Talk:Wigan/Archive 2

Famous people / businesses
Ok. I've given this a major tidy up. Anyone from somewhere in the Met Borough that isn't from Wigan has been removed - they don't belong here. Dating someone from Wigan, doesn't entitle people to be in this list either. I have also split the people into sections and created a large business section, where I have applied the same criteria. Regan123 03:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And Geroge Foreman wasn't a TT racer but was in a film pretending to be one...Regan123 17:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Regan, don't you mean Grorge 'Formby'? George 'Foreman' is a boss on a building site! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 (talk • contribs).


 * Indeed! Regan123 21:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

And you've left Tommy Billington there when he's not from Wigan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 (talk • contribs).

History
I have tracked down some citeable sources and amended the article to fit. Can anyone find something regarding the TV documentary controversy and the Wicgen as a google search and look around local websites is not tracking anything down? Regan123 19:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Roman settlement
There has been an edit that changes in the area into a more north western area. The cited reference is: The classical evidence for this minor settlement is slight, with only a single entry in the Antonine Itinerary of the late second century. This document lists a road-station named Coccium, 20 miles from Bremetenacum (Ribchester, Lancashire) and 17 miles from Mancunium (Manchester, Greater Manchester). These distances match the location of the Wigan settlement quite well. I'm not sure how in the area is incorrect. I know that Roman distances may be slightly different from UK/Imperial but in the area seems suitabely interperable considering the debate.Regan123 23:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

As I have said, specialists have studied this in depth. I would rather believe their findings than the ramblings of the local 'historical society'. Jemmy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 (talk • contribs).

PS. A Roman mile is .8 of a standard mile. This brings the listing down to 16 miles from Ribchester and 13 miles from Manchester. Jemmy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 (talk • contribs).


 * OK. Are there any citeable sources that we can look at to get it right? Regan123 00:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly wouldn't call 5 to 10 miles away 'in the general vicinity'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 (talk • contribs).


 * But the cited source disagrees with that. Do you know of another source as per WP:CITE? Regan123 17:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The Antonine Itinerary is THE cited source. It puts the location as 17 'Roman' miles from Manchester, 20 'Roman' miles from Ribchester. That's 13.6 standard miles and 16 standard miles, respectively. The nearest suggested location to Wigan, as it is today, is Blackrod, but others have been suggested. Like I've said before, Regan, I have no faith in ANYTHING which is 'rumour' and that includes most of the stuff on the web. Someone puts out a rumour that Wigan 'is' Coccium and the local brainwashed fill the web with articles to reflect that and, suddenly, it becomes true. It's the same with the steam engine and Marks and Spencers. A niece of mine did a project, in primary school, about how Marks and Spencer was born in Wigan and developed from there into what it is today, led by her teacher. That, to me, is wrong. Teaching local rumour to children is wrong, but the internet is relied on a lot for school topics. Jemmy. 80.192.242.187 19:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC) JemmyH.


 * Except that is a primary source that is open to interpretation as a Google search shows. We need a non trivial secondary source as per WP:CITE to put it in.  I'm not arguing about putting it in, but we need to source it first if we are to get Wigan up to good article status which should be our next aim. Regan123 19:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop
The above behaviour is not helpful and not within the spirit of Wikipedia. Numerous policies have been violated here. Please stop this kind of behaviour and try to work towards a consensus and compromise. Be mindful that it is the onus of the contributor to cite their sources with verifiable content only. Contributions which are otherwise can be removed at any time. This talk page is now being monitored for obscene behaviour and provocative content. Jhamez84 20:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Removed trolling content with this sig. Jhamez84 21:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

--

New InfoBox

 * I don't like the new infobox map, showing Wigan's location in Greater Manchester. The original one, showing it's position in the 'North West of the British Isles' is MUCH better and much more informative. A person would not be able to identify with the new map as easily as the original, as no-one associates with Greater Manchester as a location. I propose to revert to the original. 80.193.161.89 23:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.
 * Their are two distinct issues here, the map and the template. As you have said yourself, your problem is with the map not the template so there is no need to revert the template.  As Template:infobox England place is deprecated and is likely to be deleted at some time in the future reversion to that Template is a short term measure anyway.
 * The separate issue of the map is one where a consensus of opinion needs to be achieved (probably for the whole of Greater Mancester?), that means it shouldnt be reverted because one person doesnt like it. I think you might be onto a losing battle here though as the consensus of opinion seems to be that conurbations are to have their own maps, in the last few weeks Tyne and Wear, and Belfast have also added local maps (London has had one for ages).
 * IMHO, there is a balance to be struck between maps. The UK wide maps arent very much good for differentiating the location of places in heavily populated areas, equally as you point out the Greater Manchester map on its own lacks context of the rest of the country.  However, if the user doesnt know where Greater Manchester is, as with any other topic on Wikipedia, they can click on the magic words "Greater Manchester" where they get a map showing the location of Greater Manchester in the UK.  Alternatively, if they want a proper map - they can click on the co-ordinates in the top right or the grid ref in the box.
 * To my mind a map of the article subject's location in Greater Manchester is needed in an article for the reason I outline above.  Whether there is a better solution to the location in the UK I dont know.  One solution could be to inset a small map of the UK showing the location of Greater Manchester within the UK in the corner.  However, I dont know whether it would look good, (would it be readable?) and my graphical skills arent up to do maps anyway!  I certainly think including two large maps would look a mess.
 * As a final note, be thankful the map is accurate! The Northern Ireland shows the Republic of Ireland as sea.
 * Pit-yacker 03:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy concern
Recently, an editor using the IP 80.193.161.89 has been editing this page, insisting that Wigan is 'a small town' and removing statements about the number of Labour Clubs in the town. I admit to near-total ignorance of Wigan, but Google Local places 10 clubs inside the town boundaries, which are not the same as the town's postal code. But, placing that aside, I have a concern about the accuracy of the article: the population of the town is listed as >80000. This is not 'a small town'. Is this is population of the town proper or of the district? Michaelbusch 02:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wigan Population
The above figure is of 'Wigan'. The wider Metropolitan Borough of Wigan has just over 300,000 residents. Man2 13:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

You KNOW that figure is for Ince, Wigan, Pemberton and Orrell. Why are you being awkward about it? The article is about 'Wigan'. It says in the opening paragraph, 'The town is the administrative centre of the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, and covers around three and a half square miles'. The population of that 'three and a half square miles' is certainly NOT 81000. Why argue? Have a 'Truthful Wikipedia'! 80.193.161.89 15:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.


 * A population of 80000 in 3.5 square miles is outrageously high: Hong Kong has a lower population density and is rather more dense. So: either the town is much larger in area and the 3.5 mi² is only the city center, or the population number should be much lower.  And no, 80.193.161.89, I at least do not 'KNOW' what the number refers to. Michaelbusch 16:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[]
 * The town of Wigan is within a statistical area called Wigan North. This has been outlined by the local government. Wigan North consists of Ince, Wigan, and Aspull. The population figure for Wigan North (Ince, Wigan and Aspull) is given, by Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council, as being 35932 in their 2001 census. According to a council planning officer, the Wigan population may be approx. half of that figure. Here is a link to the 2001 census results ......

80.193.161.89 22:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.


 * NOTE ... This subject of this article is the town of WIGAN. The population of a much larger area than the town of WIGAN should not be shown on this article. 80.193.161.89 22:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

Yes and because Pemberton was amalgamated into Wigan Borough (i.e. Wigan 'town') in 1904, it too is Wigan. Man2 23:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

For your consideration
JemmyH, what about the somewhat 'inconvenient truth' that Wigan Town Centre is in both Wigan North and Wigan South 'Townships'. Please consult these two links. The first shows the Wigan MBC 'Township' of 'Wigan North'(take note of the localities listed at the top of the page) http://www.wigan.gov.uk/Services/CommunityLiving/Townships/WiganNorth/

Now let us consult the second of the links. This time the page refers to the 'Township' of 'Wigan South'. I would ask that you again pay close attention to the localities listed at the top of the page. http://www.wigan.gov.uk/Services/CommunityLiving/Townships/WiganSouth/

You will notice the phrase 'Town Centre' appearing in both the North and South 'Townships'. It would be sensible to assume that the phrase 'Town Centre' is referring to that of Wigan town centre and additionally to assert that the said 'Town Centre' is one and the same locality, simply split into the 'Northern 'edge' of Town Centre' (in Wigan North) and the 'Southern 'edge' Town Centre' (in Wigan South), would appear to be acceptable. Would it not?

If the above assumption is accepted then the argument put forward by JemmyH is proven false. The Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council list the 'town centre' of Wigan in two adjoining 'townships', therefore JemmyH's assertion that "the town of Wigan is within a statistical area called Wigan North"  is clearly wrong.

The ONS list's the population of Wigan as 81,203. When this figure is considered with the figures for the population of the remaining areas in the 'Wigan Urban Area', the ONS figure for the total population of the 'Wigan Urban Area is found (166,840). Let us put this matter to rest. Thank you. Man2 23:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Man2
 * There is still the problem of the area. That 3.75 mi^2 only covers a small fraction of the town's area.  Do we have an area for the entire town? Michaelbusch 23:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I assume that 'Wigan' is defined as being the area of the former County Borough of Wigan. You can see more about it HERE G-Man  * 00:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes G-Man you assume correctly. Contrary to JemmyH's protest, the adding of Pemberton to 'Wigan Borough' (i.e. town) in 1904 made Pemberton a part of 'Wigan'. In 1974 'Wigan Borough'(town) joined with other areas closeby to make the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan. A map of the old 'Wigan Borough' can be found here http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/bound_map_page.jsp?first=true&u_id=10109206&c_id=10001043. The map appears to show what I have always suspected, present day Pem (local term for Pemberton) is not a 'district of the Metropolitan Borough' in the same why that Ince/Orrell or Shevy (Shevington) are but rather a part of the old 'Wigan Borough', or 'Wigan'. The map shows the cut off point at 'Lamberhead Green' which is in the present day area of 'Orrell', which now adjoins Pemberton directly making one large residential suburb. For those of you familiar with the area, there is a roadsign on Pemberton Road which says simply 'Wigan', there are none that say 'Pemberton'. The ONS when giving the population of 'Wigan' includes the areas of Pem, as this area is in 'Wigan'. Man2 00:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Man2


 * I also noticed the population figures for the old borough from 1971. Which show it at about 81,000. I think that more or less confirms it. G-Man  * 01:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The 3 1/2 square mile measurement of Wigan, ignores that fact that the four square miles of Pemberton are included with this when the ONS calculate population. This is unsurprising given that Pemberton is an area 'of' Wigan. Man2 01:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Man2


 * The 3.5 square miles which Wigan covers does not include any land area, which may be within the same borough as the town of Wigan but nevertheless, which is outside the Wigan boundaries. 80.193.161.89 12:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC) JemmtH.

-

Man2 said this ......

... You will notice the phrase 'Town Centre' appearing in both the North and South 'Townships'. It would be sensible to assume that the phrase 'Town Centre' is referring to that of Wigan town centre and additionally to assert that the said 'Town Centre' is one and the same locality, simply split into the 'Northern 'edge' of Town Centre' (in Wigan North) and the 'Southern 'edge' Town Centre' (in Wigan South), would appear to be acceptable. Would it not?

If the above assumption is accepted then the argument put forward by JemmyH is proven false. The Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council list the 'town centre' of Wigan in two adjoining 'townships', therefore JemmyH's assertion that "the town of Wigan is within a statistical area called Wigan North" is clearly wrong. (Wigan article discussion page).

I can now confirm that 'Wigan North' consists of .... Ince (Higher AND Lower), WIGAN (the town of), and Aspull. (population figure, 35,032 as of 2001 census). 'Wigan South' consists of .... Pemberton, Winstanley and Orrell. (population figure, 37,252 as of 2001 census). THIS IS CONDUCIVE OF MY CONTRIBUTED VERIFIABLE SOURCE ..... []


 * Man2, I have consulted Wigan MBC 'Wigan South Township Manager' to try to resolve the argument. This is the resulting e-mail from him .............................................................

>From : 	  >Sent : 	26 March:32:45 >To : 	jameshanson >Subject : RE: Wigan South, Wigan North townships >	>Go to previous message	|	Go to next message	|	Delete	|	Inbox > >Dear Sir, >Wigan Town centre is wholly in Wigan North Township. >Yours sincerely, D.Barton > >-Original Message- >From: jameshanson >Sent: 23 March:09 >To: Barton, Darren >Subject: Wigan South, Wigan North townships > >Hello Darren, >Would/could you please inform me as to the following .... What part of the >Wigan 'town centre' is in Wigan North and what part of the Wigan 'town >centre' is in Wigan South? >Thank you, James Hanson.


 * The BOUNDARY between WIGAN NORTH and WIGAN SOUTH is the boundary between WIGAN and PEMBERTON, and is, for the most part, the RIVER DOUGLAS.

This article is about Wigan, not it's 'surrounding areas' (whether they be in the same borough or not). 80.193.161.89 12:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.
 * The 'verifiable source' provided clearly displays contrary facts and figures to other editors claims. The verified source, as displayed [] should be regarded as true. In any case, the verified source displayed DOES NOT show the figure claimed, it shows the population for ALL THE SURROUNDING AREA as being 73,184 (Wigan South 37252 + Wigan North 35,932 = Wigan, plus all it's surrounding townships, 73,184. You couldn't make it up!

I'm looking into the above (I've contacted Wigan MBC and will ask for verifiable sources). If JemmyH is right we should amend any edits to the contrary. This should be an easy problem to solve. Thanks. Man2 12:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Man2


 * Just a line that personal e-mails (regardless of who they are from) won't constitute as reliable sources I'm afraid, as they have not been published. Local history books, primary local government act material, gazetteers, and county borough directoraries would be the best places for sources. Does Wigan not have a library???? Jhamez84 13:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * this page links to excel or .CSV file showing that the population of Wigan is 81,203 (line 674) with the Wigan urban area totaling 166,840 (line 668). Compare the named areas to those on this map, for a complete rundown of the Wigan UA.   L.J.Skinner wot 00:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The Latest 'Spiteful Reversions' by Jhamez
Erm.... if you have a source, then just change the content of the article........ This has nothing to do with me.' Then, when I correct the article, using verifiable information and give a description of the reasons for the different figures, he automatically reverts the entry.
 * What a shambles. Created by an 'editor' who has called Wikipedia' his own. First he contacts my talk page, telling me this .... '

Let's get this right. This article is on Wigan. The 'town' of Wigan. Not the 'Metropolitan Borough of Wigan'. Not the old 'Wigan Borough'. Not even 'Wigan Urban Area (as used by the National Statistics Office), or 'Wigan North' council ward, 'Wigan South' council ward, or anything other than 'The Town of Wigan'. Is that too hard for you all to understand? 80.193.161.89 09:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.


 * And THIS is what you get if you try to ask Jhamez any questions .............

" I suggest you work out the issues you have with Wigan with someone else. I'm not your friend, a private councillor or a cybersexual. I don't want a message off you everytime I log in". Jhamez84 21:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

80.193.161.89 22:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

---

Population of Wigans 'Surrounding' Area
This official source ......... [] gives the following information ....................

'Wigan North' contains Wigan, Ince in Makerfield and Aspull. 'Wigan South' (as opposed to Wigan North) contains Pemberton, Winstanley, Orrell and Billinge Higher End. Wigan North population figure = 35,932. Wigan South figure = 37,252. 35,932 + 37,252 = 73,184.

So, it stands that 'The population figure for .... Ince in Makerfield + Aspull + Wigan + Pemberton + Winstanley + Orrell + Billinge Higher End = 73,184.' .... 'OFFICIAL', 'PUBLISHED', 'VERIFIABLE' figures. How can the 'town of Wigan' (as is the subject of 'the article') alone, have a population figure of over 81,000 ? 80.193.161.89 10:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.


 * That's not a suitable source because these are populations of the Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council's so called Townships - areas that merely share a township representative/co-ordinator for purposes of representing communities on local council matters ( & ). They are not coterminous with town boundaries, hense why the eight unrelated sources cited in the article provide a different but shared, larger total. Jhamez84 22:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You, Jhamez, or anyone else for that matter, cannot get away from the FACT that the sources provided show the total population figure for a 'much larger area' than 'WIGAN', the town which is the subject of the article. The population of the 'TOWN OF WIGAN' is estimated to be around the 18,000 mark. OFFICIAL! Whether Wikipedia articles say differently, or not. Wikipedia cannot be relied on for this reason!. 80.193.161.89 19:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

Beech Hill (part of Wigan) 11,485 [], Swinley (part of Wigan) 10,556 [] and Newtown (part of Pemberton) 10,120 []. The map references for these three National Statistics 'census areas' cover the whole of 'Wigan' (the subject of this article) plus Newtown, which is in Pemberton, so the total figure will be higher than the true figure for Wigan. The total population of 'Wigan', shown by the National Statistics, is 32,161. Take Newtowns population of 10000 from that total and you get a figure which resembles the Wigan MBC's 'estimate' of 18,000. 80.193.161.89 13:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.
 * Here's another set of figures, with verifiable links for WIGAN population figures. These figures include part of Newtown, Pemberton, outside of Wigans boundaries where the census area encroaches into Wigan. ie. Newtown (Pemberton) census area encroaches onto Poolstock(Wigan).

Pemberton is an area of Wigan for the last time. Man2 16:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Man2


 * Pemberton is a separate place to Wigan, as is Ince and Standish. It IS in the same borough, FOR THE LAST TIME! Is it so HARD for you to understand these figures? AND, read this carefully, twice if needbe, 'even if Pembertons total population figure was added to the above, the total would be nowhere near 81,000' !!!!!! (fact).80.193.161.89 18:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.


 * The 'boundaries' shown on this map ... [] have NEVER been changed. The 'council area' may have changed ie. ward boundaries/borough boundaries etc. But the 'actual place' boundaries remain UNCHANGED. If anyone has 'verifiable evidence' ie. MAP, that they have, please display that evidence! 80.193.161.89 18:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.


 * The figures provided for Beech Hill, Newtown etc are themselves for political wards. Political wards are not conterminus with town boundaries, but local authority district boundaries. They are divided according to population size only and are named for conveinience. Thus, again, the sources provided are not suitable for the town's popluation, which is already provided by seven, reliable, independant sources. Jhamez84 19:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The map you've provided there is of former parishes, and not of contemporary origin. It's probably from the Victoria County History book on the History of Lancashire from 1911. For these reasons, it does not satisfy the reliability guide on sources. Jhamez84 19:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The map may be old and, yes, the parish boundaries may have changed since then. BUT, I didn't show the map with reference to 'Wigan Parish'. I displayed the map with reference to the 'boundaries of Wigan'. The 'boundaries of Wigan', as shown on that map, have 'NEVER CHANGED'. 80.193.161.89 19:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.


 * The seven 'reliable' independant sources are totally contradictive to the Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council, who should know where Wigan is, and isn't. The 'reliable' independant sources ALL quote population figures for large areas which 'contain' Wigan, but are not Wigan itself. They are, therefore NOT reliable sources! 80.193.161.89 19:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.


 * It is sometimes hard when you believe you are right but so many others disagree... so I hear. However, I must reiterate that these sources satisfy Wikipedia's guide on reliable sources, if not yours. There is nothing in that map from 1911 that states that those boundaries are unchanged; that's merely your personal interpretation of it that you've added. Several editors have expressed dissatisfaction with the editing style and sources you are providing, it would be more appropriate to now work alongside your peers and drop this issue.


 * Failing to do this, I see no other option than, in collaboration with other editors, to take you up on formal mediation. Please also desist from formatting your comments in this way, using asterixes. You should use indents as outlined at Talk page guidelines. Jhamez84 19:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * '..... There is nothing in that map from 1911 that states that those boundaries are unchanged...'

There is also nothing shown that states that they are! The 'only' way forward with this is to delete all other township articles and to create one article to cover Wigan and it's surrounding places. As long as there are separate articles covering Pemberton/Winstanley/Ince/Orrell/Abram etc., giving details of those places, they should not be counted in Wigans details. It seems that Jhamez has added population figures for Orrell and Winstanley to the respective articles. WHY? when their population has been added to the Wigan figure. 80.193.161.89 22:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.


 * There are articles for every every suburb of Birmingham. Nobody would argue that Aston or Longbridge say weren't part of Birmingham, even though they were historically independent settlements which were incorporated into Birmingham as it expanded. Pemberton was incorporated into Wigan a long time ago 'hence' it is a part of Wigan. How many times does this need explaining to you? G-Man  * 23:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you like to elevate this to formal mediation? We would have to provide evidence, involved editors, amounts of blocking a user has incurred, evidence of referencing and consensus building, as well as good faith. We'd be required to account for our material and justify our contentions in an academic manner. I, Man2, MRSC, Regan123, and G-Man have all stated that your contention is dissatisfactory and tantamount to distruption. You're exhausting me personally as a contributor, and I see that the only way to resolve this is under the eyes of administrators. We've been through the stages of Negotiation, Requests for comment and Third opinion, the next step is to present evidence to the Mediation Committee. The options here are to either stop this POV editting, or to request a formal hearing. Jhamez84 23:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * G-Man, I know that Pemberton was incorporated into Wigan 'borough' a long time ago. I also know why it was incorporated into Wigan 'borough'. I know a lot more about this area than you think. I have said, all along, that there is 'no argument' about which council area/political ward/admin.area/borough/postal area/postcode/bus route area/boys brigade region/football supporters area etc. etc. etc., that Pemberton is in. Even before Pemberton was part of the 'Wigan Borough' it was in Wigan 'Parish'. Wigan is 'in' Greater Manchester, but it's not 'in' Manchester. Wigan is 'in' the Diocese of Liverpool, but it's not 'in' Liverpool. Because Pemberton is 'in' the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, it doesn't mean it's 'in' Wigan, just the same as Leigh is not 'in' Wigan, nor is Ince or Hindley etc.. They all make up the 'borough' named Wigan, but we're not talking 'borough' here, we're talking the 'town', which is the subject of the article, and it has 'boundaries'. Take Billinge for instance. Billinge is in St.Helens Borough, Seneley Green Ward, Wigan postcode, shares 'phone dialling code with St.Helens, Wigan and Ormskirk, the church is in Wigan Parish, in the Diocese of Liverpool. But Billinge has marked boundaries, which show what's 'in' and what's 'out', just like Pemberton has! It may say 'Kellogs' on the side of a bus, but it won't sell cornflakes! 80.193.161.89 10:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.


 * Yes, the trouble here is that most of the world regards Wigan as being the area which includes Pemberton etc, as can be seen from most official sources. As an encyclopedia we have to follow official definitions which have been laid out in published sources (see Verifiability) not personally invented ones as that constitutes original research which is against wikipedia policy. G-Man  * 21:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think "personally invented" is a useful description. As I understand it, the anon wishes to use the ancient definition of the township that was in use at least until the creation of the borough of Wigan in c.1835, and was the de facto definition for a while afterwards.  I have some sympathy for his position, but my preference for the subject of the article named 'Wigan' would be for the county borough that was in existence pre 1974.  However, the definitions of the constituent parts, other than Wigan itself, should be the ancient townships.   Mr Stephen 08:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In any event that is clearly not the definition that is used today. As has been repeatedly demonstrated. Hopefully we can now let this matter drop. G-Man  * 19:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

BAN JEMMYH
I suggest that JemmyH should be banned from this site altogether. He continuously posts on here to wind people up and cause arguments (NOT discussions) He twists facts to suit his own argument conveniently leaving out any FACT (as he likes to type) that disprove his ignorance. JemmyH isn't even from Wigan and has no connection with the town yet he checks this site daily to cause trouble (and has done for months). I suggest Wikipedia bans him so that he can spend his meaningless cyber-existence on some other Website, maybe even a dating site so that he can meet a nice girl (or boy) and forget all about petty discussions about things that don't even concern him in ANY way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.224.113.189 (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC).


 * This talk page is for discussing the content on the Wigan article, not specific contributors. If you have evidence that the user in question is so disruptive he/her warrents an indefinate ban, please provide evidence at the administrators notice board, not here.


 * I would add that the user in question has demonstrated bad-faith and distruptive editting, and has received several short-term blocks. However, using personal attacks against any user, good-or-bad, is likely to get you in trouble also, so please be mindful of this and take more care when contributing to Wikipedia. Please also sign your comments. Jhamez84 22:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

________

I would like to add that the population figure given there is not actually for the town of wigan as is suggested. That figure is for an urban area, which includes the town, wigan, but also other towns, many of which are densely populated. ie. skelmersdale in west lancashire, pemberton and winstanley. I have spent time reading through jimmy's comments and, although they are aggressively presented, many are quite correct. It is true that the town of wigan is part of a large metropolitan borough of the same name, however the town and the metropolitan borough are two totally different entities, one a comparatively small part of the other. Colin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.161.89 (talk) 11:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL, well 'colin' that's the saddest thing I've ever seen on the internet considering YOU are JemmyH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.187.124 (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wigan
This article, being titled 'Wigan', should be about the town of Wigan and not include other towns, which are not Wigan but which happen to be, for the time being, within the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan (which is covered by it's own article). The Metropolitan Borough of Wigan and the town of Wigan are two clearly different places and Wigan needs an article by itself. This is it. C.Thomas (Wigan). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.161.89 (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You are not C Thomas, you are Jemmy H. You were banned for being disruptive, arrogant and obnoxious. If any Moderators would like to check this guys history then they will see this.


 * For the last 6 months there has been peace and harmony on the Wigan pages during your ban. Now unfortunately you are rearing your ugly head again.


 * You are continuing from where you left off by starting the same theme over again by removing things that should be on the Wigan page. I am putting 'The Verve' back where it should be as this has been discussed to death. I would also like to point out that I think you are the biggest idiot in the history of mankind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.187.124 (talk • contribs)


 * Why was Lawrence Isherwood removed from the famous wiganners list ? He is clearly famous and from Wigan. I have re-added.

http://www.modernbritishartists.co.uk/isherwood_biog.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.132.231 (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

AGAIN ??? Why was Lawrence Isherwood removed from the famous wiganners list ? He is clearly famous and from Wigan. I have re-added. Please give a REASON ??? http://www.modernbritishartists.co.uk/isherwood_biog.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.132.231 (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC) --

The 'Metropolitan Borough of Wigan' consists of many different towns. The residents of these towns are proud to belong to their respective town or area. 'Wigan' (not the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan) is a small town, amongst other towns and within a collective known as a 'metropolitan borough'. This Metropolitan Borough (of Wigan) has an article of it's very own. People, Businesses, Buildings etc. that are in 'the borough', but are not in Wigan (indeed, may be some 10 miles away from Wigan) should be itemised in their own article AND in the article of 'the borough'. But, a famous person from, say, Golborne, Warrington, (WA3) shouldn't be listed as being 'from' Wigan when they are not. To put them in the Golborne article and in the borough article would be quite correct. Rather than jumping to conclusions and being personally offensive, why not use this page to put forward your views, academically and in an adult manner. Firstly, explain why you think it is right to put false information on Wikipedia. This is a factual and educational site which should contain correct information, not an individuals personal opinion. As regards the verve pop group, I can confirm that none of the band members are from Wigan and neither was the band formed in Wigan. They may be popular in Wigan and also may have played in Wigan, but likewise in many other towns in Britain. They belong in the Metropolitan Borough article.

I would like to hear any moderators views on this. My view is that the truth should be told. Wild claims, local rumour and false facts have no place in an encyclopaedia. C.Thomas (Wigan) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.161.89 (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * JemmyH AKA Tonker, I see you're beginning to bore us all to death again. It has been proved in the Wigan archives that The Verve ARE connected to Wigan and has been discussed over and over again. the only person who seems to have a problem with this is YOU! You just don't listen.


 * As for being personally offensive, I have seen how you have treated other people in the past (acting academically or in an adult manner didn't seem to apply to you back then) so I honestly don't care one bit, I still think you're an idiot. You managed to upset everyone in one way or another who posted on these Wigan pages so you only have yourself to blame for anything negative aimed towards you.


 * Now answer this question, why are you signing your posts with a different name? did you think we wouldn't recognize you? that's quite pathetic!


 * You should not be posting here because you should be banned!


 * 77.96.187.124 (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)