the postal sort centre for that area. Do you not read the encyclopedia you contribute to??


 * The two wards of Shaw and Crompton must be named as such for conveinience. The Shaw ward includes less of the historic Shaw core than the Crompton ward(!), extending mainly into Crompton Fold, Clough, Crow Knoll. Wards are divided according to population size, to ensure fair voting; not naming conventions. There is a Royton North, and Royton South ward, but they cover one town also, for example.


 * Also, Shaw does not have, nor has ever had defined boundaries - Shaw and Crompton does. As for Shaw Motor Cycle Club, well their base is at Jubilee Bend, nowhere near "Shaw", its about 10 metres from Rochdale. I don't think they satisfy the WP:RS criteria somehow.


 * All this said, because of your history, I went to the library this morning (large public buildings with books in), and there it is, in the 1973 Crompton Urban District: Official Guide and Traders' Directory, with the coming of the local government reforms, with the Crompton district being abolished, in conjunction with the well established town of Shaw having a wide usage and recognition, the area was to be known as Shaw and Crompton, as part of a compromise between local factions. This was carried through I suspect (well its quite clear really) for the parish name in 1987.


 * Anyway, thanks for the contact. Citation wins the day again, unless you have material which dispoves this, this discussion appears closed. Jhamez84 14:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Jhamez said .... 'Do you not read the encyclopedia you contribute to??'

Jhamez, your own councillors give their contact addresses as 'Royton, Oldham', nuffsaid? 80.193.161.89 18:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyentitledtoanopinionH.

PS. ... Jhamez, again everything you say is based on 'local government' areas. Local Government Areas are purely for administration purposes and do not signify the position, or the name, of a 'place', only which council administers in thet area. Local Governments/Councils/Administrative Bodies should not come first in an article about a place. A 'towns' position, it's history, it's culture is far more important than who it's council is. 80.193.161.89 18:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyaddingabitextraH.


 * -- No, not everything I say is based on local government areas - Shaw and Crompton is not an autonomous local government area for a start, and I'm not asserting this; published, reputable, material is! I thought you wanted the wards (divisions of land for purposes of local government) to be used as evidence that the two names are seperate places? This demonstrates evidence of trolling and a lack of comprehension of the conjecture aforesaid. Jhamez84 20:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that the entire town is today called 'Shaw and Crompton' but mostly known as 'Shaw' is a circumstance of its history and culture, not because local government says it is. For a minute however, let's say it is and you're spot on the mark that 'Shaw and Crompton' is just red tape and really I live in Shaw and Jhamez lives in Crompton, lets make an article about them two places -


 * Crompton is a town with a name no one uses anymore, doesn't appear on any maps, and the post office refuses to acknowledge it exists... oh and no one knows where Crompton ends and Shaw begins.
 * Shaw is a village in a town with a name that no one uses any more, appears on maps as if it's the name for the entire area and no one knows where its borders are.


 * Seems to me like the current name and its accompanying article makes a lot more sense and, even from the name tells you a lot more about the history of the place.


 * You append 'entitledtoanopinion' to your name yet you've not given an opinion, all you've done is attempt to prove that we're wrong saying Shaw and Crompton is a town and Shaw isn't. If you were giving an opinion you would have said; "I think it's strange Shaw is not the actual town name even though people refer to it as such", or "I believe they should have left the names as they were", we would've fully respected those opinions, but basically forcing us to believe that what we know to be true is false and implying the article should be changed to suit, I'm sorry but you've got to expect some opposition to the subject. Peteb16 20:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This appears little more than trolling by JemmyH, possibly in reaction to several warning templates left on his talk page. Wikipedia is writen according to verifiability, which is very much satisfied on this article, hense, in part, it's GA status. Jhamez84 20:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Jhamez, that outburst is just 'pathetic'. Trolling? Load of codswallop! I have read 'verifiability' that Shaw AND Crompton are two different places. YOU cannot give any clear explanation to 'verify' your claim. All you do is repeatedly quote the same 'local government area' or 'borough' or 'council boundary'. And you are WRONG! There is no 'verifiability' at all on the article, other than 'council areas' which are not actual places. Pete, 'Shaw' is referred to, as a 'town' in the history books. It is described as a 'town in Crompton'. Shaw has defined boundaries, within Cromptons defined boundaries which are, in turn, within Oldhams defined boundaries. All land in England is divided into 'parcels', all have 'defined boundaries' and all are recorded in the 'Land Registry'. Councils may 'take over' all, or part, of a place, but the place still remains the same. 80.193.161.89 00:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC) JemmynotasgreenashescabbagelookingH.


 * I stand by the comments previously made. I deem your comments unhelpful without citation, and given your history on this type of issue, in addition to fact, I don't indend to post to this discussion again. Jhamez84 01:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I deem you, Jhamez, to be totally full of yourself.

[] ... Clearly shows a town called Shaw, in 1848. Shaw is still there, although much more developed than it was. Crompton is still there too, the same size as it was then.

[] ... Clearly refers to a 'small town' called Shaw, in a larger 'township' called Crompton. The only mention of 'Shaw and Crompton' is reference to the station which, rightly, serves both Shaw 'and' Crompton. 80.193.161.89 01:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

' I went to the library this morning (large public buildings with books in), and there it is, in the 1973 Crompton Urban District: Official Guide and Traders' Directory, with the coming of the local government reforms, with the Crompton district being abolished, in conjunction with the well established town of Shaw having a wide usage and recognition, the area was to be known as Shaw and Crompton, as part of a compromise between local factions.......'
 * Jhamez said, to me .....

Let me point a few things out of that ..... 'Urban District' ... 'Official Guide' ... 'local government reforms' ... 'district being abolished' ... The previous phrases are all council matters. .... 'established town of Shaw' ... The previous phrase proves that Shaw is a town. .... 'the area was to be known as Shaw and Crompton' ... It takes more than a 'local council' to create a new town name like that. The Shaw part will still be Shaw and the Crompton part still Crompton, 'Officially'. Shaw and Crompton being what the council like to call it. 80.193.161.89 02:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH. PS ... Prove me wrong by providing 'None Local Council' citations. I defy you to do so.
 * The first link just gives old maps which doesn't tell us an awful lot to be honest. The second link describes Crompton as a township:
 * town·ship /ˈtaʊnʃɪp/ –noun
 * 3. English History. a. one of the local divisions or districts of a large parish, each containing a village or small town, usually with a church of its own.
 * b. the manor, parish, etc., itself.
 * c. its inhabitants.


 * So your historical citation states Shaw as a 'small town' in the district of Crompton. Nope, doesn't seem to help your claim. Oh and something just occurred to me, ridiculous I know at this late stage in the conversation, but you said place names never change. Your link there says that in 1278 Crompton was called Cromton, which is its original Anglo-Saxon name (Crom means crumb). I've got a book that states Shaw's Anglo-Saxon name was 'Sceaga' which translates as wood. By your recommendations we should have two articles, one about a town called 'Crumb' and one about a town called 'Wood'. Peteb16 11:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Forget it pete! We live here - we see the town boundaries, we see the civil parish boundaries! Crompton district was abolished in 1974, with the area renamed Shaw and Cromtpon - The modern citation is overwhelming. This anonymous user, is taking the issue personally, now making personal character attacks. Jhamez84 11:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Jhamez said .... '... Shaw does not have, nor has ever had defined boundaries ...'


 * Jhamez then said .... '... We live here - we see the town boundaries...'.


 * Some people don't know their arse from their elbow. Crompton has boundaries that outline Crompton. Shaw, a town which is in Crompton, also has boundaries that outline Shaw. The Land Registry would confirm this fact, they are the people who know, not the council. 80.193.161.89 23:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.


 * By 'Shaw' he was referring to Shaw the area in the centre of Crompton. By 'here' he was referring to 'Shaw and Crompton' and its known town boundaries. I suspect you know this and are deliberately misrepresenting Jhamez's comments, please don't do this, it isn't civil. Please could we agree to disagree and end this subject which is quickly decending into a slanging match. I really don't want to argue anymore, it's not why I joined Wikipedia. Peteb16 05:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced statements
I have removed the following statements until references can be provided:
 * The Park Inn is of particular interest as in May 2007 it was the subject of scrutiny by a film crew and researchers from Optomen TV looking for venues for the popular Channel 4 TV series Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares starring renowned chef, Gordon Ramsay.
 * although the architects of most of the 19th century churches typically adopted an Early English Period style making them look even older than they already are.
 * Shaw and Crompton is the only area of the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham to have a waterfall. Epbr123 20:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm, I know the third one is correct, and have read this in the Oldham Evening Chronicle at some point, but which date I wouldn't know - I'll see what I can do. Jhamez84 01:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)